Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 18:40   #1
mjensen6577
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 85
Best Binoculars of 2013: The Cornell Lab Review

An interesting read worth sharing.

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/page.as...=2674#topPicks
mjensen6577 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:04   #2
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,594
hey Mike,
I'm not able to get to the page using the link provided.
~ Beth
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:07   #3
mjensen6577
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annabeth2 View Post
hey Mike,
I'm not able to get to the page using the link provided.
~ Beth
I can't seem to get the link to work in this forum. Send me an email and I'll forward you an email link, then maybe you can help post it? Would be appreciated.
mjensen6577 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:17   #4
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjensen6577 View Post
I can't seem to get the link to work in this forum. Send me an email and I'll forward you an email link, then maybe you can help post it? Would be appreciated.
ok, I just sent you a private message here on BF.
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:20   #5
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 437
Boy, I can find absolutely nothing on Cornell's site. Interested in reading this but why do I guess that the HT 8x42 is the new top pick?
__________________
Minolta 6x20, Vortex Fury 6.5x32, Jason 7x50, Nikon SE 8x32, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, Zeiss Terra ED 8x42, Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, Zeiss Victory 10x25, Canon 10x30 IS, Garrett 25x100 IF, Televue Pronto
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:32   #6
kbrabble
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 172
Link is working for me...

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/page.as...=2674#topPicks

Zeiss is at the top of the three categories they are competing in, and rightfully so...
kbrabble is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:32   #7
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbrabble View Post
Link is working for me...

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/page.as...=2674#topPicks

Zeiss is at the top of the three categories they are competing in, and rightfully so...
working for me too. thanks
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 19:38   #8
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,594
my little CL ranked pretty well :)
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 20:06   #9
mjensen6577
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
Boy, I can find absolutely nothing on Cornell's site. Interested in reading this but why do I guess that the HT 8x42 is the new top pick?
It's a competitive world out there. I'll take our wins with a smile! :-)
mjensen6577 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 20:08   #10
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 331
They probably tested only one bin of each type. If it was a lemon then....
They missed that the Prime is waterproof.
I guess the warranty column is mostly valid for bins bought in the USA.

Anders

Last edited by Binoseeker : Tuesday 5th November 2013 at 20:17.
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2012
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 20:09   #11
james holdsworth
Registered User
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
Calling the 8x32 SV 4.8 and the 8x32 FL 5.0, in terms of optical "crispness" is nutzo. Not so. I've had them both for over a year. The FL drags far behind. Give it a try.

Keep in mind that Cornell is under a budgetery gun, nationwide gun really, so what can we do to drum up some bucks?? Yup, I know 'bout that crap. Wallowing in it for years. Ugh. It's got not so much to do with reality.

Mark

....shoot the messenger, if the message delivered isn't party-line.....

Anyway, we know that sample variation is probably enough for such differences to be noticed - so, maybe a poor Swaro sample, or a cherry Zeiss. I have little doubt that the SV does indeed best the FL in some categories.

I'm a bit chuffed that the FL bested the HT in clarity, crispness but, then again, the FL has always been a super-sharp bino.

Last edited by james holdsworth : Tuesday 5th November 2013 at 20:12.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 20:29   #12
John Russell
Registered Member

 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 971
Did they use a random number generator to get these values?
Just a look at the figures for eyeglass friendliness arouses this suspicion - absolutely absurd!

John
John Russell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 21:43   #13
WiscTJK
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
....shoot the messenger, if the message delivered isn't party-line.....

Anyway, we know that sample variation is probably enough for such differences to be noticed - so, maybe a poor Swaro sample, or a cherry Zeiss. I have little doubt that the SV does indeed best the FL in some categories.

I'm a bit chuffed that the FL bested the HT in clarity, crispness but, then again, the FL has always been a super-sharp bino.
This is weird as you quoted a reply to the thread by Kammer that I don't see. Was it deleted or something?
WiscTJK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 21:52   #14
james holdsworth
Registered User
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiscTJK View Post
This is weird as you quoted a reply to the thread by Kammer that I don't see. Was it deleted or something?
I guess so.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 22:06   #15
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,238
I suspect it tells us rather more about the testers than the binoculars but since we don't know the controls (if any) in the study or the distribution of the raw data it's probably best to ignore it all together.

