Scope survey. (1 Viewer)

andytyle · May 5, 2004

Leif said:
Chris: I suspect the reason why most birding review sites such as BVD do not mention more than one or two astro. scopes at most is simple: most astro scopes make poor spotting scopes. They are heavy, cumbersome, with an inverted reflected image, do not have convenient stay on cases to allow them to be carried over the shoulder, and they are not waterproofed. No doubt some people do accept the inconvenience, get great views, and disagree with what I say, but that is not for most of us.

The Pentax ED 80 scope is I guess a sort of cross-over instrument, and I met an amateur astronomer who owned one and raved about it, but birders seem to have been unimpressed. Maybe poor quality control? Or maybe something about the image 'feel'?

Regarding pupil dilation, there's an interesting study that was done by an amateur astronomer. I don't think it was done in a proper controlled manner, but it's interesting nonetheless:

http://www.btow.com.au/pdf/agwa/agwa-September-2003.pdf

If this is to be believed, the effect of age is not as marked as might be feared. In fact the worst hit is taken before the age of 40. To me the most interesting aspect of the graph is not the average, but the spread which is huge, meaning that the average value is not such a useful concept as it is potentially misleading.

I mentioned low light performance as I see a huge variation between otherwise equivalent instruments. What's more the (significantly) more expensive instrument is not necessarily the best performer in low light. I am not surprised that a Zeiss 8x30 BGAT can perform as well as a Nikon 8x42 Egret in low light. The latter is a cheap instrument with probably large losses in the light path. I am surprised that a Nikon 8x42 Egret walks over a Viking 8x42 given the similar purchase prices. I am also surprised that a Nikon 8x32 SE can match a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. Many astronomy books say that binoculars for use on the night sky should have at least 40mm objectives, but in practice as you suggest, it is better to test each instrument rather than generalise. For me the 'brightness' of an instrument is an important aspect, but often not mentioned except vaguely and in passing.

Can't explain about the Pentax scope. The eyepieces are excellent, the OG is very good. Maybe Pentax is not a fashionable name in birding. Markets are so fickle.

The pupil paper is interesting. I have seen it before somewhere, or one like it. I think the rate at which your pupil slowly closes during life varies with several things, one being genes, however, medical and opthalmic studies I have seen in journals before, point to a general trend in pupil reduction during life. I always advise people to think about their eyes/aperture/magnification when choosing a binocular.

Chris

jebir · May 5, 2004

A couple of thoughts regarding this discussion:

1) As optics obey the laws of classical physics to an arbitrary precision, it must be clear that the performance of any scope can be measured and declared in absolute numbers.

2) One problem is that manufacturers doesn't present the performance in a standard way and many neglect to declare some common parameters. The most commonly presented parameters like; magnification, FOV, AFOV, ER, EP, etc, all represents the geometry of the optics, i.e., how the image appears ("tube-like", "wide angle" etc.). If available, it should definitely be very easy to compare these numbers between different scopes. The problem here is that not many birders can translate the numbers to how it will look like in the scope. This is most likely due to the fact that buying a scope is a once-in-a-lifetime event for most people and, in addition, most birders doesn't live in a place where they have access to an array of scopes to compare with and gain experience from. That is why reviews, tests, and fora like this one are necessary. I just wish that the reviewers/testers more often would complete their analyses by discussing how the good features of the tested scopes are related to the values of the parameters presented by the manufacturers.

3) The geometric parameters presented by the manufacturers doesn't say anything about the quality of the image seen by the eye. Very few manufacturers (of spotting scopes) ever attempt to put a number on their resolution limit, show a transmission spectrum, a contrast transfer function, or even declare the accuracy of their optics shape. They merely rely on the reputation of their names for this. However, as also features influencing the image quality can be quantified, there should be no problem for the manufacturers in presenting such numbers or curves. If we just could get the information, the experience of these numbers would grow within the birding community, and we could sooner or later also learn how to interpret the data and make a judgement of the scope.

4) As long as we don't have access to these numbers, independent reviews, tests, and feedback through user fora remains the only way for most people to judge the scopes presented to us - often as an image on the Internet with a "one-click-add-to shopping-cart" button next to it.

My 2 X:s,

Jens

andytyle · May 5, 2004

jebir said:
A couple of thoughts regarding this discussion:

1) As optics obey the laws of classical physics to an arbitrary precision, it must be clear that the performance of any scope can be measured and declared in absolute numbers.

