• 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.

Mega Review of the best 8x42... (1 Viewer)

In my opinion those are high scores. Very high scores.
Ergonomics and mechanic performance... Canon should be rated at 0, at most, compared to the others.

Its ergonomics compared to the other binos there... is like a catastrophe.

For example, in the result.

Canon outperformed Bushnell Elite in ergonomics! And it is right beside the vortex and others. ... and this with two AA inside.

Canon outperformed Bushnell elite again in mechanics performance! And it is right beside the others. How can that be? A hanging loose prism outperforming a roof fixed prism in mechanics?
Its not electronic performance... its mechanical performance. And in that point Canon should take a 0 too, at most.

Just my opinion.

It is clear that there are some who view the Canon as an electronic device masquerading as a binocular and who would therefore like to read it out of the list.
Imho, this is silly. The Canon is an excellent all weather glass with some remarkable performance features. It is optically excellent, hanging prism notwithstanding, offering a wide and bright image with well suppressed CA and coma. It is an excellent birding glass and I for one am happy to see it scrutinized and measured against its peers.

It is tests such as this one that allow other birders to get a reasonable overview of the current state of the art and also highlight for the manufacturers what issues their products must address to remain competitive. The sponsors deserve our applause for a big job well done.
 
I also find it amazing too... for birding and etc.

It is obvious that without tripods that IS system will out perform most bins at high magnifications as 10 and 12+

But its ergonomics, mechanical quality, durability is not even near a standard bino. Specially the ergonomics and mechanical quality... it is not on par of the other binos in the test.

To see it outperforming a Bushnell Elite in those parameters... seriously....
 
Last edited:
Ergonomics and mechanic performance... Canon should be rated at 0, at most, compared to the others.
Its ergonomics compared to the other binos there... is like a catastrophe.

Canon outperformed Bushnell elite again in mechanics performance! And it is right beside the others. How can that be? A hanging loose prism outperforming a roof fixed prism in mechanics?
Its not electronic performance... its mechanical performance. And in that point Canon should take a 0 too, at most.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious by now that you don't like the Canon. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean everyone - and that includes the Italian team that did this test - has to agree with you.

BTW, I think Kimmo who's been using the Canon for years now also wouldn't agree with you ... :king:

Hermann
 
I looked through the SV 10x50 and 12x50 and found them amazing for a high magnification binocular. You really prefer the 12x over the 8.5x even with the smaller FOV. A 12x view is amazing especially when the edges are tack sharp.

Yes Dennis, i just love looking through this binocular and seeing the most astonishing and incredible detail, i dont miss the larger FOV at all.
After looking through this bin every single day since i got it i knew my other alphas had to go, i simply didn't need them, and they seemed mediocre in comparison...
:cat:
 
Well, I think it's pretty obvious by now that you don't like the Canon. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean everyone - and that includes the Italian team that did this test - has to agree with you.

BTW, I think Kimmo who's been using the Canon for years now also wouldn't agree with you ... :king:

Hermann

You are wrong.

I actually think that above 10x that Canon outperform every other single binocular... handheld.
Its IS is incredible.
For hiking without tripod... that canon is probably the best device you want it to be in your backpack.

But, don´t say to me that it has good ergonomics or mechanics quality... because it simply does not.
For start it weights more than a 1kg... without battery.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong.

I actually think that above 10x that Canon outperform every other single binocular... handheld.
Its IS is incredible.
For hiking without tripod... that canon is probably the best device you want it to be in your backpack.

But, don´t say to me that it has good ergonomics or mechanics quality... because it simply does not.
For start it weights more than a CF tripod.

Presumably you link the suspension of the prisms as part of the IS mechanism to your assertion of a lack of mechanical quality, because the other aspects of the Canon are first rate, excellent focus mechanism, good eye cups and a smoothly functional IP distance adjustment. Moreover, at least in my experience, the glass has proven to be robust and durable, with outstanding mechanical quality.
The ergonomics are admittedly less than ideal, a big lump with big adjustable eye pieces. My guess is it would be hard to manage for someone with small hands, but for any average size person it works superbly well if mounted on a harness, which keeps the weight off the neck. The badly fitting lens caps and the inadequately sized case are the worst offenders against ergonomics of the Canon 10x42ISL design, at least for me.
Otherwise, this is an excellent glass.
 
I just received the Spring 2011 edition of the Peregrine Observer published by the Cape May Bird Observatory. They did a Mega Review of their own in July of 2010 and just published the results. Pete Dunne, Louise Zemaitis, Don Freiday and Brian Moscatello were the testers. I searched their website but could not find the results online so I'll give you their rankings below.
1. Leica Ultravid HD 8x32
2. Leica Ultravid HD 7x42
3. Swarovski EL 8x32
4. Swarovski EL 10x32
5. Zeiss Victory 8x42
6. Swarovski EL Swarovision 8.5x42
7. Zeiss Victory 7x42
8. Leica Ultravid HD 8x42
9. Swarovski New SLC 8x42
10. Zeiss Victory 8x32
11. Leica Ultravid HD 10x42
12. Swarovski EL Swarovision 10x42
13. Nikon EDG 7x42
14. Nikon EDG 8x32
15. Nikon EDG 8x42
16. Zeiss Victory 10x42
17. Nikon Premier LXL 8x42
18. Steiner Peregrine XP 8x44
19. Minox APOHG 8x43
20. Leica BN 8x42
21. Zeiss Conquest 8x30
22. Vanguard EndeavorED 8.5x45
23. Kowa DCF 8x42
24. Nikon EDG 10x32
25. Zeiss Conquest 10x30
26. Kowa BD 8x32
27. Nikon Monarch 8x42
28. Nikon MonarchX 8.5x45
29. Zeiss Conquest 8x40
30. Bushnell Elite 8x43
31. Vanguard Spirit Plus 8x36
32. Kowa Genesis 8x33
33. Alpen Apex 8x42
34. Leupold Olympic 8x42
35. Nikon EDG 10x42
36. Kowa DCF 10x42
37. Nikon Premier LXL 8x32
38. Vortex Fury 8x32
39. Leupold Yosemite 6x30
40. Minox HG 8x33
41. Kowa Genesis 8.5x44
42. Minox HG 8x43
43. Vortex Razor 8x42
44. Leica BN 10x42
45. Nikon Prostaff 8x25
46. Leupold Yosemite 8x30
47. Alpen Wings 8x42
48. Leupold Katmai 6x32
49. Minox BL 8x33
50. Nikon Monarch 10x42
51. Minox BV 8x42
52. Leupold Katmai 8x32
53. Steiner Peregrine 8x44
54. Steiner Merlin 8x32
55. Nikon Prostaff 9x25
56. Minox BL 8x44
57. Steiner Merlin 8x42
58. Vortex Spitfire 8.5x32
59. Nikon Action ATB 7x35
60. Alpen Apex 8x32
61. Bushnell Elite e2 8x42
62. Alpen Shasta Ridge 8x42

Taken from the Peregrine Observer Vol. 33, Spring 2011

Thanks for posting this "review" ? Remember Peter Dunne, is the tester who gave
the Nikon EDG a very nice review, and also gave it the torture treatment, by
tossing it onto hard ground and it survived. I am thinking he has not treated any
other binoculars in this way.:eek!:

What is interesting here, is that the two newest alphas to the market the Swarovision and the Nikon EDG are not placed near the very top, as they are
by other current reviews.

It looks like the Leica rep, must have called on them during the tests, and applied
pressure? It looks like a shotgun, hodgepodge test.

I wonder about the testing methods, do they offer any insight ? It seems mixing
optics from 6X-10X is all subjective, unless, this article uses some subclasses.
 