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 22:20   #16
brocknroller
confessed porromaniac

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Borscht Belt
Posts: 4,597
The Nikon EDG is curiously absent, though the Monarch 5 and 7 are ranked. The EDG should rank somewhere near the top,

<B>
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 22:23   #17
james holdsworth
Registered User
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
The Nikon EDG is curiously absent, though the Monarch 5 and 7 are ranked. The EDG should rank somewhere near the top,

<B>
Check the main table - all the EDG models are there.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 22:40   #18
John Russell
Registered Member

 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiscTJK View Post
This is weird as you quoted a reply to the thread by Kammer that I don't see. Was it deleted or something?
Yes, whats going on? Nothing really objectionable about Mark's post.

Are the thought police on BF active again and hiding under a similar cloud of anonymity to the NSA?

John
John Russell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 22:51   #19
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I suspect it tells us rather more about the testers than the binoculars but since we don't know the controls (if any) in the study or the distribution of the raw data it's probably best to ignore it all together.

David
Exactly.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 23:03   #20
NDhunter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 2,307
This is a complete test, and the typical ones are placed as they should.
I did not know EO made so many binoculars, they all must be in the test.

Zeiss has done well here, and as they have redesigned the whole
lineup, it shows.

One thing I noticed is they have the weights of many of the binoculars in
error. I quickly counted 8 that are off by 5 oz. or so. They are off on 6 of
the Zeiss models. They posted much less than actual mfr. posted weights.
That should have been caught by anyone doing a proof.

Jerry
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 23:17   #21
james holdsworth
Registered User
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,174
I agree that the relative merits for a test of this type are questionable - but to all the detractors - seriously, let's see your version of the same test. And I say seriously as there are a few posters to this thread that I would really like to see do a comprehensive bino. test as I value their opinions and methods.

Without tests like these, this place would be a ghost-town so I appreciate the fodder they provide - even if the fodder is along the lines of ''this test is useless.''
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th November 2013, 23:59   #22
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 482
Thing I found most interesting is the spread of "the new mid range" catagory... $700 to $1999.

That's a big price range.

Also nice to see the 8x32 conquest hd high on the list.

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 01:56   #23
jzmtl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 136
Bushnell elite 8x42 cost $750, legend 10x25 $275, if that's what they paid I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.
jzmtl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 01:58   #24
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 5,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleguy View Post
Thing I found most interesting is the spread of "the new mid range" catagory... $700 to $1999.

That's a big price range.

Also nice to see the 8x32 conquest hd high on the list.

CG
What surprises me is how poorly the EDG's did. The Monarch 7 according to them is just as good. They must not value sharp edges as in the EDG and Swarovision.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 03:12   #25
brocknroller
confessed porromaniac

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Borscht Belt
Posts: 4,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
I agree that the relative merits for a test of this type are questionable - but to all the detractors - seriously, let's see your version of the same test. And I say seriously as there are a few posters to this thread that I would really like to see do a comprehensive bino. test as I value their opinions and methods.

Without tests like these, this place would be a ghost-town so I appreciate the fodder they provide - even if the fodder is along the lines of ''this test is useless.''
You're just saying that because they weighted Zeiss a tenth of a point more than Swaro. If it had been the other way around, you'd be singing a different tune.

<B>
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
August 2013 - Cornell Lab eNews: An Audio Journey HelenB News From Birding & Nature Organisations 0 Thursday 5th September 2013 22:13
Cornell Review Ratings of Audubon Image Quality Hogjaws Swift 8 Saturday 11th February 2006 20:54
Cornell U: An Unbiased Review site art92101 Binoculars 54 Monday 28th November 2005 09:41
Cornell Lab Binocular Review Justin Binoculars 21 Friday 3rd June 2005 18:47
Scope Review--Cornell Lab of Ornithology Bob D Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 1 Sunday 1st February 2004 12:38

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19126797 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12.