[Kevin Purcell]

Posted sometime in April 2009

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/chinese8x40.html

Interesting review of a set of Chinese bins

Opening teaser paragraph

Recently, United Optics (UO) have announced the introduction of the new BW8 roof prism series and also added a new model, the 8x40, to their BW5 series. Since I have got another China made 8x45 by LOAVA, which is also available at United Optics as part of the BW7 series, a performance test of these 8x40 binoculars currently made in Kunming appears interesting. This review will also offer the opportunity to evaluate the overall performance level reached by Chinese binoculars, when compared with the competition found elsewhere on the planet. Do Chinese binoculars have by now reached a level which could threaten the upper middle class of binoculars made in Japan or Europe? If not, how far apart are they right now, in terms of performance and built quality, and what has to be done for their improvement? These questions shall be addressed in the conclusion of this report.

After you've read it we can start the discussion

[Veracocha]

For me I see a lot of subjectivity in the review. Is the author comparing apples with pears? Is it realistic to compare these against the upper class binoculars he is referring to (performance/value wise). When he refers to 'Chinese' manufacturers this is rather a broad brush statement. Put a selection from different Chinese manufacturers up against the high end stuff and then call it. I did and chose the Hawke's.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by Veracocha

For me I see a lot of subjectivity in the review.

I do not think it is possible to review something without being subjective. There are so many differences in individual eyes and in different binoculars, that there is no way not to be subjective to some degree. We can quote light transmission, resolution specifications, and other optical characteristics, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that you and I will not necessarily see the same thing in the same binocular. Blessed be the name of the game.

[Veracocha]

Originally Posted by Steve C

I do not think it is possible to review something without being subjective. There are so many differences in individual eyes and in different binoculars, that there is no way not to be subjective to some degree. We can quote light transmission, resolution specifications, and other optical characteristics, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that you and I will not necessarily see the same thing in the same binocular. Blessed be the name of the game.

Absolutely agree with that, I like to gain an insight (forgive the pun) into what others have to say and find their views interesting but on the subject of bino's it's ultimately ones's own experience that comes into play.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by Veracocha

Absolutely agree with that, I like to gain an insight (forgive the pun) into what others have to say and find their views interesting but on the subject of bino's it's ultimately ones's own experience that comes into play.

To take it a step further, some of the best (at least what I think are the best reviews) are quite subjective. I would much rather the reviewer simply just up and say what they think and why they think it, rather than beat around the bush and say nothing that will upset anybody. That sort of review usually says nothing useful. I'd rather just "out with it" and let those who will either agree or disagree.

[FrankD]

So when is Holger going to get his hands on a pair of the Zen ED 8x43s?

That I would pay to read.

[Kevin Purcell]

I suspect it might just read like that review but perhaps with a few better comments about sharpness, contrast and color control.

It would be interesting to see his take on them.

[Renze de Vries]

It occurs to me that the design of the roof prism binocular in Holger's test, the BW8, is an unashamed copy of the Kowa XD (Genesis). Having (favorably) reviewed this Kowa rather recently, one should expect Holger to notice this. However, he doesn't mention it.
That said, I think it's great someone is monitoring Chines optics and their development as well as he does.

Renze

[Kevin Purcell]

I don't see the identical look, Renze. They both look like closed hinge roof prisms to me. There are only so many ways to shape and color the rubber armor. And I'm pretty sure the optics aren't a copy (see the Holger page on Globe effect and Kowa k=0.9 design choice)

The XD looks more like a Vortex bin

Anyway, here are the XD and BW8: what do you think?

[FrankD]

I think there is a limited amount of similarity. It is hard to make that determination based just on the outside view of each binocular. They do appear more alike, at first, in comparison to something like a Nikon Monarch or Bushnell Legend but in general.....

[Steve C]

I can see where it looks tyo have has the same basic chassis. To me the two look alikes are the Kowa and the Leupold GR.

[FrankD]

Well, they both weigh quite a bit Steve....

;-)

....that brown coloring on the Leupold makes it difficult for me to visualize at first but then I can see what you mean.

[elkcub]

It seems to me that Holger had two objectives in mind: (1) to review these particular Chinese products, and (2) to comment on "... the overall performance level reached by Chinese binoculars, when compared with the competition found elsewhere on the planet." Specifically, he asks, have Chinese binoculars reached a level that could threaten the upper middle class of binoculars made in Japan or Europe? If not, how far apart are they right now, in terms of performance and built quality, and what has to be done for their improvement?

Meeting the last objective, of course, would be a tall order since these three products might or might not be representative of current Chinese production, and it is somewhat vague what the upper middle class of binoculars made in Japan and Europe really is. Nonetheless, I think he made a good stab at summarizing the overall situation, saying "...I still do not see any binocular made in China which would be able to challenge the upper middle class of binoculars made in Europe or Japan. The reason for that can be traced down to the patchy performance pattern of each binocular presented in this test: Each binocular performs well in certain aspects, but has also got serious flaws in other aspects."

I'm wondering if anyone is prepared to take issue with that general assessment, or the advise he then provides for product/market improvement. From my perspective it seems reasonable given what little I know about Chinese products. It's also clear that his opinion is based on a lot more than just the results of this test, and I concur with Renze at the end of post #8.

Ed

[fugl]

Originally Posted by elkcub

I'm wondering if anyone is prepared to take issue with that general assessment, or the advise he then provides for product/market improvement. From my perspective it seems reasonable given what little I know about Chinese products. It's also clear that his opinion is based on a lot more than just the results of this test, and I concur with Renze at the end of post #8. Ed

On the contrary, couldn't agree more. IMO, a valiant, useful & reasonably successful attempt to summarize the situation as a whole, cutting through a lot of hype & twaddle.

[Kevin Purcell]

It is an interesting assessment. Holger has lived in China for a while and used some good Chinese bins (see the review of the Xian Ares).

The Chinese bin makers are not the same as the Euro or top Japanese ones. But then again they're often in a different business (at least a different price class).

One wonder what he would say if given one the "Chinese EDs" we have been using (and I presume that fugl believes we're talking taddle about -- has he tried on yet?). They are the best product they're producing right now. Would that change his viewpoint? I know SteveC has pointed him to these products. But if he's tried one I don't know.

I think there in a different class to the bins he's been trying though those BW8 curiously had dielectric prisms but no ED objectives ... odd choice.

I think he also has to be more specific about his "upper middle class" definition. I really have no idea what that means: I always thought the big Euro Three or the Big Four were the aristocracy. They're priced like the aristocracy. Perhaps he means Pentax, Canon and Meopta?

I don't believe the Chinese are quite there yet. The current Chinese EDs are good but not excellent (they do have shortcomings ... read my reviews, I point them out). Are they a flash in the pan one off from the mind of a good optical designer? Or are they the start of something new? I guess that's a question for history.

Maybe we'll find out the answers from Holger

Speaking of history how long did it take for the Japanese (Nikon? Pentax?) to produce bins that people thought were as good as the Euro bins? How long before people started to include them in the top bin makers? I suspect these are two different times too. Cetrainly true in other fields: cars, motorbikes, amateur radio equipment.

[Pileatus]

IMO, the ZEN ED 8X43 ends the "Chinese question". The answer is they can and do produce a binocular that shames just about everything below the $2000 alpha class.

John

[Veracocha]

Originally Posted by John Traynor

IMO, the ZEN ED 8X43 ends the "Chinese question". The answer is they can and do produce a binocular that shames just about everything below the $2000 alpha class.

John

Emphasising my point around the author's subjectivity. His choice of binocular for comparison seems odd when even I am aware of the qualities of some Chinese bino manufacturers (Hawke's). This omission sort of dents the credibility of the review; making it appear dated imo.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by elkcub

I'm wondering if anyone is prepared to take issue with that general assessment, or the advise he then provides for product/market improvement. From my perspective it seems reasonable given what little I know about Chinese products. It's also clear that his opinion is based on a lot more than just the results of this test, and I concur with Renze at the end of post #8.

Ed

Ed,

I really have no wish to take issue with anyone, and on this particular point, I have no basis for comparison. The ZEN ED and Promaster ELX ED I have experience with. I have not seen one of the binoculars Holger reviewed, so I have absolutely no idea how they and the ZEN compare. Further I am not sure if Holger just saw this and reviewed it, or if this represents what Holger feels is the ultimate in Chines optics as their industry stands today. I would certainly ask him that question and look at the binocular myself before coming anywhere close to taking issue.

FWIW, I agree with Renze. They do look rather Howa-like. The Chinese have certainly been copycats before.

Kevin is correct in that I pointed Holger at these ZEN binoculars, but I'm not sure even he can actually get one in China right now, unless ZR has the factory send him one from the next run. Right now they are all in the US. I'll see about getting him a ZEN.

[marcus]

[QUOTE:The XD looks more like a Vortex bin

You know, it does sort of look like a Vortex. Sort of. :)

[FrankD]

I tend to take the same perspective as the others who have posted here. I cannot find fault with Holger's comments in reference to the bins that he reviewed. I have no experience with them. What I do have experience is the Hawke, Zen Ray and Promasters as well as many of the Zeiss, Leica and Swaro offerings. In my humble opinion, optically, the Zen Ray compare directly with the likes of many of the Alphas. Do some stand out optically in one area or another? Sure, absolutely. Do the Zen Ray provide as well rounded of an optical package as the European Alphas? Yes, I think they do. Are there some build/fit and finish issues I would like to see improved upon? Yes, there are.

But we are talking about $360 here...not $750...not $1000 and certainly not $2000.

[Kevin Purcell]

I think the difference here once again is the difference between "best binoculars for the least money" and "the best binoculars".

I wouldn't argue with anyone that the Big Four make (or made e.g. Nikon SE) "the best" binoculars (collectively) in the world. By that people seem to mean they optimize on all binocular parameters (optical and ergonomic) except price i.e. they are "the best" optically.

The problem for the Big Four is are they than much better than "best for the least money" Chinese EDs? These seem to be the optimum across all binocular parameters (optical and ergonomic) including price. But what that optimum is varies with the user: your "best for the least money" might not correspond to my "best for the least money".

What about the people who when you give them a Zeiss FL go "Wow" when they look through them. Then go "Wow!" when you tell them it's $2K to buy one.

In the automotive world this is the difference between Ferrari/Aston Martin/Koenigsegg and a Toyota. Even in the sports cars if you optimize on one set of parameters (sportyness and cost versus ergonomics) you end up with the Caterham Seven (think Lotus Seven in The Prisoner titles) that goes around the BBC Top Gear test track faster than all of the other tested cars. And only cost £38,000 not £250,000 and up. But it has manual everything (not even ABS) but in the hands of a excellent driver can put in an excellent time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterham_Seven

And that's true for pretty much all binoculars: ALL binoculars are compromises.

Perhaps a more important question (and one where the Chinese at least haven't solved all their problems though the Big Four have some problems too) is consistency from unit to unit with a given product. How much sample variation is there?

[FrankD]

Good point and actually what I was thinking of commenting on before reading your last post. Based on comments here on the forum and on other forums the unit to unit consistency of the Zen EDs seems to be better than many of the other Chinese bins out there. Yes, there have been one or two quality control issues (thinking of chartwell's extended eyecup) but I would consider this a significant improvement over what I remember the Nikon Monarchs running into only a handful of years ago.