• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Best Binoculars of 2013: The Cornell Lab Review (1 Viewer)

Frankly, what this review shows is that at various price points, other than the obvious objective differences, the top rated bins are pretty much interchangeable and based on reviewer preferences and perceptions. The edge that one reviewer gives to one of the top six alphas vs. another is insignificant. We all know that the top bins from Zeiss, Swaro, and Leica are superb and the subjective differences on these reviews were fractional.

I understand this would have been a much more scientific review to the Swaro and Leica fanboys if their bins had taken the #1 and #2 spot. As a Zeiss fanboy, it seemed just about right to me!

;)

Absolutely right CS

Lee B :)
 
I think it's quite obvious that a test that is based on ratings of average people testing a couple of bins leads to subjective results and can only come close to representative ratings when done with a very large number of testers.

Still I find it a bit amusing that this type of testing gets almost unaniously dissed here, while a rating that completely ignores the human factor at all and includes some weird technical criteria is widely appreciated here (allbinos that is).
 
I went through it more thoroughly, what happened is they gave everybody (60 reviewers!) a couple binoculars and asked them to rate it. So you ended up with a bunch of very subjective ratings that doesn't compare at all, they even admit to that.

So there's nothing scientific, or useful about the review.


I believe every person had to rate a minimum of five binoculars, so combined with 60 testers I think the evaluations are probably fairly accurate for most birders.

 
Last edited:
The bottom line for me is that I found the article fun. I always enjoy these rankings
and user reviews. Yes, they are quite subjective. All reviews contain various
degrees of subjectivity. Allbinos tries to be as objective and scientific as possible and
I do like reading their reviews too (even if I don't quite understand some of it).

I'm going to publish my own rankings and reviews and the CL will be at the top of the heap muwahahahaha!
But, not just any CL...MY CL. ;) weeeeeeeeeeee ! ok I'll stop now before I get yelled at. :)
 
"Clarity/Crispness" scores ≥ 4.5.
5.0 Zeiss Victory FL 8x32
4.9 Leica Ultravid HD 8x42
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, 8x42, 10x42
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, 10x42
4.8 Leica Ultravid HD 8x32
Nikon EDG 7x42
Swarovski SLC HD 10x42
Swarovski Swarovision 8x32, 8.5x42, 10x42, 10x50
4.7 Leica Trinovid HD 8x42
4.6 Nikon EDG 8x42
4.5 Meopta Meostar HD 10x42
Nikon EDG 8x32
Nikon Monarch 7 8x42
Opticron Verano BGA HD 8x42.
 
I read the review just now. Like many folks I just clicked on the price range links first and assumed that was all that was tested. Then I read through the thread here and noted the much more extensive spread sheet available for all models.

I, for one, definitely appreciate the time and effort that went into reviewing so many models. It is a job in and of itself.

Looking at the review from a critical perspective I do tend to agree with some of the others. The numbers assigned to each model for the various categories, based on the previously mentioned testing method, aren't very helpful. Further more I tend to disagree with some of the rankings assigned with various models. I am going to just chalk it up to looking at the various models with different perspectives in mind.
 
The FL seems always to rank extremely high on the reviews I've read
over the years; consistently in the 1 or 2 spot it seems. I've only
tried it at the store. It's real nice.
 
I question the importance of 'eyeglass friendliness'.

1) If your astigmatism is low (like me), the view always seems better
without glasses at all.

2) If you have severe astigmatism
a) current compensations in your glasses are nowhere near good enough
to utilize higher grade resolution
b) the optical near-field tracing through your glasses close to the binocs
can only make that worse

For the obsessed viewer, there should be specific lenses made to
use with an ocular.

Maybe it's the optics courses acting up in me, but something's wrong
with this prioritization, and with the lack of advanced ocular correction.
(other than glasses)
Past a certain level of correction, a certain level of binoculars
cannot deliver the extra value...it seems..

Just an opinion.

I'm not a big spender yet, so I was interested to see how well the
Nikon Monarchs did. Maybe my dream can stop at that.
 
I question the importance of 'eyeglass friendliness'.

1) If your astigmatism is low (like me), the view always seems better
without glasses at all.

2) If you have severe astigmatism
a) current compensations in your glasses are nowhere near good enough
to utilize higher grade resolution
b) the optical near-field tracing through your glasses close to the binocs
can only make that worse

For the obsessed viewer, there should be specific lenses made to
use with an ocular.

