• 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.

GPO Passion ED 8x42 (1 Viewer)

IMO the BBR website provides a service for those who are looking for a first binocular or are looking to step up from an entry binocular. I think most optic nuts will try a glass for themselves to determine how it fits them personally - ergonomically and from an optical perspective with their own eyes.

Andy W.
 
dries1 said:
IMO the BBR website provides a service for those who are looking for a first binocular or are looking to step up from an entry binocular. I think most optic nuts will try a glass for themselves to determine how it fits them personally - ergonomically and from an optical perspective with their own eyes.

Andy W.
Click to expand...
Andy. I agree. The review websites serve as a starting point in your binocular search. BBR reviewed the Vortex Razor UHD's highly ,as well as,Audubon so I tried them and liked them and ended up buying two pair. So they can be helpful even though as you say I wouldn't make my final decision entirely by what they say unless I was just buying my first binocular.
 
[email protected] said:
Henry. You would be paid because you are writing a review for BBR. I know that you would not be biased in any way. Your reviews cut to the chase. That is why I think you should apply. You could bring objective testing to their website with an optics testing lab where you could dissect the binoculars. It would be the best binocular review site on the web! Forget Allbino's.;)
Click to expand...

No more of this discussion for me. I couldn't make the folks at BBR happy and I would be miserable churning out the kind of stuff I just read there.
 
[email protected] said:
ZZZZZZ. The alpha level binocular BBR uses is the Vortex Razor UHD 10x42 not the HD. It scored 92% or the "Very Best" one point behind the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 which scored 93%. The HD would be a mid-tier binocular but is still a very good binocular.

https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Vortex-Razor-UHD-10x42-Binoculars-Review-255.htm
Click to expand...

Dennis: First off anything Vortex made is not alpha, for cripes sake they are made in China. China makes nothing alpha. Just copy clone, etc.
This review is mostly BS as mentioned, nothing of substance, but a simply a paid for review.
Stop with your promotion without real merit. :C

Jerry
 
NDhunter said:
Dennis: First off anything Vortex made is not alpha, for cripes sake they are made in China. China makes nothing alpha. Just copy clone, etc.
This review is mostly BS as mentioned, nothing of substance, but a simply a paid for review.
Stop with your promotion without real merit. :C

Jerry
Click to expand...
Jerry. The new Vortex UHD's are made in Japan and they are quite high quality as high of quality as any alpha. I felt the same way you did about Vortex not being capable of making an alpha level binocular until I tried the Vortex Razor UHD 8x42 based on four good reviews. That is what I do. If I see a new binocular has a good review I will try them and If don't like them they go back. The Razor UHD surprised me though with how good it's optics were. That is what makes me feel the BBR review , the Scopeview review, the Binomania review and the Audubon review are not BS. They can't all be BS. The BBR review is not a paid for review either. You and others that feel this way are wrong. If I didn't like the Vortex Razor UHD 8x42 I would not have spent $1.5K for the Vortex Razor UHD 18x56 I guarantee you. Do yourself a favor and try the UHD 8x42 and see what you think. They will surprise you. They are as good as anything out there. A little better than my 8x42 FL's and 8x42 EDG's. And as you know that is saying a lot because those are two good binoculars.

From Jason on BBR.
"I guess whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike BBR, the MAIN point is that NONE of my reviews are paid for ever. If I like something I say so, if I dont, I say so as well."
 
Last edited:
dries1 said:
IMO the BBR website provides a service for those who are looking for a first binocular or are looking to step up from an entry binocular. I think most optic nuts will try a glass for themselves to determine how it fits them personally - ergonomically and from an optical perspective with their own eyes.
Click to expand...
This is spot on. BBR is doing a lot of handholding, explaining basics and trying to build a little confidence for people who fear making an expensive mistake, and don't feel up to evaluating binoculars theselves, which is always the advice on Birdforum. Of course this is false confidence, but all the evidence suggests that it suffices in many areas of life.
 
