This USA based gear testing organization just published their 2023 binocular test and recommendations. I was a bit stunned as much of this reviews appear extremely biased and inaccurate. They even got basic specs like FOV wrong, and claimed that the scientifically measured brightness of the Zeiss SF (as measured) lagged significantly behind both the Swarovski EL and Leica Noctivid. Unfortunately, reviews like this are rarely challenged, and many will just take for granted that because these folks are a review organization (mainly focused on camping gear) that whatever they publish is gospel. Take a look and draw your own conclusions.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Outdoor Gear Lab Binocular Test????? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AlphaFan
- Start date
To be fair compared to most of the 'best binoculars' review sites it's one of the better ones - the rankings are reasonable and the comments on strengths and weaknesses not unreasonable. The main issue is the small selection of models shortlisted and lack of comparisons between models of similar spec.
@Richard D., did you actually read the article, how they tested and what they concluded? “To be fair” when a reviewer bases conclusions on data that is demonstrably inaccurate (such as FOV, eye relief, etc) and combines that with observations on Ease of Adjustment (which they mostly base on the focus mechanism) that run counter to the obvious, I have to question their objectivity and accuracy. Would also be interesting to see if Gijs ever tested the brightness of the SF and found it significantly lagging both the EL and Noctivid.
I’ve been following Outdoor Gear Lab for years and often scour their reviews when in the market for camping gear - tents, sleeping pads, hard shell, etc. However, I have noticed their Editor’s Choice in optics quite often show Swarovski and Vortex the clear choice in optics - no matter what review criteria is considered. Those are the two of the biggest advertisers of sport optics here in the USA - makes one wonder???
Yes I read the article and can find several 'best binocular' articles that are worse.
The tests are somewhat subjective and they make that clear - they also as I noted in my comment don't compare binoculars of the same spec - it's not surprising they found the 8.5x42 slightly brighter than 10x42's, but I can't see where they said the SFs were significantly lagging behind. In fact they said "Comparing these binos to the other high-end models, the Swarovski EL is just a little bit brighter than the other two, as you can see in the picture above. However, this difference is minor, and only really apparent in a strict side-by-side comparison should you have all these premium models available to you."
I think you're expectations of a general gear guide are overly high - they're not a specialist optics site.
You’re right that they are certainly not optics specialists, but they do go on quite a bit about how they went to great lengths to be accurate and limit subjectivity. However, even getting basic specs wrong in a published evaluation is quite shoddy. Unfortunately, since this site is fairly well known many will absorb its findings as ground-truth.
See the table below from their review. They rate the brightness of the SF significantly below the EL and Noctivid, and even below the Nikon M5 and Vortex Diamondback. The House of Outdoor tests on the EL, SF, and Noctivid have them all very close in brightness. It all just leads me to conclude the evaluatIons are either biased or the tests poorly structured, maybe both.
Last edited:
It's not a controlled transmission test though - if you look at the methodology it includes low light performance regardless of objective size and colour saturation. Pretty much all the binoculars above the Zeiss are 8x42 against the Zeiss 10x42 - you'd expect 8x42s to fair much better in low light. The only real surprise is that the Noctvid did so well, but that might have scored well for colour saturation.
The testing methodology is simplistic, the conclusions are pretty simplistic but I'm not seeing anything particularly surprising given their stated methods.
The testing methodology is simplistic, the conclusions are pretty simplistic but I'm not seeing anything particularly surprising given their stated methods.
Cannot believe you are continuing to defend this - the tests performed here are overwhelmingly subjective junk. I once had a professor of economic statistics in graduate school who would delight in demonstrating how to create misleading results by performing the the wrong kind of test or applying an incorrect or biased hypothesis on data. All of the math worked but the conclusions were dead wrong or grossly misleading. He certainly would have been amused by OGL’s eval. But if you’re personally satisfied with the objectivity and veracity I’ll just have to accept that.
However, if an individual posted this evaluation and conclusions here on Birdform I’d be prepared for volumes of pushback and scrutiny.
However, if an individual posted this evaluation and conclusions here on Birdform I’d be prepared for volumes of pushback and scrutiny.
Yes - they're subjective and they're not trying to hide that. The methodolgy is clearly presented- if you don't like the methodology used don't draw anything from their conclusions. I've made to claims as the tests objectivity - they're clearly not, but I've not seen anything to obviously call into question the tests veracity within their defined methodology. Would I rely on their tests or find them useful - personally no. There are plenty of sites, and posts on here than are subjective evaluations - nothing wrong with that if you're only wanting subjective information. If I was wanting technical assessments I'd use Gijs's test, rather than expecting a general outdoors site to provide it.
If your target audience is a general purpose binocular for general wildlife I really don't see anything horribly wrong with their overall conclusions based on the models they've tested and I'm in anyway familiar with. I think most site users would probably expect the top 3 to be the same with maybe some arguement over the exact order, depending on what characteristics they find most useful.
Looking at their jacket reviews they're equally subjective - with no lab analysis of breathability or waterproofness. It's a generalist subjective site like many others - I honestly can't understand why this one is being singled out - there are plenty of worse 'top 10 sites' that aren't transparent over their testing methodology.
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
Perhaps it’s because they’re calling themselves a “Lab” without doing any form of objective testing? Their name might be raising expectations that their methods fail to meet.
No skin off my nose: I’m just guessing at why some are annoyed by them.
…Mike
WJC
Well-known member
And the reasons these ludicrous “reviews” are rarely challenged is 5-fold.
1) Most people don’t care. They think binoculars are to look through ... not at.
2) Most of those who do care are optically clueless, believe everything they see in print, and aggressive charlatans know that.
3) Also, those who DO care and ARE NOT optically clueless feel no need to sugar coat the truth so as not to offend people from group #2.
4) Binocular forums are not safe places for those who know what they’re talking about because too many want their ludicrous opinions to be taken as fact and will lash out to make it so, no matter how many times it has already been proven to be false. (see below)
5) Then those in power, who also don’t know what they’re talking about, will take the side of the people in #4 just to keep peace in the financially rewarding sandbox at all costs. Truth be damned!
Attachments
Last edited:
