scampo
Steve Campsall
I have to say that the recent Bird Watching scope test left me feeling that recent magazine reviews of optical equipment are more than a little wanting. So far as I can see, most people now buy a new scope complete with a zoom eyepiece, so... surely it would have been far more useful to comment in particular on the different qualities of just these eyepieces?
I have re-read that article a number of times and, being generous, it seems to me that what it offers is at best a generalised commentary from which it is impossible to discern very much that is truly certain or useful (except that one of the reviewers "just wanted more...!" of the Swarovski!).
It seems to me that if we are going to choose a zoom eyepiece (and I think that most people do), it needs to be sharp and clear; but it surely also needs to give a wide field of view? This is where I think that we have perhaps lost the plot: a wide field of view must logically offer a higher chance of locating a bird; and mean much less reverting to binoculars or the naked eye to relocate a bird (and thus increase the chance of missing it altogether). I have calculated the actual area that can be seeen through each scope fitted with a zoom eyepiece:
Zeiss (20x): 1452 sq.m.
Swarovski (20x): 1018 sq.m.
Kowa (20x): 962 sq.m.
Leica (20x): 908 sq. m.
Nikon (25x): 615 sq.m.
Now tell me if I am wrong, but if a manufacturer tried to sell a pair of binoculars with 50% less FOV than its nearest competitor, wouldn't the magazine reviewers have a field day. Yet not with scopes? How very odd... Am I missing something, I wonder?
It seems to me that from the above list, we don't need a magazine to tell us what conclusions to draw. It's also interesting to consider now how some manufacturers might well be able to offer an apparently sharper and flatter image at the extreme edges of the view (however unimportant such a thing in practice really is!).
Perhaps that particular reviewer who wanted "more" should have realised that what he really wanted "more" of - at least more of what would help his birdwatching - was the view he could see through the scope?
Food for thought. And, I wonder, why Zeiss have not been shouting this aspect of their amazing zoom eyepiece from the rooftops. It's surely a unique selling point if ever there was one!
I have re-read that article a number of times and, being generous, it seems to me that what it offers is at best a generalised commentary from which it is impossible to discern very much that is truly certain or useful (except that one of the reviewers "just wanted more...!" of the Swarovski!).
It seems to me that if we are going to choose a zoom eyepiece (and I think that most people do), it needs to be sharp and clear; but it surely also needs to give a wide field of view? This is where I think that we have perhaps lost the plot: a wide field of view must logically offer a higher chance of locating a bird; and mean much less reverting to binoculars or the naked eye to relocate a bird (and thus increase the chance of missing it altogether). I have calculated the actual area that can be seeen through each scope fitted with a zoom eyepiece:
Zeiss (20x): 1452 sq.m.
Swarovski (20x): 1018 sq.m.
Kowa (20x): 962 sq.m.
Leica (20x): 908 sq. m.
Nikon (25x): 615 sq.m.
Now tell me if I am wrong, but if a manufacturer tried to sell a pair of binoculars with 50% less FOV than its nearest competitor, wouldn't the magazine reviewers have a field day. Yet not with scopes? How very odd... Am I missing something, I wonder?
It seems to me that from the above list, we don't need a magazine to tell us what conclusions to draw. It's also interesting to consider now how some manufacturers might well be able to offer an apparently sharper and flatter image at the extreme edges of the view (however unimportant such a thing in practice really is!).
Perhaps that particular reviewer who wanted "more" should have realised that what he really wanted "more" of - at least more of what would help his birdwatching - was the view he could see through the scope?
Food for thought. And, I wonder, why Zeiss have not been shouting this aspect of their amazing zoom eyepiece from the rooftops. It's surely a unique selling point if ever there was one!
Last edited: