Cornell Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (3 Viewers)

[pompadour]

Imans66, <here> is the link to the top Clarity/ Crispness scores.

Perterra, very many normal, everyday folk, yes, but my reservation is that the testing here may not give an adequate idea of the normal, everyday use of each bin.

Anyway, considering who the authors are and their relevant experience, this may be the best one can do with those considerable resources...

 

[james holdsworth]

I would say this test could be compared to an automobile test, when the testers drove the cars on the street, making note of ride quality, quietness, fit and finish etc., real world stuff. The purists would be clambering for the 0-60 and quarter mile stats, how the car handles on the track, cornering G's.

Same here - some are looking for cold, hard data but what we have is a compilation of general preferences, although the sample size is pretty big.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Mike,

You are right, but down here the Zeiss warranty and the repair service is of high standards, both from the Dutch distributor as from Wetzlar so that should not make any difference.

Jan

How about in Asia? Anyone has experience with it?

 

[brocknroller]

I have also noticed that but I guess I am a man apart as I prefer to use them so I do have them tethered. My thinking is that if I spend 'that' much money on them, why take chances of scratching them up...

You should have said you are an Imans apart.

I'm with you about objective covers. I've added Bushwackers to my bins because I walk in deep woods where there are tree branches sticking out and thick brush which could scratch the objectives. I also keep the rainguard on when walking through the woods. I also keep an eye out for the wolf that ate grandma. :smoke:

Alas, I'm told that Bushwacker no longer makes objective covers that spring back 90* - they only make the kind that springs back 180*, which works for riflescopes, but not for binoculars, because your hands would be resting on them. Maybe someone will come up with a fix for this.

Brock

 

[lmans66]

Bushwhacker makes a good product....you might find on Ebay the 90* 's ..... objective covers are a sore spot with many bino's....either too hard or soft or whatever...

 

[lmans66]

Imans66, <here> is the link to the top Clarity/ Crispness scores.

not a lot of difference and it does depend on the x power too.

I wonder how much individual eyesight comes into play in a figure such as that? Your pupils, time of day etc...

 

[pompadour]

James, actually, if I were to try an analogy with cars, I'd say this is not like the 0-60 kind of tests nor the tests you describe, but more like getting a lot of people to try out a lot of models in the showroom and a brief drive "round the block", because of time constraints.

I66, those are the *top* Cl./Cr. scores, ≥ 4.5, from 102 bins. The range scored goes down to 2.5, leaving out one 1.3 in what seems to be an anomalous model. Individual sight: I'd guess the pupils of everyone would have been at or near max diam., as this was from an "outdoor patio ... on several afternoons in May" at New York state, USA.

 

[james holdsworth]

James, actually, if I were to try an analogy with cars, I'd say this is not like the 0-60 kind of tests nor the tests you describe, but more like getting a lot of people to try out a lot of models in the showroom and a brief drive "round the block", because of time constraints.

I66, those are the *top* Cl./Cr. scores, ≥ 4.5, from 102 bins. The range scored goes down to 2.5, leaving out one 1.3 in what seems to be an anomalous model. Individual sight: I'd guess the pupils of everyone would have been at or near max diam., as this was from an "outdoor patio ... on several afternoons in May" at New York state, USA.

As I said, general preferences, nothing more. I'm not really sure why it has sparked all the outrage and upheaval.

This forum exists on [mostly] general preferences, with the occasional in-depth review. If you read enough posts on a certain subject, you can form a basic opinion based on these preferences, not much different than this ''test.''

 

[John Dracon]

Some of you dedicated roof users may have to surrender to the fact that ergonomics control what is practical in terms of convenient objectives covers. Most porros have no problem whatsoever in accommodating functional covers.

If birders need to be making a fashion statement (see Holger's 12 Dec. comment on designers wooing birders), why don't those birders just stay indoors and look at stuffed birds so they won't see birds poop and chance an encounter with walking on some bird do-do.

Covers are for function not appearance, not the other way around. Any person so shallow that he/she worries about how others see them hoisting their whatever has my deepest sympathy. (who would want to be around such snobs anyway - defined as grossly insecure vanity obsessed people?

Our birds deserve better.

John

 

[NDhunter]

As I said, general preferences, nothing more. I'm not really sure why it has sparked all the outrage and upheaval.

This forum exists on [mostly] general preferences, with the occasional in-depth review. If you read enough posts on a certain subject, you can form a basic opinion based on these preferences, not much different than this ''test.''

James and others:

I agree with you on your take on the Cornell tests. I felt the same
when I replied early on, the scoring is about what would be expected.

The better binoculars received the best scores, and the scoring
reflected that all the way through. There may be a quibble here
and there, and so it is with many tests.

That is why we should not place any test or review and place it on
a pedestal, and say it is absolute.

These are binoculars, just tubes with glass lenses.

Jerry

 

[Sagittarius]

Some of you dedicated roof users may have to surrender to the fact that ergonomics control what is practical in terms of convenient objectives covers. Most porros have no problem whatsoever in accommodating functional covers.

If birders need to be making a fashion statement (see Holger's 12 Dec. comment on designers wooing birders), why don't those birders just stay indoors and look at stuffed birds so they won't see birds poop and chance an encounter with walking on some bird do-do.

Covers are for function not appearance, not the other way around. Any person so shallow that he/she worries about how others see them hoisting their whatever has my deepest sympathy. (who would want to be around such snobs anyway - defined as grossly insecure vanity obsessed people?

Our birds deserve better.

John

Awesome! :t: :-O

 

[pompadour]

James, Jerry, I'd be v. happy if that does in fact give a good idea of what will please most people.

