Cornell U: An Unbiased Review site (5 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

Otto

I have Leica, they came no 1 in my review, and i am not a sore loser. I demand an apology from you.

Why do you like Leicas better than Zeiss FL's? Either our eyes are different or I am just not seeing something that you are. Is it optical, ergonomics, build quality, durability, brightness or off-axis clarity. I have used Leica Ultravids and I just can not see why somebody would prefer them over the Zeiss FL's. Explain it too me because I want to know what I am not seeing. Here's an Alula test which shows the Leica Ultravid 10x42 is second even to the older Zeiss 10x40 Victory in the optics department. Alula seems to do pretty scientific and unbiased testing:
http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

Dennis

 

[Leif]

You said that Alula was a more scientific study than the Cornell study. I think it is interesting that both studies came up with the same conclusion even though they used perhaps different methodologies. That's my point.

Dennis

Hi Dennis. Just because they give the thumbs up to one of my favourites does not mean the review is good. I would argue with some of their conclusions, and the comment that I highlighted demonstrates that the testing was not rigorous. One of their reviews that I disagree strongly with is the Swarovski 8x32 EL which IMO is optically not as good as it should be for the price. The strength is the beautiful design and build, but the optics are a slight disappointment. I've heard similar comments from reviewers that I respect which gives me confidence that I am not mistaken and that I did not sample a lemon.

So as a rough guide the binocular review is okay, but I wouldn't take it too seriously.

Mind you, it gives us lot something to argue about, so it can't be bad.

Leif

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Dennis. Just because they give the thumbs up to one of my favourites does not mean the review is good. I would argue with some of their conclusions, and the comment that I highlighted demonstrates that the testing was not rigorous. One of their reviews that I disagree strongly with is the Swarovski 8x32 EL which IMO is optically not as good as it should be for the price. The strength is the beautiful design and build, but the optics are a slight disappointment. I've heard similar comments from reviewers that I respect which gives me confidence that I am not mistaken and that I did not sample a lemon.

So as a rough guide the binocular review is okay, but I wouldn't take it too seriously.

Mind you, it gives us lot something to argue about, so it can't be bad.

Leif

They gave the optics of the Swarovski EL 8x32 I believe a 4.7 so it is really not in the same class as the Zeiss FL's or Leica Ultravids or Swarovski EL 8.5 x42's which all got perfect 5.0's. They are not bad optically though since I have a pair(I use them in the daytime) I have been comparing them to my new Zeiss 10x42 FL's(A little like comparing apples to oranges I know) but none the less the I have. My initial feeling is that the Zeiss is definitely brighter and sharper. I am not sure yet about the depth of field. There is something about the Swarovski view I like maybe that is it. I will let you know when I have had more time with each.

Dennis

 

[elkcub]

OK, i give up.

Otto, that was a swipe at me. You don't have to give up.

-elk

 

[elkcub]

Why do you like Leicas better than Zeiss FL's? Either our eyes are different or I am just not seeing something that you are. Is it optical, ergonomics, build quality, durability, brightness or off-axis clarity. I have used Leica Ultravids and I just can not see why somebody would prefer them over the Zeiss FL's. Explain it too me because I want to know what I am not seeing. Here's an Alula test which shows the Leica Ultravid 10x42 is second even to the older Zeiss 10x40 Victory in the optics department. Alula seems to do pretty scientific and unbiased testing:
http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

Dennis

Otto,

Now you can give up.

 

[Robert Ellis]

Dennis, have you ever heard the phrase "to each his own"? If not, please respect each of our "owns" as much as you brag about yours. Or shall Leica and Swarovski shutter their companies and leave their fans orphaned. Sure Zeiss FLs have the biggest brightest image, but I don't care, they feel like rubbish in MY hands. The Leicas and Swaros are very pleasant for me to hold. I could care less if they were .01% brighter, I need a total package that feels right to me.

Enough of your putting down everyone who is not jumping for joy at the existence of the FLs, the binocular experience is more than just the extremely fine nuances of image.

Every human'e eye and brain are different, thus we all see and perceive things differently. Senses are subjective.

 

[elkcub]

Bill,

... However, I sometimes envy the birders who get pulled aside for mandatory, impromptu, star tests. What a thrill it must be to participate in a scientific study of field optics. Oh well, I guess I’ll have to be satisfied with looking at the birds.

John

“... neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
Sermon on the Mount

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks Robert.

Dennis, have you ever heard the phrase "to each his own"? If not, please respect each of our "owns" as much as you brag about yours. Or shall Leica and Swarovski shutter their companies and leave their fans orphaned. Sure Zeiss FLs have the biggest brightest image, but I don't care, they feel like rubbish in MY hands. The Leicas and Swaros are very pleasant for me to hold. I could care less if they were .01% brighter, I need a total package that feels right to me.

Enough of your putting down everyone who is not jumping for joy at the existence of the FLs, the binocular experience is more than just the extremely fine nuances of image.

Every human'e eye and brain are different, thus we all see and perceive things differently. Senses are subjective.

I firmly believe that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You have answered my question. You prefer the Leica binoculars because of the ergonomics. Your willing to accept a slightly dimmer image for a binocular that feels more comfortable in your hands. To you how the binocular feels in you hands is more important than the image you see. This is what I want to know. What would be interesting here is a marketing type study or poll on what are the most important characteristics to each individual or what makes a person buy one binocular over another. The idea that every humans eye is different in perception is very interesting. So it follows that there is no universally accepted state of perfection in optics. For one person optical perfection is different than for another. A Leica binocular might be optical perfection for one person while for another a Zeiss FL might be it. Even though we might try to measure optics the human eye and brain still decides what is best for that person.