In light of the fact there is no review website that is perfect, it will either be too superficial to too technical, depending on the viewpoint of the reader of the review. A review, by its very nature is subjective. Albinos does some technical additions, but then turns around and applies a subjective ranking into what would appear to be an objective score.

The Best Binocular Reviews site has changed as time goes by, and will likely change further as more time passes. While it is not perfect, it seems to me to represent one of the few sites that has a repeatable format and binoculars from all quality ranges. I agree it provides a service, and I wish them luck. Nothing starts out perfect, getting to where you want to go takes time and effort through an evolutionary process.
 
Steve C said:
In light of the fact there is no review website that is perfect, it will either be too superficial to too technical, depending on the viewpoint of the reader of the review. A review, by its very nature is subjective.
Click to expand...
If reviews were essentially subjective they would be useless. Good ones must provide enough objective information (detailed comparisons, observations in use, etc) to help readers form their own opinions based on what matters to them. A buyer who isn't really going to do that for whatever reason just needs a safe recommendation, not multiple reviews. It would be as difficult to decide which model to buy based on these as by browsing the individual product literature that they're obviously constructed from.

For example, when I read a statement like "I could not see any sort of image distortions or curvature of the image, which is obviously good" I have no idea what it means or what value it has. How many of his reviews note disturbing distortions in other models? What is "curvature of the image" and is it really bad? ... By the way, the model described here is the EL 8.5x42, which then gets docked for having a cheap plastic focuser instead of a proper knurled metal one.

Apparently some manufacturers realize there is little added value in sites like this:
"What is more and I am not going to name names here (besides you can easily work them out by which ones are absent from this site), but to date, I still an unable to get hold of samples from some of these 'giants' within our industry, which I find incredible. If you think of it, they are either afraid of how their instruments will compare against the competition which to me says a lot about the belief they have in their products, or they simply just don't care what I have to say about them. If this is the case, then just imagine how much they care about the average single purchase consumer and the level of customer care they give to them."
I'm not liking the author of that paragraph very much.
 
Last edited:
Dennis, I acknowledge the fact that BBR agrees with your assessment, or vise versa, which is why you keep BBR in front of all of us on this subject. However, please be advised that there are many users over on Rokslide that have tested the UHD, and find them on par with the SLC HD optically, but no better. There are some they say they are a notch below the SLC HD and a notch above the Razor HD. They are subjective reviews just like the dude at BBR. If you're being intellectually honest about it, you'd have to recognize their subjective opinions as well, at least I would assume so.
 
tenex said:
If reviews were essentially subjective they would be useless. Good ones must provide enough objective information (detailed comparisons, observations in use, etc) to help readers form their own opinions based on what matters to them. A buyer who isn't really going to do that for whatever reason just needs a safe recommendation, not multiple reviews. It would be as difficult to decide which model to buy based on these as by browsing the individual product literature that they're obviously constructed from.
...
Click to expand...

I think you mean unbiased reviews. In my opinion there is a difference between unbiased and objective. An objective review contains some objectively quantifiable things, light transmission charts and resolution figures for two examples. Things that require access to some optics lab level equipment. Things that can be checked by someone else with the same equipment. An unbiased review is one where the author puts aside all preconceptions, expectations (at least as far as humanly possible) and lets a binocular tell its story. It is then evaluated for what it is based on its relative pros and cons. It is not denigrated for being what it is not. Likewise it is not praised because of what it is. Don't damn it for not being a Swarovski (or whatever brand you like) and don't praise it outright because it is a Swarovski. One could just as well substitute GPO or Vortex for Swarovski in my example. In my opinion there is far too much of that.

As regards Canips dog subforum post just above. There used to be a dog food commercial for a brand called Kennel Ration. It featured a kid singing"...my dog's better than your dog, my dog's better than yours, my dog's bigger, and faster, and shiner, and my dog's better than yours"... all because his dog gets Kennel Ration. That philosophy kind of fits here.
 
