Endurance test of binoculars (1 Viewer)

FrankD said:

Eitan,

I think I may have been misintrepreted. I am not downplaying any of the results that Arek posted. He ran some extreme tests and posted his findings.

Click to expand...

I think Arek deserves our thanks.
His tests, which are by no means 'extreme', reflect industry standards and should be readily met by a good quality binocular.
Real stress is the kind of tests inflicted on military binoculars, such as the old Zeiss Jena 7x40 EDF, which according to Holger Merlitz was randomly subjected to:
"5 cycles of temperature changes from -50 deg. Celsius to +60 deg., at 2 hours per cycle, they were sprayed with 27 deg. sea water for 168 hours, were dropped from 75 cm, were exposed to accelerations of 15g at 5-10 ms duration and accelerations of 120g at 1-5 ms duration, kept in 1 meter deep cold water for 1 hour"
Holger, who drew on the research done by Guido Thuernagel in his very informative German language blog
http://www.yasni.de/ext.php?url=htt...tm&name=Guido+Thürnagel&cat=profile&showads=1
does not mention that the water was deliberately held at least 15 degrees C below the temperature of the glass, to help create suction from within the glass, or that the glass also had to stand up to 2 hours of 80 degrees C exposure to ensure the lubricants did not leak out.

In this context, Arek's tests are gentle and his concerns quite well justified.
I recognize that there is a lot of variability to binoculars and his tests were clearly aimed at allowing most glasses to pass comfortably.
He expressed his own surprise at the poor showing of the two Leica models he received.
At a minimum, his tests show that some manufacturers today may have lost the bubble on quality, they may have superb 6 sigma processes, but they produce only marginally good product reliably. Leica in particular has had a very rough time financially in recent years, so they would have been especially vulnerable to the siren song of less waste through higher precision, although that argument gladdens the hearts of accountants everywhere.

FrankD said:

To be honest I found the comment about "leaving it up to the reader" to decide why certain manufacturers chose not to send binoculars for the test more than a bit suggestive.

Click to expand...

Me too. Everyone knows what he is implying, why doesn't he just come out and say it.

Steve

Etudiant,

No disrespect intended but the conditions are extreme from my standpoint. I have never subjected my binoculars to the types of conditions represented in the test. That is not to say that others don't but my opinion is that the people that do are a very small percentage of the binocular-using public.

FrankD said:

Etudiant,

No disrespect intended but the conditions are extreme from my standpoint. I have never subjected my binoculars to the types of conditions represented in the test. That is not to say that others don't but my opinion is that the people that do are a very small percentage of the binocular-using public.

Click to expand...

I think most of the ''extreme'' tests are to replicate accidents, that can happen to anyone anytime.

Dropping a bin in the water or ground, forgetting it in a hot or cold car - I have done all of these and I think many others have as well.

That is something I would not disagree with.

james holdsworth said:

I think most of the ''extreme'' tests are to replicate accidents, that can happen to anyone anytime.

Dropping a bin in the water or ground, forgetting it in a hot or cold car - I have done all of these and I think many others have as well.

Click to expand...

James:

I agree with you in explaining how many here can use the Allbinos review.

You covered it very well.

Jerry

My brother dropped his Nikon 8x42 Monarch out of a tree stand 30 ft up and is still using it, granted it had to fall right and not on something hard.

James sums it up very well. Nearly all the favourable comments on the test seen in this thread I agree with. The chief point against it is the danger of the sample of one each. Steve explains the remedy. A practicable (at least somewhat!) way would be to get three each, from three dealers - or one/two if they're willing!

For those riled by "their" makes doing badly, and for useful info. to get a wider picture, I'd suggest people chip in here with contrary experiences, i.e. of makes not rating well in the test demonstrating high endurance, and vice versa to balance out sampling error.

For years I used as my main bin a Nikon WP RA II / Mountaineer 8x25 reverse-porro which suffered much abuse at my hands - or out of them as below! - (unintended I plead). I had removed the rubber armouring to reduce weight, in that condition it fell two three times on to solid rock from about 2½ ft / 0.75 m high, and nothing happened. The model was under-priced for its eventual production costs and quality, so the accountants mentioned above had their way and soon discontinued it.

Steve C said:

I will also extend thanks for the test, but I will also have to say this is really pretty meaningless. In order for this to have any statistical significance, the same test would have to be performed multiple times, each time with a different sample of all of the models tested. When the point is reached that testing a different sample of each model sees the average score result remain unchanged even if the sample is either high or low spec, then the result will come closer to significance. In this sort of a test, what will be most telling is how few or how many samples of a particular binocular needed to be tested before hitting the unchanged average.