We should send him one of the Zen Ray ED models. I would have been curious to see how it faired. Maybe the new ED3? I don't expect it to be on top but would like to have seen where they would have placed it.

;)

Frank:

They tested the GHT 8x42 ED, I am thinking that would represent the current
Chinese clone offerings ? It seems to have a good rating.

Jerry
 
Thanks for posting this "review" ? Remember Peter Dunne, is the tester who gave
the Nikon EDG a very nice review, and also gave it the torture treatment, by
tossing it onto hard ground and it survived. I am thinking he has not treated any
other binoculars in this way.:eek!:

What is interesting here, is that the two newest alphas to the market the Swarovision and the Nikon EDG are not placed near the very top, as they are
by other current reviews.

It looks like the Leica rep, must have called on them during the tests, and applied
pressure? It looks like a shotgun, hodgepodge test.

I wonder about the testing methods, do they offer any insight ? It seems mixing
optics from 6X-10X is all subjective, unless, this article uses some subclasses.

I can offer three quotes from Brian Moscatello, the author of the article in the Peregrine Observer. Hopefully these will give you a feeling for the type of testing that took place.
I have to say that I feel a bit awkward and uncomfortable at this point. I don't pretend to speak for the author or any of the testers.

Mr. Moscatello wrote:
"So periodically we grab a heap of glass and recruit a few birders with long experience using optics to spend some time comparing the new and the tried-and-true. This summer, a few of us at CMBO spent the better part of two days peering through and handling 63 different models of 12 different brands."

"We don't claim this was a wholly-scientific test, as we weren't bench testing. But prospective buyers are not going to bench test binoculars either, so we evaluated them the way you would - picked up the binoculars, held them in our hands, and put them to our eyes".

"Use these test results as a starting point for your own test, but not with the expectation that the list applies to everyone. Nor that price alone will indicate what one binocular is better for you than another".

I hope the above fairly represents the intentions of the author and the testers.

Tom
 
There was some discussion during the comparison but everyone is enought headstrong to take his own idea. (just kidding :t:)
Honestly, probably some influence among us there was but nothing big enought to profoundly change the outcome.
As you said, everyone made data entries independently.


It is a lot of works, each participant completed a table of 14 columns and 29 rows, but ofc is possible.
I will talk to Piergiovanni, i think we can put in the review the 3 table most interesting.

greets

Thanks for the encouraging reply, Ivan. Yes, headstrong evaluators certainly resist being influenced by others. You have a point. :t:

Regarding separate ratings, I'm confused by there being 14 columns, which is also mentioned in the article. I understand there were only 12 binoculars evaluated, so where does 14 come from? The 29 columns clearly represent the 14+15 = 29 evaluation categories for mechanical and optical factors, respectively.

In my opinion, it would be quite valuable to present a single table showing the rank ordering of the binoculars arranged by expert. If the binoculars were named in row headings, for example, column headings would represent the the nine experts, perhaps with separate columns for the mechanical and optical aspects.

Within each column of the table, one of the binoculars would receive a rank of "1," being the highest, and one a value of "12" being the lowest. Others would fall in between. Binoculars with ties would be given an average rank. For example, if three binoculars tied for ranks 6,7, and 8, they would each receive the average rank of (6+7+8)/3 = 7. This assures that column sums remain constant at 1+2+3+…+12 = 78. (Holger Merlitz uses exactly this technique when he rank orders several binoculars under comparison.)

Given such a table, all one need do is look across a row to see how a particular binocular ranked across the various experts. If all the experts were of the same opinion, the rankings would be identical. If they were different the ranks would be variable. There are non-parametric statistical tests that might be used to explore the likelihood that all evaluators, or subsets of them, come from the same opinion pool. If they were determined to be from the same pool, that might justify merging their results. Otherwise, merging is not strictly justified —*any more than mixing apples and oranges. The most effective summary graphic would be to plot the median rank for each binocular, as well as the inter-quartile range.