.

ugh...don't tell me that ! LOL
I just had an eye exam this past Sunday and have eye glasses on order.
I will be wearing glasses for birding for the first time ever. They said I have astigmatism. I'm hoping the eye glasses help me with bird watching.
As it is now, my natural eyesight is not helping. I thought it was the binocular, but turns out it's my eyesight.
 
ugh...don't tell me that ! LOL
I just had an eye exam this past Sunday and have eye glasses on order.
I will be wearing glasses for birding for the first time ever. They said I have astigmatism. I'm hoping the eye glasses help me with bird watching.
As it is now, my natural eyesight is not helping. I thought it was the binocular, but turns out it's my eyesight.

Worth taking time to set two markers on your diopters ; one with glasses and one without !
 
I question the importance of 'eyeglass friendliness'.

1) If your astigmatism is low (like me), the view always seems better
without glasses at all.
.................

I'm not a big spender yet, so I was interested to see how well the
Nikon Monarchs did. Maybe my dream can stop at that.

I used to think that. Turned out I was getting a little glare from reflection from my glasses which could reduce contrast occasionally, however I could still get the benefit of an extra line or two on a test chart from the astigmatism correction with glasses. You may differ of course.

Do try the Monarchs for yourself. I personally thought those scores were a couple of the more obvious points of disagreement on the Crispness/Clarity scores.

David
 
I question the importance of 'eyeglass friendliness'.

1) If your astigmatism is low (like me), the view always seems better
without glasses at all.

2) If you have severe astigmatism
a) current compensations in your glasses are nowhere near good enough
to utilize higher grade resolution
b) the optical near-field tracing through your glasses close to the binocs
can only make that worse

For the obsessed viewer, there should be specific lenses made to
use with an ocular.

Maybe it's the optics courses acting up in me, but something's wrong
with this prioritization, and with the lack of advanced ocular correction.
(other than glasses)
Past a certain level of correction, a certain level of binoculars
cannot deliver the extra value...it seems..

Just an opinion.

I'm not a big spender yet, so I was interested to see how well the
Nikon Monarchs did. Maybe my dream can stop at that.

You must be younger. :-O

If I dont have my glasses I wont see anything to look at, so I look thru my glasses, then when I see something I remove my glasses to look thru the binocs at it, then lower the binocs and look back thru my glasses. Truthfully, eyeglass friendliness is to me much more important than a corner to corner sharpness. I use my glasses, it's a pain, but it is what it is.
 
I just find it odd that in comparing the 8x32 FL to the 8x32 SV I disagree with the reviewers on 4 out 5 criteria. The only one we agree on is giving the nod to the SV for "Overall Feel," (4.8 to 4.6) although for me the difference is really not that important.

But giving the nod to the FL for "Clarity/Crispness" (5.0 to 4.8) just strikes me as odd. I mean that's not really a subjective criteria at this point, it should be pretty obvious. It is to me anyway. The SV is a clear step forward in that category.

And it's not a fanboy thing because I've used both for years now, and probably will keep both.

Annabeth, don't worry. You will love having your astigmatism corrected. Get ready for a nice step up in binocular "clarity/crispness" because the best bino in the world is hamstrung if you have uncorrected astigmatism.

The real drag in eyeglasses are progressives. If you're like me, you will never adapt to those things. I need them for work, unfortunately, but mostly despise them. And for outdoors bino use, I'll take bifocals any day.

Mark
 
What I find tragic about this Cornell Labs report, just like the last one done five or six years ago, is the abysmal ignorance of survey design, measurement theory, and applied statistics. Yet, they have available to them an outstanding Statistics Department that prides itself on interdisciplinary applications.

It's truly mind boggling. The Stat Dept. even offers statistical services to researchers within the University.

If they could only get out of their insular nest and interact with the rest of the community, Cornell Labs could actually provide some of the best birding instrument surveys on the planet.

Ed
 
Last edited:
What I meant was...that your glasses correct the image, but the correction for
astigmatism gets to be a very loose approximation as the astigmatism increases,
compared to the perfection of an expensive optical system.

But I realize:

1) unless I make some premimum eyepiece-correction product, you can't do anything
about that, so eyeglass friendliness remains critical to you
(maybe someone should, though...you're laser fitted and the stick-ons are ground)

2) Areas like glare and contrast are still plenty important.

So....for all practical purpose, I realize eyeglass friendliness counts,
(since I can't quit my job and start cnc-grinding these ideal widgets)
but I am left maintaining that if I had bad astigmatism, there couldn't be much
difference in sharpness from $200 to $2000...

When I do my own rating, I evaluate sharpness and contrast depth seperately,
since they are two parts of clarity and beyond. The 'noise' messes with both
your seeing of sharpness and seeing of subtle shades and shapes, but it also
depends on lighting conditions.