How quickly dennis dives off into the insanity side of life is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It so hilarious how everybody tries to blow off any type of test or review when there little Zen Ray or other model doesn't score so good. It is not statistically significant or I would never expose my binoculars to such harsh treatment. Baloney! It is easy to drop a pair of binoculars or by accident leave them in your hot car or drop them in the river and sometimes you have to use them in cold weather. The fact is you drop your Zen Rays and they are broke. You drop your Zeiss and they aren't. Some people on this forum are in the manufacturers pocket and I hope other members realize that.

As usual on BF, most (some are just plain spurious and silly - but we all know who they are, and treat those comments with the disdain they deserve) of the points put forward, even though sometimes diametrically opposed are valid - it just depends on your point of view.

For example:
SteveC is correct in saying that these 'one-off' tests aren't statistically relevant. Furthermore, they are open to all sorts subtle, unintended, or even intended manipulations by a variety of parties, no matter how good the intentions. That said, they are an honest attempt at providing some data. Others proffer that these 'one-offs' reflect the consumer lottery (not everyone can physically hands-on trial a particular individual unit when purchasing - even though they may have hands-on approved the type - this is becoming more prevalent with the move to online trading v's traditional bricks and mortar distribution channels). Both views are valid in my books.

FrankD says that the tests don't reflect real life, and I think most here would treat their bins with a degree of kindness (short of the zombies being released, or encounters with random black bears or cranky buck kangaroos - in which case the use of the bin as a defensive implement may take precedence!). Careless neglect, or accidental incidents that go beyond a mere bump or a knock, are also part of the norm, and so the view that attempted replication of that, as Eitan, James and others have expressed, is also equally valid in my book.

You could pretty much dedicate an entire forum to testing methodology and experiment design. The crux of the matter is to try and simulate some of this real world stuff, in a controlled, repeatable, scientific fashion. Think of 'extremes', or 'harshness' in terms of 'accelerated testing' in order to deliver data in a reasonable time frame (any manufacturer worth their salt would be doing likewise anyway). So again, I can agree with both points of view.

Mil spec this, and Mil spec that, might be fantastic tests and design criteria in their field - but we are mostly birders, and so the weight criteria is often critical. Likewise we purchase with our own hard-earned - not some public, or corporate bottomless slush fund - so cost is also a factor. Within that triumvirate somethings gotta be compromised ...... and so the product offerings evolve to be fit for purpose AND satisfy the particular market demand. You can't have a bin built like a tank unless it weighs like /or costs like one.

Some of the manufacturers are making (and advertising) claims of product performance to some pretty rigourous standards. Holding that to test, as we do here on BF with other performance criteria (view, weight, precision, cost, etc, etc), is a valid market response to desired knowledge and improved product offerings.


Chosun :gh:

[email protected] said:

It so hilarious how everybody tries to blow off any type of test or review when there little Zen Ray or other model doesn't score so good. It is not statistically significant or I would never expose my binoculars to such harsh treatment. Baloney! It is easy to drop a pair of binoculars or by accident leave them in your hot car or drop them in the river and sometimes you have to use them in cold weather. The fact is you drop your Zen Rays and they are broke. You drop your Zeiss and they aren't. Some people on this forum are in the manufacturers pocket and I hope other members realize that.

Click to expand...

You are the hilarious one here. I did not mention a single brand name. You did that.

You have no idea in the world what tests I may or may not have done on my personal glass. I have mentioned a time or two in the past that I have hung my ZEN ED 2's, I have the 7x36 and 10x43, in the water trough and have left them to freeze overnight in sub zero winter weather. They are both as bright and tight as when they came out of the box. My post about statistical significance has nothing to do with my personal preferences or choices in binoculars. I do not attach earth shaking significance to the fact that an eye cup covering fell off an inexpensive binocular. For example my 7x36 has been my ranch binocular and has lived during growing season 24/7 on the 4 Wheeler. It stays there, in a case and with lens covers, but it has been from 20* to 120* multiple times, sometimes on the same day too. The 4 wheeler stays parked in an open machine shed during the night. It has been shaken and vibrated to a fairly extensive degree. My work and profession is irrigation management so that glass has been wet and muddy more times in its life than you have. My post was not about defense of ZR binoculars. It was about my opinion of statistical significance.