2) One problem is that manufacturers doesn't present the performance in a standard way and many neglect to declare some common parameters. The most commonly presented parameters like; magnification, FOV, AFOV, ER, EP, etc, all represents the geometry of the optics, i.e., how the image appears ("tube-like", "wide angle" etc.). If available, it should definitely be very easy to compare these numbers between different scopes. The problem here is that not many birders can translate the numbers to how it will look like in the scope. This is most likely due to the fact that buying a scope is a once-in-a-lifetime event for most people and, in addition, most birders doesn't live in a place where they have access to an array of scopes to compare with and gain experience from. That is why reviews, tests, and fora like this one are necessary. I just wish that the reviewers/testers more often would complete their analyses by discussing how the good features of the tested scopes are related to the values of the parameters presented by the manufacturers.

3) The geometric parameters presented by the manufacturers doesn't say anything about the quality of the image seen by the eye. Very few manufacturers (of spotting scopes) ever attempt to put a number on their resolution limit, show a transmission spectrum, a contrast transfer function, or even declare the accuracy of their optics shape. They merely rely on the reputation of their names for this. However, as also features influencing the image quality can be quantified, there should be no problem for the manufacturers in presenting such numbers or curves. If we just could get the information, the experience of these numbers would grow within the birding community, and we could sooner or later also learn how to interpret the data and make a judgement of the scope.

4) As long as we don't have access to these numbers, independent reviews, tests, and feedback through user fora remains the only way for most people to judge the scopes presented to us - often as an image on the Internet with a "one-click-add-to shopping-cart" button next to it.

My 2 X:s,

Jens

Point 1. Correct. Interferometer report.

Point 2. I agree.

Point 3. I agree wholeheartedly. Its all about awareness amongst the birding community. I have been saying this for over 15 years in one way or another. At the moment we get reviews by magazines and internet sites. Judging by the language used, it seems clear that little fundamental knowledge of optics is held by those completing the reviews. First time, and second time purchasers place a lot of trust in the reviews. However, there are more things to consider - Advertising revenue, it does not pay to upset the big players, particularly if they are paying £1000 for a colour page ad every month. A cynical view? or one from experience? Advertising revenue allows the magazines to carry on existing. Revenue from copy sales alone would mean the magazine is not profitable.
The problem is, I am not sure that the birding market as a whole would welcome a high level optical shop approach to reviewing optics. It is appropriate to astronomy, because as a percentage of the whole maket it is nearly everything, (apart from a few books) hence the intense interest.
In birding however, you also have birding holidays, clothes, books, pagers, sound recording gear, travelling costs (if you are a regular twitcher) and lots of other associated products. Look how many different products are on sale at the Birdfair in the UK. The birding market itself is much larger in the UK than astronomy, but commercially, the market is diluted over a greater broader range of associated products. Birders are not just intense about their optics. I doubt whether the market media would welcome something they do not understand or have complete control over. I also know a few distributors of optics in the UK, that would shrink from the prospect of anything other than marketing on the back of a dodgy review to sell their wares. I tried it once and got my fingers rapped.

Point 4. True, sadly.

Chris

Atricapilla · May 5, 2004

Unfortunately I missed the Scope Survey could someone tell me where the Leica Apo 77 came in the ratings,thanks in anticipation

Adey Baker · May 5, 2004

On the subject of advertising revenue in magazines:

Not quite the same product as 'scopes but, a few weeks ago 'Amateur Photographer' magazine gave a less than favourable (i.e. downright hostile!) review of the Sony F828 digi-camera - in the same issue that had a full colour advert of that product on the back page!

OK, 'AP' is probably a much more robust title than any of the birding mags but at least it shows that it can be done.

The flip side, of course, is that whilst you may lose money from a poor review there's always the chance that an unexpectedly favourable review may bring in extra revenue - years ago, when 'British Birds' gave 'rave-reviews' on the then almost unknown (in the UK) Discoverer scope they were rewarded with years of extra advertising, afterwards!

There's obviously some real experts here on this thread - I wonder if any of the birding magazines would dare hire them as consultants in their future optical tests. At least we know that we could trust them.

andytyle · May 5, 2004

Adey Baker said:
On the subject of advertising revenue in magazines:

Not quite the same product as 'scopes but, a few weeks ago 'Amateur Photographer' magazine gave a less than favourable (i.e. downright hostile!) review of the Sony F828 digi-camera - in the same issue that had a full colour advert of that product on the back page!

OK, 'AP' is probably a much more robust title than any of the birding mags but at least it shows that it can be done.

The flip side, of course, is that whilst you may lose money from a poor review there's always the chance that an unexpectedly favourable review may bring in extra revenue - years ago, when 'British Birds' gave 'rave-reviews' on the then almost unknown (in the UK) Discoverer scope they were rewarded with years of extra advertising, afterwards!

