[binomania]

Dear friends, finally, the mega-review has arrived! You can find the results of the comparison that some fans have made a few weeks ago.
these are the binoculars "in the game"
Bushnell Elite 8x42
Canon 10x42 L IS WP
Docter ED 8x42
GHT ED 8x42
Leica Ultravid HD 8x42
Kowa 8.5x44 XD PROMINAR
Meopta Meostar Br1 8x42
Nikon EDG 8x42 8x42
Swarovski EL Swarovision 8.5x42
Swarovski SLC HD 8x42
Zeiss Victory FL 8x42
Vortex Razor HD 8x42
http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/meg...ega_review.php

As always there is a "bad" version in English with the translator of google
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni

[Kammerdiner]

Thanks for the great review! It'll take time to digest.

But I'll trade you every bin I own (except the SV) for a week with that Valtellina view. Magnificent!

Mark

PS: the Google translation is hilarious, pure found poetry, pure Dada: "...it is better to compromise and not contradict him, on pain of serious failure of its existence-cosmic balance. Her myth is now unobtainable, exhausted..."

It's pure random, computerized genius.

PSS: you should have put a Nikon 8x32 SE in there as a spoiler. It might have been embarrassing.

[dalat]

The gallery is great, that looks like a bino-festival!

But what is this? http://www.binomania.it/gallery/page...ia_263_jpg.htm

[squidge]

Now thats what I call spending quality time.

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by dalat

But what is this? http://www.binomania.it/gallery/page...ia_263_jpg.htm

The 3D effect must be breathtaking. Or maybe it's just for British twitchers who want to discretely look over walls at rare robins.

http://10000birds.com/white-throated...thawk-food.htm

David

[gwsudiro]

"Al termine di tutto ciò, a meno che un giorno non decida di dare sfogo alla mia “infatuazione” per l'8x42 SLC HD, devo dire che non ho trovato nessun binocolo così in la nelle prestazioni dal farmi abbandonare il mio Nikon SE 8x32, un porro che, prescindendo il discorso sulla tenuta alla pioggia e all’umidità, se confrontato con i migliori tetto ha dimostrato di saper loro adeguatamente tenere testa, piazzandosi immediatamente alle spalle dei migliori con minimo distacco."

in the end, 8x32 SE still rocks!!!

what a great comparison and beautiful landscape mr.Salimbeni!

best regards
Galih

[IvanCavallazzi]

I swear I am not trying to be an ***... or to ice the cake... but just by the pics I had point out 3 methodological issues:

1) One guy was using tripod, while the others were not using tripod.

2) There is an IS bino there... the canon... I happen to think that it is impossible to compare IS to non-IS... it is like compare DSLR to compacts, and giving compacts a great score because it is small.
I mean, IS binos are completely different optical devices in my opinion. At least in my perception IS binos are more similar to cameras than to binos.
Not to mention when we add the problem pointed there at "1"... I mean, how can one test IS to non-IS... with and without tripod... cmom, tripods defeat the purpose of the IS and vice-versa.

Or one consider the handshaking as part of the perception for all(everything handheld), or ignore the handshake for all(everything tripoded)... and either way IS binos should not be compared to non-IS.

3) Let´s not forget... and this is a problem for everyone doing a review... that even Leica, Swaro, Zeiss and co... also have disparity of quality among samples of the same model.
So for me, it makes more sense one guy testing 5 samples of each bino, against 5 samples of another... than 15 guys testing singular samples, one of each(if there is a bino lemon there... all the 15 opinions are invalid).

[henry link]

[quote=IvanCavallazzi;2183246
So for me, it makes more sense one guy testing 5 samples of each bino, against 5 samples of another... than 15 guys testing singular samples, one of each(if there is a bino lemon there... all the 15 opinions are invalid).[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[gwsudiro]

Originally Posted by henry link

Agreed.

hmm..yes, I think so...

are there any chances the Leica Uvid was a lemon? the score, IMHO rather low...against other alphas..

[IvanCavallazzi]

Originally Posted by gwsudiro

hmm..yes, I think so...

are there any chances the Leica Uvid was a lemon? the score, IMHO rather low...against other alphas..

A lemon... lemon... no. But just a little bit tiny difference... yes. And that tiny difference in very high glass comparison is a lot.
That is why it is better to test more samples... than more observers.