The score for the glass in the test was what it was. The parameters of the test were what they were, and I feel the guys at Allbinos reported what they saw in the manner they indicated they did the test. My opinion remains the rank on ALL OF THE BINOCULARS IN THE TEST can not be held as statistically meaningful on the basis of the results of a torture test performed on JUST ONE SAMPLE OF EACH OF THE BINOCULARS IN THE TEST. I grant the fact that it is a daunting task to undertake the test with multiple samples. I said nothing whatsoever about any agreement or disagreement I may or may not have with the way they ranked the binoculars. You somehow made that inference all by yourself.

Is that plain enough dennis?

You have made several inferences about being in manufacturer's pockets. We all await your proof of the accusation.

You were clueless yesterday, you are clueless today, and will remain clueless tomorrow. Your opinion (or lack thereof on matters optical) has nothing to do with my use of the word clueless.

PS dennis, I also know the difference between the words there and their.

Steve C said:

You are the hilarious one here. I did not mention a single brand name. You did that.

You have no idea in the world what tests I may or may not have done on my personal glass. I have mentioned a time or two in the past that I have hung my ZEN ED 2's, I have the 7x36 and 10x43, in the water trough and have left them to freeze overnight in sub zero winter weather. They are both as bright and tight as when they came out of the box. My post about statistical significance has nothing to do with my personal preferences or choices in binoculars. I do not attach earth shaking significance to the fact that an eye cup covering fell off an inexpensive binocular. For example my 7x36 has been my ranch binocular and has lived during growing season 24/7 on the 4 Wheeler. It stays there, in a case and with lens covers, but it has been from 20* to 120* multiple times, sometimes on the same day too. The 4 wheeler stays parked in an open machine shed during the night. It has been shaken and vibrated to a fairly extensive degree. My work and profession is irrigation management so that glass has been wet and muddy more times in its life than you have. My post was not about defense of ZR binoculars. It was about my opinion of statistical significance.

The score for the glass in the test was what it was. The parameters of the test were what they were, and I feel the guys at Allbinos reported what they saw in the manner they indicated they did the test. My opinion remains the rank on ALL OF THE BINOCULARS IN THE TEST can not be held as statistically meaningful on the basis of the results of a torture test performed on JUST ONE SAMPLE OF EACH OF THE BINOCULARS IN THE TEST. I grant the fact that it is a daunting task to undertake the test with multiple samples. I said nothing whatsoever about any agreement or disagreement I may or may not have with the way they ranked the binoculars. You somehow made that inference all by yourself.

Is that plain enough dennis?

You have made several inferences about being in manufacturer's pockets. We all await your proof of the accusation.

You were clueless yesterday, you are clueless today, and will remain clueless tomorrow. Your opinion (or lack thereof on matters optical) has nothing to do with my use of the word clueless.

PS dennis, I also know the difference between the words there and their.

Click to expand...

"My opinion remains the rank on ALL OF THE BINOCULARS IN THE TEST can not be held as statistically meaningful on the basis of the results of a torture test performed on JUST ONE SAMPLE OF EACH OF THE BINOCULARS IN THE TEST"

A Zeiss or Swarovski should not vary that much in quality. Each one is inspected many times. I don't think in reality you are going to get one that is going be THAT different from the next in areas especially of durability. These alpha manufacturers just don't put the wrong cheaper eyecup or the wrong grease in the binocular. To discount this review because of reasoning like that is senseless.You would have to be an idiot not to see there is a difference in the quality of a Zen Ray and a Swarovski or Zeiss just by looking at them so it makes perfect sense that they would be more durable. The testing was valid and It was just what I would expect.

Ok, I surrender to the BF humor factor.

Without evidence, many are accepting someone's word that they "tested" a bunch of bins, evaluated them and then ranked them based on a numerical scoring system that is so ill-defined it boggles the imagination.

Why isn't there a simple video summarizing methodologies employed by the "testers"? Cabelas has one and it's pretty convincing.
http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/vide...87&embedCode=NxNWdrNTqDvXoMAxlCi7FQ-7VlZb7MaI
How about the same from Allbinos? Surely, the technology is not that daunting.

A couple of points...
I don't see any science in their methodology. If I'm missing something, please advise.
I can cause any Ultravid, Duovid or Trinovid to leak underwater. Can you?
And last, but not least...show me the money trail!

Caveat Emptor

Pileatus said:

Ok, I surrender to the BF humor factor.