Give it a thought, and if you wish I'd be happy to comment further or even lend a hand.

BTW, I don't own any of the 12 binoculars in the comparison, so far being satisfied with the last generation of optical technology. Perhaps these experts could encourage me to change my mind. ;)

Regards,
Ed
 
Last edited:
These evaluations are silly and stupid. Unless blind testing is employed, personal biases and/or preconceptions render the results invalid.

For example, blind tasting wines requires a minimum of three samples just for difference testing and that is to compare two wines. It is impossible to perform open comparision testing of 62 binoculars. Every time, the personal favorites of the testers will win out. The order is simply determined by who yells the loudest for their particular favorite. Silly.


Sounds familiar.

Bob:smoke:
 
Tom:
So then, this was not much of a test. 63 different binoculars in 2 days, mind meld ?

Jerry

Jerry,
The CMBO “test” seemed to be a somewhat informal binocular appraisal done by a group of highly experienced birders. Their target audience was avid birders which I think probably describes the members of the Cape May Bird Observatory. I think the intention of the CMBO test was to give it's members a starting point for deciding on a binocular purchase. The price for each binocular was presented so that the perspective buyer could select a price range and then see which bins in that range were deemed more likely to provide a rewarding birding experience. For birders, the value of this test is predicated on the respect we have for the opinions of those doing the testing. In this case, Pete Dunne and his fellow CMBO testers have a tremendous background of using optics for birding all over the globe. In addition, Mr. Dunne was part of a team of birders that worked with Swarovski on designing the original EL 8.5x42. When Pete Dunne speaks on birding optics I pay attention. But....I don't follow in lock step. My first choice for a birding bin is the 8x32 EDG. I also use and enjoy an 8x42 Vortex Talon HD and an 8x42 Pro Optic. These work very well for me but probably wouldn't be Pete's choices.

In the end, what we have here is the collective wisdom of several highly experienced users of birding optics. I think there is value in that.

Disclaimer: The opinions above are mine and do not necessarily represent those of the articles author or the testers involved.
Happy 4th!
Tom
 
Thank you, Jason for pointing this out. If I do understand the design engineer correctly he says that light weight was an issue for the design but not the only one. The main aim seemed to build a system that reduce vibrations while the scope is mounted on a tripod with attached SLR. So I assume that Nikon had the photographer in mind first and the birdwatcher as a second kind of user. In fact the EDG fieldscopes do look like a kind of a mixture of a lens and a scope. Perhaps it's fair to compare the weight of the EDG fieldscopes rather with photo-lenses of the same aperture than with other spotting scopes?

Steve
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Jason for pointing this out. If I do understand the design engineer correctly he says that light weight was an issue for the design but not the only one. The main aim seemed to build a system that reduce vibrations while the scope is mounted on a tripod with attached SLR. So I assume that Nikon had the photographer in mind first and the birdwatcher as a second kind of user. In fact the EDG fieldscopes do look like a kind of a mixture of a lens and a scope. Perhaps it's fair to compare the weight of the EDG fieldscopes rather with photo-lenses of the same aperture than with other spotting scopes?

Steve

I think they are targeting birders cum digiscopers with DSLR like what I'm doing now. The design itself is similar like telephoto lenses making it easier and faster to get on my subject especially with Gimbal head.

When I'm on birdng tour with my clients, I normally attached the 20-60x zoom eyepiece. My DSLR always attached with the Nikon FSA-L2 DSLR Photo adapter. If I need to shoot, removing the eyepiece and attaching the Photo Adapter is faster with bayonet type mount on the EDG, then I can shoot straight away.

Means I don't have to bring extra lenses unless I'm on bird photography tours :king: So it is 2 in 1 system offered by Nikon EDG ;)
 
Yes, but I still don't see what's so special with this? Shouldn't this doable with scopes of other makers, their DSLR-adapter and a DSLR as well?

Steve
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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