There's obviously some real experts here on this thread - I wonder if any of the birding magazines would dare hire them as consultants in their future optical tests. At least we know that we could trust them.

Dave Cromack of Birdwatching Magazine knows me, he does not feel comfortable with my reviews and style. I once did a 'Birdwatching Magazine summing up' type review in the magazine of all the compact binoculars, (back in the early 1990s). The B&L Custom 7X26 compacts did not get included in the review, at the time they were the best optically. The binocular that gave the best image in the review was the Opticron 7X24 MCF, even better than Zeiss and Leica 8X compacts, Nikon and B&L compacts. Owners of Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and B&L complained (some turned up at my shop - insecurity is a powerful emotion). One or two distributors let their feelings be known. It was decided that appeasment type reviews were better from then on. I guess it is the same today, I don't get to see many Bird magazines these days.

Chris

jebir · May 5, 2004

Why do we need reviews by people at magazines?

I have the feeling that we could arrange test session with volonteer "experts" that should be as good as any one arranged by a commercial magazines.
We could gather at some hot birding spot, bringing our (paid) scopes, and take advantage of the knowledge within the community. (A side effect would be that we could learn about eventual problems occurring after some use.)

The Internet is most likely reaching a very large fraction of all birders shopping for a scope. So if the conclusion of such non-commercial tests/reviews were presented in a forum like this one, it should become very well received.

Maybe the consequence would be that some sponsors of the site disappear and some other take their place...

Cheers, Jens

Leif · May 5, 2004

jebir said:
Why do we need reviews by people at magazines?

I have the feeling that we could arrange test session with volonteer "experts" that should be as good as any one arranged by a commercial magazines.
We could gather at some hot birding spot, bringing our (paid) scopes, and take advantage of the knowledge within the community. (A side effect would be that we could learn about eventual problems occurring after some use.)

The Internet is most likely reaching a very large fraction of all birders shopping for a scope. So if the conclusion of such non-commercial tests/reviews were presented in a forum like this one, it should become very well received.

Maybe the consequence would be that some sponsors of the site disappear and some other take their place...

Cheers, Jens

It would certainly be interesting esp. trying several samples of the same scope. I would be intrigued to see if I could see any sample variation between 3 or more scopes at ~30x. It would also be interesting to see if we could find any scopes with obvious optical faults such as astigmatism. Mind you, the other day even at 32x the image through my scope was dancing about in the heat haze!

I've found many Internet reviews to be very helpful as a guide to what to look for, and as a means to create a short list. The great thing about the Internet is the wealth of knowledge and experience out there. Okay so some reviews are little more than sales ploys but it's fairly obvious which they are. I have found many reviews, including those by Steve Ingraham on BVD, to be very useful indeed. These days among birders there is a fashion for roof prism binoculars and Steve has been a welcome and vocal advocate of porro prism binoculars. He has also made very useful comments on the comparative brightness and resolution of various binoculars, and the results are far from obvious. If only magazine reviews made such useful comments.

Sometimes it can be hard to pick up on a fault such as flare in low light, and a decent review from someone who has used an instrument for an extended amount of time should pick up such faults. That perhaps is the value of this forum. I suspect that wise manufacturers have their ear to the Internet to find out what users like and, crucially, dislike about their products.

Leif · May 5, 2004

Another point that I forgot to make, is that most dealers tend to stock a limited selection of instruments. If a lot of people make coo-ing noises about one or two instruments, then it can be worth taking the trouble to seek out a dealer that stocks those specific instruments, as well as the usual suspects.

Unfortunately although many specialist dealers can be helpful and honest, I have found many to give advice that is plain wrong, and one was probably giving nothing more than his 'I want to sell my current stock and I'll rubbish brands I don't sell' sales pitch. A couple told me that the Nikon 8x32 SE is noticeably inferior to roof prism binoculars from Leica et al. Nonsense.

Leif · May 5, 2004

jebir said:
Maybe the consequence would be that some sponsors of the site disappear and some other take their place...

Cheers, Jens

I suspect that most respected manufacturers would welcome honest reviews as I don't think they have anything to hide.

andytyle · May 5, 2004

Leif said:
I suspect that most respected manufacturers would welcome honest reviews as I don't think they have anything to hide.