Anyway, I jumped on the eyeglass hastily. I just thought one for all of image quality
left a lot of key information out. I value contrast depth and lack of haze/glare almost
higher than plain sharpness....it's kind of washed out in their system. Comparing LCD
TV screens with today's LED screens or looking at that annoying haze in high
megapixel cameras drives the point home. Or..a sharp but hazy pair of 8x21s with
some sun-splash. The lines are there but the details and colors are faded.
 
I just find it odd that in comparing the 8x32 FL to the 8x32 SV I disagree with the reviewers on 4 out 5 criteria. The only one we agree on is giving the nod to the SV for "Overall Feel," (4.8 to 4.6) although for me the difference is really not that important.

But giving the nod to the FL for "Clarity/Crispness" (5.0 to 4.8) just strikes me as odd. I mean that's not really a subjective criteria at this point, it should be pretty obvious. It is to me anyway. The SV is a clear step forward in that category.

And it's not a fanboy thing because I've used both for years now, and probably will keep both.

Annabeth, don't worry. You will love having your astigmatism corrected. Get ready for a nice step up in binocular "clarity/crispness" because the best bino in the world is hamstrung if you have uncorrected astigmatism.

The real drag in eyeglasses are progressives. If you're like me, you will never adapt to those things. I need them for work, unfortunately, but mostly despise them. And for outdoors bino use, I'll take bifocals any day.

Mark

Hey Mark,
Yeah I'm looking forward to seeing things more cleary when bird watching. :)

I could have gone with Progressive lenses, as I need both reading glasses
and distance glasses. They gave me a sample to try in the office (close to my prescription) of the progressives and I did not like it at all. There was considerable distortion when turning my head which was just terrible. They said I'd have to pay a lot more money to have that distortion controlled with
higher quality prog. lenses. I didn't want bifocals. So, I'm sticking with the distance 'single' glasses which should come in this week. I will use the over-the-counter reading glasses for now even though it would be better to have the prescription reading glasses. I hope I get by ok with wearing the glasses
and get used to them quickly. I'm not thrilled with the idea of having
to wear the glasses, but looking forward to bird watching with them.
I like the frames I picked out, so that's something to look forward to.
 
What I find tragic about this Cornell Labs report, is the abysmal ignorance of survey design, measurement theory, and applied statistics. Yet, they have available to them an outstanding Statistics Department that prides itself on interdisciplinary applications.

It's truly mind boggling. They even provide statistical services to researchers within the University.

Ed

I think some basic laser measurements would keep things honest.
Really tractable measurements to back up or block the 'feel'.
Is that really resolution, is the color really true...the real
chromatics..that sort of thing.

Sometimes the ergonomics improves the resolution but in someone
else's hands .... maybe not.

Overall, the lack of breakdown in factors makes it hard to relate to.
 
Distance single for astigmatism will be perfect for binocs, Annalee!
I'm going old-school bifocals next visit. Doing overlays with reading glasses
has come out great.

Add up all the extra price points across your collection...post a tally.
You may need some cheap binocs to set the 'before' condition (with the new glasses).
 
What I meant was...that your glasses correct the image, but the correction for
astigmatism gets to be a very loose approximation as the astigmatism increases,
compared to the perfection of an expensive optical system.

But I realize:

1) unless I make some premimum eyepiece-correction product, you can't do anything
about that, so eyeglass friendliness remains critical to you
(maybe someone should, though...you're laser fitted and the stick-ons are ground)

2) Areas like glare and contrast are still plenty important.

So....for all practical purpose, I realize eyeglass friendliness counts,
(since I can't quit my job and start cnc-grinding these ideal widgets)
but I am left maintaining that if I had bad astigmatism, there couldn't be much
difference in sharpness from $200 to $2000...

When I do my own rating, I evaluate sharpness and contrast depth seperately,
since they are two parts of clarity and beyond. The 'noise' messes with both
your seeing of sharpness and seeing of subtle shades and shapes, but it also
depends on lighting conditions.

Anyway, I jumped on the eyeglass hastily. I just thought one for all of image quality
left a lot of key information out. I value contrast depth and lack of haze/glare almost
higher than plain sharpness....it's kind of washed out in their system. Comparing LCD
TV screens with today's LED screens or looking at that annoying haze in high
megapixel cameras drives the point home. Or..a sharp but hazy pair of 8x21s with
some sun-splash. The lines are there but the details and colors are faded.

For the most part I agree with you. And it seems strange to me for someone to cheap out on glasses that they will be in day in and day out but spend the bank on binocs.

As for eye glass friendly and their methodology. It's just a snap shot from a cross section of users. I dont think there is any other way to do it. Some will be in progressives, some bi-focal, some single vision, high index and thick. You can sit and pick apart specifications all day long but that wont ultimately tell you if they are enjoyable to use. The Blue sky binocs are a good example of greater than the sum of their specs
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top