Without evidence, many are accepting someone's word that they "tested" a bunch of bins, evaluated them and then ranked them based on a numerical scoring system that is so ill-defined it boggles the imagination.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is at all fair.
Arek does not claim to run a statistically bulletproof 'Consumers Report' lab, by all indications his is a labor of love, done on a shoe string.
His tests were certainly much better defined than the famous Peter Dunne toss it and see experiment, plus they reflect reasonably likely service experiences.
He provides helpful input for shoppers who are not binocular fanatics. Those buyers have very little to go on except the interchangeable marketing hype of the sellers.

Pileatus said:

I can cause any Ultravid, Duovid or Trinovid to leak underwater. Can you?

Click to expand...

As I understand difficult English language you rather clearly suggest that results were simply faked...
Wow...

Pileatus said:

Why isn't there a simple video summarizing methodologies employed by the "testers"? Cabelas has one and it's pretty convincing.

Click to expand...

Having in mind above conclusion I can hardly imagine that any video may convince you that two specific Leicas acted as open bottles without any "help" from testers. Technology of faking videos is pretty developed too, isn't it?

Well, on Polish site optyczne.pl Arek wrote, that publishing it in english will surely cause "fake theory" (not only )... nothing unusual ;-) Why? Ohh, open yoyr imagination..

etudiant said:

I don't think that is at all fair.
Arek does not claim to run a statistically bulletproof 'Consumers Report' lab, by all indications his is a labor of love, done on a shoe string.
His tests were certainly much better defined than the famous Peter Dunne toss it and see experiment, plus they reflect reasonably likely service experiences.
He provides helpful input for shoppers who are not binocular fanatics. Those buyers have very little to go on except the interchangeable marketing hype of the sellers.

Click to expand...

Can you prove anything you've written in this post?

R.B. said:

As I understand difficult English language you rather clearly suggest that results were simply faked...
Wow...


Having in mind above conclusion I can hardly imagine that any video may convince you that two specific Leicas acted as open bottles without any "help" from testers. Technology of faking videos is pretty developed too, isn't it?

Well, on Polish site optyczne.pl Arek wrote, that publishing it in english will surely cause "fake theory" (not only )... nothing unusual ;-) Why? Ohh, open yoyr imagination..

Click to expand...

I suggested nothing of the kind. I simply asked if anyone knows how to "sink" a working Ultravid, Duovid or Trinovid? Leica owners should know.

The Cabelas video at least puts their reputation on the line. Can you imagine the pushback if it was found to be fakery?

My point is that nothing Allbinos says is verified by a second source. Furthermore, they hinted that if a manufacturer did not submit a bin for testing they had something to hide. Why did they write that? I don't know, do you?

Personally I don't find the test conditions "extreme."

-22 C = -7.6 F. I'm quite certain I've used binoculars at that temp, and for long enough periods of time for the bino to equalize with the ambient temp. I don't remember the details, though. I was probably anxious to get back inside.

60 C = 140 F, and that's a typical summertime, closed vehicle temp. I try never to leave optics in that situation, but it probably happens.

If a manufacturer claims 500 cm waterproof, then 50 cm should be smooth sailing, right?

The drop test is problematic, however. No clear science here. The closest you could do would be to drop something on the binoculars, not the other way around. Still, eliminating chance and sample variation would be daunting. Not to mention that in real-world accidents you couldn't repeat the results if you tried.

Personally, I wouldn't decide on a binocular purchase based on these results. But I wouldn't say they're useless either. I found it rather interesting.

I have a Zeiss, 2 Swaros, a Leica, and a Zen. Has this test changed my mind about any of them? Not so much.

Mark

PS: the suggestion on the part of Allbinos that manufacturers had something to hide by not participating is unfortunate. I ignored it and suggest others do the same.

Pileatus said:

I suggested nothing of the kind.

Click to expand...

It's nice to hear that you believe that two Leicas sunk "naturally"

Pileatus said:

The Cabelas video at least puts their reputation on the line. Can you imagine the pushback if it was found to be fakery?

Click to expand...

More or less the same if Allbinos' results was found to be fakery.

Pileatus said:

My point is that nothing Allbinos says is verified by a second source.

Click to expand...

Is video a second source?

Pileatus said:

Furthermore, they hinted that if a manufacturer did not submit a bin for testing they had something to hide. Why did they write that? I don't know, do you?

Click to expand...

I do not like these suggestions either. (I have nothing in common - except nationality - with testers).

Pileatus said:

Furthermore, they hinted that if a manufacturer did not submit a bin for testing they had something to hide. Why did they write that? I don't know, do you?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I found the inference that any manufacturer that didn't participate was probably "hiding" something problematic as well. I certainly hope it wasn't a case of "you didn't offer a bino for testing so now I'll blacklist you" type of response, that would be very petty indeed.

Steve