This is partly true, however, if we really got down to the fundamental problems of mass produced instruments, and highlighted what these are, we would soon become a major annoyance to the vast majority of the optics producing market. The unfortunate truth is that unless progress or change is profitable, it will not happen. Marketing new ideas, empty hype, transparent sales exercises are profitable, not fixing deep rooted problems, or facing reality. These are costly, because prices have to rise, and sales will fall. Unfortunately, most of what we have been talking about over the past week is academic. The birding market has been bottle-fed by ignorance for many years, because of the level of knowledge required to get by in the hobby. Were it necessary to understand optical theory to get the best from your binoculars or spotting scopes, it would have happened at the dawn of the commercial era of birding optics, in the early eightees. It has not happened because the market has got by without it, luckily for those who have profitted from ignorance. What it does mean though, is that all the aberrations in mass-produced optics, the many times that you have not been able to use 60X because the image is too poor, the binoculars that have been used for years badly collimated, or the spotting scope used for years with astigmatism, because who would dare to question whether a fashionable high end instrument maker could possibly let something like that slip through QC, is all the result of a lack of knowledge in the market, so the market need not respond until the wind changes. After all, it is not cool to stand apart from the beautiful people with their expensive gear. Its much easier to be a sheep, you don't have to think for yourself.

Best regards
Chris

scampo · May 6, 2004

Birders... ignorant... sheep... can't think for themselves? That'll ruffle a few feathers, I should think, Chris!

iporali · May 6, 2004

scampo said:
Birders... ignorant... sheep... can't think for themselves? That'll ruffle a few feathers, I should think, Chris!

Bill Oddie's "review" of Leica APO 62 on Warehouse Express:
"...I have said before that I only use the Leica 20-60x zoom eyepiece. On the Apo-Televid 77 you really can go right up to 60x at full sharpness and brightness, so I was keen to see if this also applied to the Apo-Televid 62. Leica prefers to recommend the 16-48x zoom eyepiece for the compact scope, but as soon as I attached my eyepiece I saw the familiar brilliant Leica image all the way through the zoom range. There obviously is a difference from the larger scope, especially at 60x, but for most applications the Apo-Televid 62 will deliver the most sensational images you've ever seen."

I feel sorry for using Bill Oddie is as an example of ignorance in optics reviews but I can't help but agree with Chris. Top birdwatchers are often used as experts in optics reviews, but you don't need to know much to see the existence of ignorance - unfortunately we must blame ourselves (to some extent) if we can't make any change to happen.

Ilkka

Leif · May 6, 2004

scampo said:
Birders... ignorant... sheep... can't think for themselves? That'll ruffle a few feathers, I should think, Chris!

An apt choice of phrase Steve! Or has he set the cat among the pigeons.

He certainly has robust opinions. But then again alternative viewpoints stimulate healthy debate.

I think he's right about the dichotomy between the birding and astronomy markets. Many birders keep a pair of binoculars for 20 years or more and doubtless are the stuff of nightmares as far as birding optics manufacturers are concerned. Amateur astronomers often obsess over equipment and many spend £5,000 or more or one instrument. I guess most birders care about the birds, rather than the gear. A cheap binocular such as the Nikon 8x42 Egret will provide lots of enjoyment. Most of the time the only real difference provided by a more expensive instrument will be an improved image, but not much more detail, and not many more ids. In contrast a big sky bucket WILL see many more sky objects than a small refractor.

I think he's right that as a group we are less knowledgeable about equipment than amateur astronomers. It's a smaller market, with less money, and so there's less motivation for magazines to be gear oriented. There is a dearth of accurate information. This means that manufacturers can impress us with opaque terms: phase coatings, broadband dielectric coatings, broadband anti-reflection coatings and so on. We just assume that the more expensive instrument must be better. Or we assume that we can buy Big Birds magazine, and read the reviews by 'experts' to separate the wheat from the chaff. And of course there is an element of badge snobbery. But then again that's human nature.

I do think that we tend to value portability, ruggedness and ergonomics over pure optical quality.

I'm sure amateur astronomers are just as sheep like as us. Surely many of those who spend a wad on a commercial Schmidt Cassegrain telescope with electronic drives and Go To technology would be better off learning the sky and buying a compact high quality refractor mounted on a sturdy altazimuth mounting?

andytyle · May 6, 2004

scampo said:
Birders... ignorant... sheep... can't think for themselves? That'll ruffle a few feathers, I should think, Chris!

I meant consumers, not birders.

Chris

Leif · May 6, 2004

Ilkka: That's a nice story about Bill Oddie. Given that he says that "Leica are simply the best" it's clear that the man is nothing more than a paid stooge for Leica. Nice work if you can get it.

pduxon · May 6, 2004

do you have to know how something works to have an opinion on what is the best scope? I mean, I know nothing about how a hifi system works but I know what I prefered the sound of when I auditioned mine

Leif · May 6, 2004

ukbraychris said:
I meant consumers, not birders.