Last edited:
Steve. You are right on. When I review a binocular I try not to have any preconceptions or expectations based on the brand be it a Swarovski or Vortex or Maven. Contrary to popular belief I believe most of these review sites try to be as unbiased as humanly possible as you say. I really don't feel they are getting any compensation that would affect their evaluation of a binocular. I really feel some of these newer binoculars like the Vortex UHD and your Maven B5 which are probably very close in performance are alpha level binoculars for a lot less money than the big three even if they are made by Kamakura. I think Kamakura given all the best components is very capable of making just as good of a binocular as Zeiss or Swarovski. The thing is when people have had many different binoculars over many years they may have experienced a bad lemon or two with one brand so logically they are going to develop a prejudice against that brand. I have had a lot of bad focuser's on Swarovski's especially SLC's and obviously a lot of other people have also judging by the munber of threads on Swarosvki's with funky focuser's and a lot of quality problems with Meopta's so I avoid them. Other people have had good luck and they think they are great. That come's down to just personal preference and experience with the brand. When somebody like Vortex and Maven have always been selling binoculars under $1K and suddenly they come out with a premium line for $1.5K people have a hard time accepting the fact that these new binoculars are worth that kind of money unless they try them. I realize now you are a beating a horse to death trying to convince somebody that a Vortex is worth $1.5K and no amount of throwing reviews at them is going to make them change their mind. Vortex and Maven are not going to have the reputation that Swarovski and Zeiss have because it has taken those companies a 100 years to get their reputation and these guy's are the new kids on the block. They have to earn their reputation and it is not going to happen overnight.
 
Last edited:
Steve C said:
I think you mean unbiased reviews. In my opinion there is a difference between unbiased and objective. An objective review contains some objectively quantifiable things, light transmission charts and resolution figures for two examples. Things that require access to some optics lab level equipment. Things that can be checked by someone else with the same equipment. An unbiased review is one where the author puts aside all preconceptions, expectations (at least as far as humanly possible) and lets a binocular tell its story. It is then evaluated for what it is based on its relative pros and cons...
Click to expand...
I think I largely agree with most of what you've said here, but no, I wasn't talking about bias. "Unbiased" is some kind of absurd fantasy, the sort of notion that turns jury selection into a circus, and journalism into farce. Bias is everywhere, but is easily dealt with. Everyone has biases; everyone also knows how to be aware of and correct for them.

What I actually meant by "objective information (detailed comparisons, observations in use, etc)" was not all charts and figures, but offering detailed enough information about the view through and use of a binocular (perhaps even compared to another one may be more familar with) to give a good feeling for what it's really like to use it. That's "objective" in the sense that a bino either does or does not show significant off-axis astigmatism, or an unusual amount of chromatic aberration, etc. Once I've read a review like that, I almost feel as though I have used it and would recognize it again. Some of the points mentioned may not matter much to me, others may. What I want from a review is a good enough description to arrive at my own judgment.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody remember when the EDG models came out in 2010 the 10X42 was $2,499, and many said that is a lot of cash for a Nikon, many never gave it a chance, walked away. Well it was a high $$ glass, but it is after-all a premium binocular. You get what you pay for. Since they are now archived, those prices have come down and many are now finding out how good of a glass it still is.

Andy W.
 
tenex,

We are likely in agreement. However the subjectivity of a review lies in the fact that each of us could review the same binocular. Our outcomes could be either similar or different. We are two people with different eyes, experiences, needs, and expectations. How we choose to review, and the length into which we go with oru particular methods probably won't be the same. What the review ultimately boils down to the expressions of each of our opinions on what we saw, what we liked, and did not like. We need to get some sort of an objective approach, I agree.

I used the term unbiased, not because it was the best, or even a good word to use, it is sort of one of those words that comes readily to mind, and in its purest sense carries proper meaning. You are right about everything you said about the farcical nature of being unbiased. However, bias can be read as truth if the bias you read matches the bias you have. So I don't particularly agree that everyone can readily identify it. Tell a big enough lie often enough, it becomes believed. I do feel that to be truly objective, the methodology needs to be repeatable by everyone, done under controlled conditions.

You pointed out the particular paragraph you disliked. I agree that kind of overly opinionated/biased stuff is best avoided, unless proof can be provided. We are more or less stuck with human nature.
 