The last time Cornell did a review involving many bins and many testers, also with the same lead author, was eight yrs ago (published 2005 winter). It seems to have become well known in circles like Bf., and it can be seen <here>. Their categories and top-scoring models were:
- "Economy": Nikon Action EX 7x35
- "Mid-price": Leupold Wind River Katmai 6x32
- "Top affordable": Nikon HG DCF 8x32
- "Top gun": Zeiss Victory FL T* 8x42.
Let's take these four groups of users:
- all buyers
- bird watchers
- people in circles like Bf.
- bird researchers and surveyers.
Did any of these models sell notably well compared with others in its price range, within any of these groups of users? I'm not sure about the answer. (Note that the Zeiss Victory has, in the review, 18 rivals in that range.)

 

[Troubador]

Some of you dedicated roof users may have to surrender to the fact that ergonomics control what is practical in terms of convenient objectives covers. Most porros have no problem whatsoever in accommodating functional covers.

If birders need to be making a fashion statement (see Holger's 12 Dec. comment on designers wooing birders), why don't those birders just stay indoors and look at stuffed birds so they won't see birds poop and chance an encounter with walking on some bird do-do.

Covers are for function not appearance, not the other way around. Any person so shallow that he/she worries about how others see them hoisting their whatever has my deepest sympathy. (who would want to be around such snobs anyway - defined as grossly insecure vanity obsessed people?

Our birds deserve better.

John

Wow John!
Considering nobody here has asked for gold-plated or fur-trimmed or even Swarovski Crystal-studded accessories your post is a bit strong, verging on vehement.

And your condemnation of folks with an over-inflated view of the importance of their appearance is epic, verging on biblical. Surely, there are worse crimes.

But you are right of course that function needs to come first and foremost. However, providing that functionality is properly taken care of, is there any reason why an accessory or component can't look nice as well? I mean, if something is ugly does it work better? Or, to put it another way, again providing that functionality comes first, would it not work as well, just because it looked good?

Not that any of us is going to agree about what looks good. Me? I think Zeiss HTs and Swaro ELs look brilliant and I don't think it harms how they perform.

Lee

 

[cycleguy]

Absolute...ly!B

CG

 

[perterra]

Any person so shallow that he/she worries about how others see them hoisting their whatever has my deepest sympathy. (who would want to be around such snobs anyway - defined as grossly insecure vanity obsessed people?


John

I think it goes without saying that many in our first world society wish for people to judge us on what we purchase. In doing so we sometimes go to extremes.

I mean when I'm standing there looking thru my swaros wearing my Barbour coat over my Pendleton shirt and moleskin pants all underneath my Optimo safari hat and keeping my feet out of the mud with my Le Chameau boots, you just know I know my stuff, I've made it in the world. I may not know a wood pecker from a hawk, but dammit I look like I do.

Meanwhile the guy next to me with using 20 year old binocs wearing a baseball cap and carhartt work jacket and muddy work boots who is a field biologist knows exactly what he is seeing,

Or maybe a quicker summation, as I heard a guy say after 14 hours on the saddle of a motorcycle one time, screw this 700 miles in a day stuff, I got into this for the leather and boots.

 

[lmans66]

Meanwhile the guy next to me with using 20 year old binocs wearing a baseball cap and carhartt work jacket and muddy work boots who is a field biologist knows exactly what he is seeing,

perhaps....I live in South Jersey where there are lots of 'good birders'....good ones..... When I run across one of the 'big ones'.... Either the Big Year front runner or an author of bird guides and the like, guess what? One had a Zeiss HT while the other had a Swaro SLC.... And those were just 'two' great birders and their gear.

The vast majority of naturalists, hawk counters, etc I see have the top Swaro (Alphas), Leica or Zeiss (HT's or FL's). Sure, an occasional birder I see coming in with a old tanker of sorts to view by, but for the most part, ......quality bino's.

 

[perterra]

perhaps....I live in South Jersey where there are lots of 'good birders'....good ones..... When I run across one of the 'big ones'.... Either the Big Year front runner or an author of bird guides and the like, guess what? One had a Zeiss HT while the other had a Swaro SLC.... And those were just 'two' great birders and their gear.

The vast majority of naturalists, hawk counters, etc I see have the top Swaro (Alphas), Leica or Zeiss (HT's or FL's). Sure, an occasional birder I see coming in with a old tanker of sorts to view by, but for the most part, ......quality bino's.

Maybe that reaffirms the concept, you cant be taken seriously unless you sell a kidney to buy optics and poor people make poor birders?


Something to think about.

 

[jan van daalen]

I think it goes without saying that many in our first world society wish for people to judge us on what we purchase. In doing so we sometimes go to extremes.

I mean when I'm standing there looking thru my swaros wearing my Barbour coat over my Pendleton shirt and moleskin pants all underneath my Optimo safari hat and keeping my feet out of the mud with my Le Chameau boots, you just know I know my stuff, I've made it in the world. I may not know a wood pecker from a hawk, but dammit I look like I do.

Meanwhile the guy next to me with using 20 year old binocs wearing a baseball cap and carhartt work jacket and muddy work boots who is a field biologist knows exactly what he is seeing,

Or maybe a quicker summation, as I heard a guy say after 14 hours on the saddle of a motorcycle one time, screw this 700 miles in a day stuff, I got into this for the leather and boots.

Perterra,

If you would have said: "looking trough my Terra....etc" I would have believed you3

Jan

 

[perterra]

Perterra,

If you would have said: "looking trough my Terra....etc" I would have believed you3

Jan

|| No terras here.

 

[lmans66]

Maybe that reaffirms the concept, you cant be taken seriously unless you sell a kidney to buy optics and poor people make poor birders?


Something to think about.

Well, not that birders are poor or rich...but, I would think that people in poverty don't have the inclination to bird while even the super rich, have no time to bird as they are out their working overtime to gouge the rest of us!