I also happen to think that the canon(as mentioned do not belong in the comparison) but also was rated too high... people are messing the image quality enhancement from the "IS" with "Glass"... as canon do not have the glass to even be there.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by gwsudiro

hmm..yes, I think so...

are there any chances the Leica Uvid was a lemon? the score, IMHO rather low...against other alphas..

The idea that the Alpha level binoculars vary that much in quality is a bunch of baloney. You are paying for quality control when you pay that much for a binocular. Zeiss, Leica, and especially Swarovski binoculars are extensively tested before they leave the manufacturing plant. People even visually test them. In reality it is highly unlikely you would really get a lemon from any of them. I personally have had alot of the top alphas and I never had a lemon from any of them. You are trying to rationalize the low score of your binocular by saying they must have tested a lemon. My Leica didn't win so it must have been a lemon. Gimme a break. When Consumer Guide tests automobiles they don't test five of each model do they. If one of the alpha's they tested was really a lemon which would be very rare I am sure it would have been replaced with another sample.

[gwsudiro]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

The idea that the Alpha level binoculars vary that much in quality is a bunch of baloney. You are paying for quality control when you pay that much for a binocular. Zeiss, Leica, and especially Swarovski binoculars are extensively tested before they leave the manufacturing plant. People even visually test them. In reality it is highly unlikely you would really get a lemon from any of them. I personally have had alot of the top alphas and I never had a lemon from any of them. You are trying to rationalize the low score of your binocular by saying they must have tested a lemon. My Leica didn't win so it must have been a lemon. Gimme a break. When Consumer Guide tests automobiles they don't test five of each model do they. If one of the alpha's they tested was really a lemon which would be very rare I am sure it would have been replaced with another sample.

hi Dennis! ^_^

yeah, I think youre right at some points...(and FYI, I dont have any Leica....but yes, I really want to have one in the future...)

just when I read mr.Salimbeni's description about the scoring...it seems that the margin score of Leica vs others...is not "splitting hair" like it used to be anymore...its not like it used to be when I read alpha comparisons...its kinda noticeable...

just my thoughts..

edit : and I was not saying : "they must have tested a lemon"...I was just asking a question you know...

[henry link]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

The idea that the Alpha level binoculars vary that much in quality is a bunch of baloney.

Sorry, dennis, that's not true. Perform a few basic optical tests and you'll find plenty of defects in alpha level binoculars. Binomania apparently didn't do any technical tests for sample defects so they and we can't know whether some of their test binoculars were cherries and some lemons.

[gwsudiro]

Originally Posted by henry link

Sorry, dennis, that's not true. Perform a few basic optical tests and you'll find plenty of defects in alpha level binoculars. Binomania apparently didn't do any technical tests for sample defects so they and we can't know whether some of their test binoculars were cherries and some lemons.

everything is possible....nothing is impossible...

[NDhunter]

All good points, and I agree about the Canon IS being included, as the results may be swayed
simply due to the electronics.
It is hard to test several examples of each, as I am thinking most of these were provided on
loan by an optics dealer of some type, and they would not want to allow that many out the door, and come back in as demo.
The issue of variation of a quality pair, is a concern, so if one was subpar, its performance
will be less, and so maybe it should be. The testers, maybe would have picked up on one
with large error.
The results seem to match up with many reviews, and the preference of the individuals is
well explained.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by henry link

Sorry, dennis, that's not true. Perform a few basic optical tests and you'll find plenty of defects in alpha level binoculars. Binomania apparently didn't do any technical tests for sample defects so they and we can't know whether some of their test binoculars were cherries and some lemons.

Maybe you can detect small defects with optical tests but nothing that large that is going to change the ranking of a binocular in a test like this. Didn't they get there samples from the manufacturers so the manufacturers had a chance to cherry pick what they sent anyway? Your reaching Henry if you think a cherry Leica HD is going to outperform a lemon Swarovision. It just isn't going to happen. Maybe they should put you in charge of QA at Swarovski and I am sure there product performance would increase. It's funny I have looked through about 90% of these binoculars and I totally agree with the ranking just based on memory. It is what it is. I had to laugh that the Swarovision had better centerfield performance than the Zeiss FL. Oh wait your Zeiss was the 56mm so I guess that isn't fair. I think this was an excellent review but there will be alot of people like you trying to dispute it because they didn't sample 10 binoculars of each sample and there little baby didn't score very well. Give the guys a break they did quite a job testing all these binoculars.

