• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

BVD gives new 8x42 Golden Rings big thumbs up (1 Viewer)

The "new" BVD gives a thumbs up to everything.

LOL

Here I thought I was the only one that noticed that.

The question should be though, is everything that good or do they only choose to review the products that are good to begin with? ;)
 
FrankD said:
LOL

Here I thought I was the only one that noticed that.

The question should be though, is everything that good or do they only choose to review the products that are good to begin with? ;)

BVD points out the weakness'es also, the big point they like was the optics and Leupold does and has had very good optics in spite of their bad points.

You should read the review before you get to critical of BVD.

Jaeger near Chicago
 
Actually, I read the review quite some time ago. It wasn't just posted within the last few days.

I will leave it at that.
 
The subtitle of the review is: "They may not look like much, but make sure you look through them."

Obvious advice for anyone shopping for -- or critiquing -- a binocular, but I have seen many knee-jerk reactions on this forum to new binocular models that don't seem to actually include testing out the bino firsthand.

Frank makes a good point: maybe the new BVD likes to review binoculars that are good in the first place. Perhaps the reasoning is that BVD wants to provide suggestions for binos that are the best for the money -- rather than provide negative information, as in "stay away from this one". All in all, I would trust the new BVD to give an honest review. Wayne Moynes may not be Steve Ingraham, but he is the guy that Ingraham trusted to put in charge of BVD. I think that says a lot.
 
I love Leupold Gold Ring optics. I have Gold Ring scopes on my rifles and I carry a compact Gold Ring spotting scope in my backpack whenever I go afield and I would really like to buy one of the Gold Ring binoculars (but, my wife has vetoed the idea.) So, don't take this as a critique against Leupold...

However, the reviews on BVD have devolved into basically useless advertisements spouting the standard manufacturers' marketing language and highlighting whatever might be good about a particular optic while largely ignoring (or at best excusing) any shortcomings. Sure, perhaps they are in fact trying to stay upbeat and avoid negativity but, that just serves to water down the review and make the reader think, "what is he not telling me?" Not very useful.

What I really loved was that, immediately after taking over for Mr. Ingraham (who leaves to go to work for Zeiss,) his successors announce the crowning of a new "reference standard" in the Zeiss FL knocking the Nikon Venturer (Premier LXL) out of its long held place. (Coincidence? Maybe and then again maybe not.) What was really infuriating is that he did so without even doing a side-by-side comparison of the two.
 
Last edited:
What I really loved was that, immediately after taking over for Mr. Ingraham (who leaves to go to work for Zeiss,) his successors announce the crowning of a new "reference standard" in the Zeiss FL knocking the Nikon Venturer (Premier LXL) out of its long held place. (Coincidence? Maybe and then again maybe not.) What was really infuriating is that he did so without even doing a side-by-side comparison of the two.

That last statement is a very good point. Though there is at least one vague reference comparison in the LXL review (to the FL) very little is said comparing the two. I think that was one of the points brought up in a previous thread concerning the new BVD reviews. Many reviewers would like more comparison pieces or at least sections of a given review that would give an honest comparison.

I am not trying to knock either of the two new BVD reviewers either. I am happy that someone is continuing Mr. Ingraham's work. However the previous BVD reviews seemed to always want to prove the manufacturer's claims before repeating them....or am I the only one that seemed to perceive things in this manner?
 
John Traynor said:
o:) I'm just thankful I own a BVD Overall Best Birding Binocular!
I wrote the above as a bit of humor, implying that BVD isn't what it used to be. The jpgs are enormous, the reviews appear more promotional than analytical, and the site hasn't been organized for a long time. Considering the enormous number of binoculars available in the marketplace, I think it's unrealistic to expect a non-profit site to produce anything but ad-hoc reviews of selected optics. C'est la vie!
John
 
I've always liked BVD. All of its articles and reviews are thorough and informative and, especially when centered on the basics of birding and the choosing and using of binoculars, very educational. That's not bad for what is essentially a part time enterprise. I don't know any other web site that has attempted to do what they have done. They don't have the money or the time to review all the good binoculars that come on the market. In any case, you really aren't going to go wrong in choosing one of their "Reference Standard" finalists or "Products of Special Merit." New models will come around to challenge them. That's progress. They can't review all of them! That's life! Kwitcherbitchun! (Old Pa. dutch proverb!) Translation not needed!

Cordially,
Bob
 
Last edited:
Beware all reviews.

A small group of birders at a local retailer set the following bins on the counter for an impromptu evaluation.
Gold Rings 8X32, 10X32, 10X42 (no 8X42 available)
Leica Ultravid 8X42, 10X42
Leica Trinovid 10X42
Swarovski 7X42 SLCnew (yes, it's been improved)
Zeiss FL 7X42, 8X42

The 7X42 SLCnew was consistently preferred by all!

As hard as I tried, I could not get comfortable with any of the GR's. The other models were easy to use and enjoy.

TO MY EYES, the FL and Ultravid models were marginally brighter and cleaner than the SLC. Others disagreed. The FL is probably the "cleanest" image of all, but it doesn't span the FOV as well as the Ultravid or the SLC (the SLC was by far the best edge-to-edge).

The surprise was that a heavy SLC 7X42new could garner so much approval in the midst of a great selection of optics. Optically, this is not the old SLC 7X42 and the new model is so good it's not surprising so many thought it was the "best" view on the counter.

John
 
Speaking of two thumbs up: My local rental store is full of crappy movies, and they all say "two thumbs up" on the cover.

What John says about the 7x42 SLC should be a good lesson to all: just try everything and pick whatever tickles your pickle.
 
FrankD said:
LOL

Here I thought I was the only one that noticed that.

The question should be though, is everything that good or do they only choose to review the products that are good to begin with? ;)

I've just read the review, and he mentions that he has recently tested quite a few binoculars in the same price range, and he did not like them. So I guess he is only publishing reviews for binoculars that he likes. I thought the review was fine, and he does make some negative comments. If I was in the market for a full size binocular, and based in the US, then I think on the strength of the review I would try and find a GR to try.

Leif
 
QUOTE=lucznik]
However, the reviews on BVD have devolved into basically useless advertisements spouting the standard manufacturers' marketing language and highlighting whatever might be good about a particular optic while largely ignoring (or at best excusing) any shortcomings. Sure, perhaps they are in fact trying to stay upbeat and avoid negativity but, that just serves to water down the review and make the reader think, "what is he not telling me?" Not very useful.
.[/QUOTE]

I have reluctantly to agree. Though I have substantive complaints against the Nikon HG series (see my extensive posts "Nikon 10x42HGLX: Not satisfied"), the BVD review of the LXL does not match the conclusions. I cannot see anything except FOV - not even the universally reviled CA - that the reviewer has found wrong with it. One cannot see why it does not meet the reference standard. Somebody had described the review inaccurately, in my opinion, as damning with faint praise: the practice conforms more to damning after sufficient praise. I regret the turn reviews have taken on BVD. I still look at the site but only till the Ingraham era. Spero meliora
Chhayanat
 
John,

I believe I am going to be doing a similar comparison some time this week. Hopefully your review won't bias my judgement. ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top