Steve, I reacted to your mention of "subjectivity" because I have a huge problem with how it seems to creep into any discussion these days, and is used to undermine any idea of truth. As for binocular reviews, I don't think a good review boils down to "opinions". If you and I describe the view and handling of the same binocular in sufficient detail, the results should be fairly similar, even if you concentrate more on one thing and I another, or we have different preferences, which in any case a third party will filter according to their own. I suppose you could call this a "repeatable" result, to some degree even "objective".

As for "bias being read as truth" -- yes, there seems to be a lot of that going around today. What I said was that everyone knows how to correct for bias, not that they always do it. Human nature, as you say; some are lazy, or worse. And throwing up our hands and talking about subjectivity only encourages more of that.

Back to BBR... what I wanted to say was that these reviews, full of charts and diagrams (often the same ones) as they are, don't tell me enough about each specific model in the field to reach a useful judgment.
 
tenex said:
Steve, I reacted to your mention of "subjectivity" because I have a huge problem with how it seems to creep into any discussion these days, and is used to undermine any idea of truth. As for binocular reviews, I don't think a good review boils down to "opinions". If you and I describe the view and handling of the same binocular in sufficient detail, the results should be fairly similar, even if you concentrate more on one thing and I another, or we have different preferences, which in any case a third party will filter according to their own. I suppose you could call this a "repeatable" result, to some degree even "objective".

As for "bias being read as truth" -- yes, there seems to be a lot of that going around today. What I said was that everyone knows how to correct for bias, not that they always do it. Human nature, as you say; some are lazy, or worse. And throwing up our hands and talking about subjectivity only encourages more of that.

Back to BBR... what I wanted to say was that these reviews, full of charts and diagrams (often the same ones) as they are, don't tell me enough about each specific model in the field to reach a useful judgment.
Click to expand...

The objective part would be you and Steve both reporting the presence of e.g chromatic aberration or astigmatism. The subjective bit would be how serious or trivial you both judged it. One of you might call it 'noticeable', the other might say it was 'moderate', but if it was really bad you would probably both use words like 'unacceptable' etc.

Where subjectivity and objectivity become difficult to separate is in stuff such as colour perception, handling comfort and so on. But reading a review that contains these remarks only alerts the reader to the possibility that they will share these reactions it doesn't guarantee they will feel the same. These aspects are similar to 'reviews' of wines, coffees, teas and beers when the taster tells you about the 'citrus notes' which you may or may not agree with if you have a taste.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
The objective part would be you and Steve both reporting the presence of e.g chromatic aberration or astigmatism. The subjective bit would be how serious or trivial you both judged it. One of you might call it 'noticeable', the other might say it was 'moderate', but if it was really bad you would probably both use words like 'unacceptable' etc.

Where subjectivity and objectivity become difficult to separate is in stuff such as colour perception, handling comfort and so on. But reading a review that contains these remarks only alerts the reader to the possibility that they will share these reactions it doesn't guarantee they will feel the same. These aspects are similar to 'reviews' of wines, coffees, teas and beers when the taster tells you about the 'citrus notes' which you may or may not agree with if you have a taste.

Lee
Click to expand...

That likely explains it better than I did. For example I am not susceptible to seeing CA. I can induce it, but in a properly focused binocular I rarely am able to see it. I make a point of that in my reviews. People who are more susceptible may well not agree with that point in one of my reviews.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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.

Similar threads

S
Is GPO Passion ED tripod-adaptable?
Replies
6
Views
486
lisamerlot
L
L
GPO Passion ED 8x32, when was hydrophobic coating introduced?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Anderlfs
A
D
Product Review: GPO Passion ED 8 x 42.
Replies
16
Views
5K
Dipperdapper
D
binomania
GPO PASSION HD 8x42 Video Review
Replies
3
Views
4K
DadraFromFrance
DadraFromFrance
Steve222
GPO 10x32 ED & 10x42HD quick look and comment.
Replies
8
Views
1K
Steve222
Steve222

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top