[Steve C]

Any review of any sort of magnitude, like this one, will have flaws in its methodology. Just how it is. So any review is pretty much subjective. While there are some things here I might call to question, I think they did a pretty decent job overall. I would rate my Razor HD, for example, just about where they rated it aganist the others.

Sorry Dennis, I agree with Henry. There are flaws in alpha level glass. The baloney is in the denial of same. You like it because YOUR baby did well.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Any review of any sort of magnitude, like this one, will have flaws in its methodology. Just how it is. So any review is pretty much subjective. While there are some things here I might call to question, I think they did a pretty decent job overall. I would rate my Razor HD, for example, just about where they rated it aganist the others.

Sorry Dennis, I agree with Henry. There are flaws in alpha level glass. The baloney is in the denial of same. You like it because YOUR baby did well.

There may be flaws but they are small or they wouldn't get out of the plant. These small flaws are not going to totally change the outcome of review like this I don't care what you say. The Swarovision did well because it is an exceptional pair of binoculars. I have tried alot of these binoculars and I agree pretty much with the results so I think it is a good review for that reason.
Here is a little manufacturing blurb about Swarovski's and it sounds believable.
"Quality Standards and Innovations
The quality standards employed by this company are about as impressive as it gets. A Swarovski binocular will not ship unless it is absolutely perfect. All Swarovski binoculars are 100% inspected by them prior to shipment to market; returns for out-of-the-box defects are completely unheard of. Every Swarovski binocular shipped by us is carefully packed in sturdy boxes so our customers are assured that their purchase will arrive at their doorstep in absolutely perfect condition. Some of the quality standards and innovations published by Swarovski Optik are as follows:

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

.................................................. ........ Gimme a break. When Consumer Guide tests automobiles they don't test five of each model do they. If one of the alpha's they tested was really a lemon which would be very rare I am sure it would have been replaced with another sample.

I don't know Dennis?

Does Consumer Guide rent the cars for a day or two and send them back like you do with your binoculars or do they actually buy them for keeps and spend some time examining them and then sell them as used items?
Bob

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I don't know Dennis?

Does Consumer Guide rent the cars for a day or two and send them back like you do with your binoculars or do they actually buy them for keeps and spend some time examining them and then sell them as used items?
Bob

That's an irrelevant question and not even pertaining to the thread.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

That's an irrelevant question and not even pertaining to the thread.

It's your analogy. Why did you use it?
Bob

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

That's an irrelevant question and not even pertaining to the thread.

Seems relevant enough to me.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by henry link

Sorry, dennis, that's not true. Perform a few basic optical tests and you'll find plenty of defects in alpha level binoculars. Binomania apparently didn't do any technical tests for sample defects so they and we can't know whether some of their test binoculars were cherries and some lemons.

Give me some documented cases where you have tested a Swarovski binocular and found optical defects and what were they. I would be very interested in hearing what kind of optical defects you have observed on them because Swarovski prides themselves on quality control and 100% testing of all binoculars being shipped to assure no problems. This would be very interesting because it could alert us to defects that we should look for when we buy binoculars that perhaps the normal consumer would not notice. Or anybody else reading this thread let's hear the defects you have had with Swarovski or perhaps any other alpha level binocular so we can find out if this really is a common problem.

[FrankD]

The idea that the Alpha level binoculars vary that much in quality is a bunch of baloney.

Sorry but I have to agree with the others as well. In my relatively small sampling of Alphas that I have owned they can, and do, suffer from quality control issues...be it optical or mechanical. Granted, it does seem more well controlled than some less expensive models that I have handled but the QC issues are still there. A Leica Trinovid 7x42 comes to mind as does a Zeiss FL and one or two others.

I have only owned 4 Swarovskis and, dare I say it?....I didn't notice any QC issues with any of them in regular use.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Sorry but I have to agree with the others as well. In my relatively small sampling of Alphas that I have owned they can, and do, suffer from quality control issues...be it optical or mechanical. Granted, it does seem more well controlled than some less expensive models that I have handled but the QC issues are still there. A Leica Trinovid 7x42 comes to mind as does a Zeiss FL and one or two others.

I have only owned 4 Swarovskis and, dare I say it?....I didn't notice any QC issues with any of them in regular use.

What kind of problems did you have with the Leica and the Zeiss FL? Were they optical or mechanical? I can see mechanical problems happening more frequently than optical. Were they used binoculars or new?