 

[melanerpes]

Bino reviews

The Cornell review article may not have been scientifically rigorous but if I'm in the market for binoculars, I want as much information as possible. In their review process they let a lot of people look through a lot of binoculars and found out what they thought. I may not agree with their methodology or their conclusions, but it's still worth looking at their data.

All reviews have some bias or other; thus it makes sense to look at as many of them as possible in the hope that the biases will, to some extent, cancel one another.

That's pretty much what one has to do reading the opinions of the "binoculars" forum. Look for some kind of prevailing trend among the differing opinions.

 

[Robert Ellis]

I firmly believe that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You have answered my question. You prefer the Leica binoculars because of the ergonomics. Your willing to accept a slightly dimmer image for a binocular that feels more comfortable in your hands. To you how the binocular feels in you hands is more important than the image you see. This is what I want to know. What would be interesting here is a marketing type study or poll on what are the most important characteristics to each individual or what makes a person buy one binocular over another. The idea that every humans eye is different in perception is very interesting. So it follows that there is no universally accepted state of perfection in optics. For one person optical perfection is different than for another. A Leica binocular might be optical perfection for one person while for another a Zeiss FL might be it. Even though we might try to measure optics the human eye and brain still decides what is best for that person.

So you finally understand why your proclamations that FLs are universally the best and why your questioning of those who don't "agree" they are the best was met with such a vigorous defense. Thank you.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I've found image brightness very hard to judge visually, because it is impossible to separate (for me, anyway) intrinsic brightness due to better prisms or whatever from increased brightness due to a larger apparent field of view. My Zeiss 8x42 FL is "brighter" than my humble Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42, but it also has a much larger apparent field, and inevitably more light enters my eye.

 

[kabsetz]

Just some brief comments because Alula reviews have popped up in this thread.

Firstly, as much as I would like it, I doubt that I ever manage to be unbiased in what I say. The best I can hope for is that whatever bias I may have does not unduly permeate my conclusions and would not influence the more objective measurements I do. As far as being scientifically rigorous, that is a tall order which our work certainly does not fulfill - much as we try to provide some "hard data" to the extent it is feasible without laboratory-grade equipment and a budget to match.

Secondly, as time has gone by and my experience has slowly accumulated, I have learned to trust the opinions of other birders rather more, not less, even when they differ from mine. By this I obviously don't mean that I trust everything anybody says about binoculars, but rather that when someone has done a carefull comparison, I believe they usually report pretty honestly what they see. Different people and different eyes can perceive things differently, and different specimen of the same binocular sometimes perform differently. Thus it is possible that a given person will prefer, say, a Leica over a Zeiss in one store but the Zeiss over the Leica in another. I also find it possible that one person will consistently prefer Zeiss and another one consistently prefer Leica - for optical reasons as well.

Also when it comes to reading reviews and gleaning information from them, different people have different needs and preferences. For obvious reasons I will not comment on reviews done by others, but I know that many readers find my reviews way heavy and tedious and may very well be better served by the variety which has been more common in British and American birdwatching magazines. I also know that there are many who appreciate a more thorough approach, and I am happy if they find something usefull in the stuff we do.

Kimmo

 

[Alexis Powell]

A new review site

I haven't trolled the internet for review sites in quite a while, but i just stumbled upon this one, and don't recall anyone else mentioning it on this forum. It is http://binoculars.org/birding/Reviews/Index.html
The site doesn't match my taste in reviews, but if for those who enjoy reviewing reviews as much as they like evaluating binoculars or watching birds, it is one to add to the collection.
--AP

 

[elkcub]

... Also when it comes to reading reviews and gleaning information from them, different people have different needs and preferences. For obvious reasons I will not comment on reviews done by others, but I know that many readers find my reviews way heavy and tedious and may very well be better served by the variety which has been more common in British and American birdwatching magazines. I also know that there are many who appreciate a more thorough approach, and I am happy if they find something usefull in the stuff we do.

Kimmo

Kimmo,

Each of your essays is a pearl to be treasured. Count me as one who appreciates the more thorough approach. :t:

Elkcub

 

[zuiko]

The more recent Ken Rosenberg review clearly shows bias when it is remembered what Ken himself writes all the way back in 1999 in the following review...

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/publications/Livingbird/spring99/binos.html

It’s also no secret that a certain Austrian optical instruments manufacturer captured my attention during our 1995 review. The company, Swarovski Optik, has since become sponsor of the Sapsuckers, bestowing upon us the best binoculars and scopes it produces. I must admit that I entered this review wondering if anything out there could beat my Swarovski 10x50 SLCs.

The agenda is right there in that paragraph of the 1999 review. Ken is looking for a binocular to beat his darling pair of Swaro 10x50's. It's obvious from reading the most recent review that nothing can. How many birders carry or talk about 50mm optics here? Not many, and yet Ken must mention his darlings in the more recent review...

Finally, worth mentioning because of its exquisite image is Swarovski’s honking big 10x50 SLC—still probably the brightest 10x on the market. At least a few top birders I know insist on carrying these, in spite of their excessive weight, relatively narrow field of view, and poor close focus. I’d love to see these in an EL version.

Remembering that the darling pair is third off the bottom of the list.


It's obvious that Ken is looking for a pair to beat his darling Swaro 10x50's and despite the fact that 16 pairs do he's still hanging out for an EL 10x50. You'd think that Swarovski would oblige by building a special pair for him, and reward his fanatic dedication to the brand, based on this pair he's been waxing lyrical about since 1999 at least.

It's also obvious that with the "bestowing" of scopes and binoculars on the department, that Swarovski has in turn received much praise from Ken. Maybe that's what explains second place to the Swarovski with an optical score of 4.7 despite the Leica below it having an optical score of 5; and differing only in close focus score. The weightings seem to favour FOV first, close focus second, and image quality seems to be last priority based on my reading.



Have a nice day.