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 Wednesday 6th November 2013, 18:00   #51
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPTIC_NUT View Post
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
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 18:30   #52
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPTIC_NUT View Post
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.

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.
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 18:44   #53
Kammerdiner
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,409
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
Kammerdiner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 19:00   #54
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,175
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
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.

Last edited by elkcub : Thursday 7th November 2013 at 06:09.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 19:05   #55
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samandag View Post
Worth taking time to set two markers on your diopters ; one with glasses and one without !
good idea ! thanks :)
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 19:10   #56
OPTIC_NUT
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wilmington Mass
Posts: 1,172
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.
OPTIC_NUT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 19:15   #57
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kammerdiner View Post
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.
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 19:15   #58
OPTIC_NUT
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wilmington Mass
Posts: 1,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
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.
OPTIC_NUT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 19:22   #59
OPTIC_NUT
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wilmington Mass
Posts: 1,172
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).
OPTIC_NUT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 20:13   #60
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPTIC_NUT View Post
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
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 21:08   #61
dalat
Registered User
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
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.
The reason is probably that if they (or anyone else) would take survey design and statistics seriously, they had to admit that such tests are just not feasible (at reasonable cost).
- How many copies of the same binocular you need to test to exclude bias from sample variation? 10? 100?
- How many testers you need to exclude bias from eyesight, personal preferences, too much reading birdforum, Swarovski marketing etc.? 100? 1000?

Just sorting out the question if the SV 32 or the FL 32 is better (=considered better by the majority of users by a statistically signicative margin) would easily take a few hundred to thousend rounds of testing. And it would still not help your personal decision.

The whole ranking thing is just pointless, regardless whether it's based on a couple of people looking through binoculars and telling what they think, or measuring transmission at 550 nm in an university lab.
__________________
Florian

Last edited by dalat : Wednesday 6th November 2013 at 21:11.
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 21:21   #62
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPTIC_NUT View Post
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).
I'm glad to hear that the type of glasses I'll be wearing will work well with bins. I was a little worried about it.
I'll see how the glasses do with my current bin (swaro CL). I'm hoping it will be ok.
I also got the diamond protection coating and anti-reflective on the new eyeglasses.
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 21:31   #63
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by perterra View Post
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.
That's a good point, but glasses being purchased with health insurance has its dilemna: I thought about getting the expensive progressive lenses (distortion-free), but if I had them for a while and then realized that I didn't like them I would be out a lot of money (out of pocket expenses). Once the insurance is submitted there are no returns/refunds. This is what the Dr.'s office told me. The progressive lenses I tried in the store were horrible (to me), but those were the cheaper ones. I didn't want to take a chance on them, so I decided on the single vision glasses. They're still very good lenses. I got extra features like anti-reflective coating. Also, I wondered if the progressive lenses would be ok with binoculars; I though maybe the single vision
would be better. I was just guessing there.

With binoculars you can try them for a little while and return them if needed.

Last edited by Annabeth2 : Wednesday 6th November 2013 at 21:34.
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 21:54   #64
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annabeth2 View Post
That's a good point, but glasses being purchased with health insurance has its dilemna: I thought about getting the expensive progressive lenses (distortion-free), but if I had them for a while and then realized that I didn't like them I would be out a lot of money (out of pocket expenses). Once the insurance is submitted there are no returns/refunds. This is what the Dr.'s office told me. The progressive lenses I tried in the store were horrible (to me), but those were the cheaper ones. I didn't want to take a chance on them, so I decided on the single vision glasses. They're still very good lenses. I got extra features like anti-reflective coating. Also, I wondered if the progressive lenses would be ok with binoculars; I though maybe the single vision
would be better. I was just guessing there.

With binoculars you can try them for a little while and return them if needed.
For me I dont notice any difference in binocs between single vision (the top part of my bifocal) or progressive. In sunglasses or safety glasses I pretty much have bi focal. In everyday I stick with progressives. I dont scan back and forth with my eyes in the field of view, I center my view so that may be why I dont see a lot of an issue. As I read, I move my head instead of my eyes. Takes some adapting but I have never had an issue with adapting to differences in anything. (At one point I owned 3 motorcycles all at the same time, one had a 4 down rotary shift pattern, one was 1 up and 4 down, the other was 1 down and 4 up. Never had problems). If you dont adpat quickly the single vision was probably best, but more than likely this is going to be a problem in the future as your eyes will likely get worse. At least that is my experience. They are single vision above the reading portion.

Be aware that there are different shapes of the enhanced portion of progressives, Nikon, Hoya, Varilux and Zeiss are the ones I have tried. I had trouble with the varilux pattern. The optician you used should be able to guide you through what would work best with binocs. Mine had me bring my handgun into their shop to set up my shooting glasses correctly.

Last edited by perterra : Wednesday 6th November 2013 at 22:05.
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 22:12   #65
Annabeth2
Registered User
 
Annabeth2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by perterra View Post
If you dont adpat quickly the single vision was probably best, but more than likely this is going to be a problem in the future as your eyes will likely get worse.

.
I'm not sure how fast I will adapt. It's hard to say since I've never worn
glasses except for reading small print once in a while.
In the future my vision will change. I may need progressives or something
different down the road. My prescription for distance (and for reading) is sort of weak
according to the doctor, so my eyes aren't in real bad shape...for now. :)
Annabeth2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2013
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 22:58   #66
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annabeth2 View Post
I'm not sure how fast I will adapt. It's hard to say since I've never worn
glasses except for reading small print once in a while.
In the future my vision will change. I may need progressives or something
different down the road. My prescription for distance (and for reading) is sort of weak
according to the doctor, so my eyes aren't in real bad shape...for now. :)
I hate doing my spell checking when I see my quotes. LOL

You'll be fine, but it is a change.
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th November 2013, 23:48   #67
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzmtl View Post
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.
Kind of sounds like this forum....

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 02:33   #68
brocknroller
confessed porromaniac

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Borscht Belt
Posts: 4,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theorist View Post
Where are the porros?
Gone the way of the Platypus. Fortunately, I have three of the best specimens still alive in captivity.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN1371.JPG
Views:	67
Size:	283.1 KB
ID:	471695  

Last edited by brocknroller : Thursday 7th November 2013 at 02:35.
brocknroller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 03:03   #69
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 4,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocknroller View Post
Gone the way of the Platypus. Fortunately, I have three of the best specimens still alive in captivity.
The Platypus isn't extinct.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	download.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	10.4 KB
ID:	471696  
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 03:57   #70
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
The reason is probably that if they (or anyone else) would take survey design and statistics seriously, they had to admit that such tests are just not feasible (at reasonable cost).
- How many copies of the same binocular you need to test to exclude bias from sample variation? 10? 100?
- How many testers you need to exclude bias from eyesight, personal preferences, too much reading birdforum, Swarovski marketing etc.? 100? 1000?

Just sorting out the question if the SV 32 or the FL 32 is better (=considered better by the majority of users by a statistically signicative margin) would easily take a few hundred to thousend rounds of testing. And it would still not help your personal decision.

The whole ranking thing is just pointless, regardless whether it's based on a couple of people looking through binoculars and telling what they think, or measuring transmission at 550 nm in an university lab.
For the most part I agree with you, although I'm less skeptical of such enterprises. I'm more inclined to say that the resources involved in this Cornell Lab survey, like the earlier one, could have produced meaningful results. It takes working with survey experts to make that possibility a reality. In fact, if just anyone could do it without training there would be no need for a statistics department at Cornell, or anywhere else.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.

Last edited by elkcub : Thursday 7th November 2013 at 17:26.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 06:27   #71
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 4,969
I rank them in order Swarovision, EDG and then FL for your best roofs. Nikon EII, SE and Habicht for your best porros. There simple.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 16:27   #72
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I rank them in order Swarovision, EDG and then FL for your best roofs. Nikon EII, SE and Habicht for your best porros. There simple.
Agreed! A simple-minded solution!

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 17:35   #73
Sancho
Adrift

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 7,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
The Platypus isn't extinct.
But it is pretty silly. Perhaps it should be extinct.
__________________
"We must not forget to sing in the lifeboats" (Voltaire)
Sancho is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 7th November 2013, 22:07   #74
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
Agreed! A simple-minded solution!

Bob
Too bad I can't rep you like on some sites!
__________________
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 Friday 8th November 2013, 13:56   #75
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 4,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
Too bad I can't rep you like on some sites!
Swarovision 8x32 is still the best all around birding binocular. The Zeiss 8x42 HT is too big and the Zeiss 8x32 FL is old school. That is why 90% of birders use them. They ain't stupid!
denco@comcast.n is online now  
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 0.28439307 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49.