Chris

That is an interesting opinion given that your income depends on consumers. You are not related to Basil Fawlty are you? :king:

andytyle · May 6, 2004

Leif said:
An apt choice of phrase Steve! Or has he set the cat among the pigeons.

He certainly has robust opinions. But then again alternative viewpoints stimulate healthy debate.

I think he's right about the dichotomy between the birding and astronomy markets. Many birders keep a pair of binoculars for 20 years or more and doubtless are the stuff of nightmares as far as birding optics manufacturers are concerned. Amateur astronomers often obsess over equipment and many spend £5,000 or more or one instrument. I guess most birders care about the birds, rather than the gear. A cheap binocular such as the Nikon 8x42 Egret will provide lots of enjoyment. Most of the time the only real difference provided by a more expensive instrument will be an improved image, but not much more detail, and not many more ids. In contrast a big sky bucket WILL see many more sky objects than a small refractor.

I think he's right that as a group we are less knowledgeable about equipment than amateur astronomers. It's a smaller market, with less money, and so there's less motivation for magazines to be gear oriented. There is a dearth of accurate information. This means that manufacturers can impress us with opaque terms: phase coatings, broadband dielectric coatings, broadband anti-reflection coatings and so on. We just assume that the more expensive instrument must be better. Or we assume that we can buy Big Birds magazine, and read the reviews by 'experts' to separate the wheat from the chaff. And of course there is an element of badge snobbery. But then again that's human nature.

I do think that we tend to value portability, ruggedness and ergonomics over pure optical quality.

I'm sure amateur astronomers are just as sheep like as us. Surely many of those who spend a wad on a commercial Schmidt Cassegrain telescope with electronic drives and Go To technology would be better off learning the sky and buying a compact high quality refractor mounted on a sturdy altazimuth mounting?

Absolutely. There are sheep consumers in the Astro market as well, and yes, those that assume rather than do some genuine homework, tend to be SCT users. (I should not generalise like this, but sometimes I can't resist). However, that is not the only reason many use SCTs. Relative cheapness, whistles and bells, everything you need already on board, but, not exactly the last word in image quality for observing. They make a fair camera though, with the help of modern CCD technology and current image manipulation software, but then what doesn't. There is also badge fidelity at the high end of the refractor market. We have our Takahashi, TMB and AstroPhysics fans, each as loyal to their brand, and scathing to the other brands, when prodded and poked into action.
There is also an element of jewelry in the APOs, so human nature (again) tends to bring out the display element of equipment during the day at Star Parties.
That reminds me. If any of you guys want to see some stuff, there is a transit of the Sun by Venus at dawn on June 8th. The media will have coverage of the event before hand I am sure (time, duration etc). Go to your local astro dealer and get an A4 sheet of Baader Astrosolar filter (looks like tin foil). It will cost you about £15 for a sheet. Make up a simple holder out of plastic or robust cardboard, that fits snuggly over the full aperture of your spotting scope (make sure it fits well, you don't want it coming off in use)!! With a full aperture solar filter on your scope, you can safely view the event. Don't project the image onto a card or try using other material as a filter, the first may melt or distort interior scope parts, the latter is dangerous if it does not filter enough. Your eyesight is at risk if you don't follow safe rules.
There is a group of us meeting at Kelling Heath campsite (south of Sheringham) on the north Norfolk coast during that weekend. Kelling Heath is ideal for a birding base when no astronomy is going on, and if you want to see the event with some high end APOs and Maksutovs, plus the sun in Hydrogen Alpha light, all you need is a tent, caravan or campervan, and book a pitch on the Red field. The campsite can be found at www.kellingheath.co.uk

Best regards
Chris

alan_rymer · May 6, 2004

iporali said:
Bill Oddie's "review" of Leica APO 62 on Warehouse Express:
"...I have said before that I only use the Leica 20-60x zoom eyepiece. On the Apo-Televid 77
Leica prefers to recommend the 16-48x zoom eyepiece for the compact scope, but as soon as I attached my eyepiece I saw the familiar brilliant Leica image all the way through the zoom range. There obviously is a difference from the larger scope, especially at 60x,
Ilkka

Err
Am I being thick, or is the moral to this tale,: that its the same eyepice?. 20-60 on a 77 is 16-48 on a 60.
Is that what you're getting at?. That the knowledge that its the same wasn't there, or that the thick customers wouldn't know its the same?.

I need another whiskey!!!.

Scope survey. (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Yoda Eagle

Well-known member

Still Wandering

Member

Well-known member

Yoda Eagle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread