• 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.

Get what you pay for? Not always... (1 Viewer)

justabirdwatcher

Well-known member
I did a fun experiment this morning with my wife and daughter at home.

I happen to have five pairs of binoculars at the moment, ranging in price from $150 to $1800 retail.

My wife and daughter are not experienced binocular users, but my wife does occasionally go birding with me and has had her own pair of binoculars for quite a while now.

I thought it was time my wife had better binoculars now that we are empty-nesters and plan to do a little more birding together. So I did somewhat of a "blind test" with her and the daughter this morning just to see what they would choose. I was real curious to see if they would rank them according to price.

Here's the lineup in order of purchase price from least to most expensive:


1) Bushnell Legend M 8x42
2) Leupold BX-2 Acadia 8x42
3) Sightron Blue Sky 8x32
4) Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42
5) Swarovski SLC HD 10x42

She honestly had no idea how much any of the binoculars cost, so she was about as objective a user as they come. I should point out that she does wear glasses.

Her first comment was just "how light" the Swarovski SLC's were, which of course made me chuckle because they are the heaviest of the lot. She swore they were the lightest, aside from the Blue Sky's of course. Just goes to show you how important balance and ergonomics are.

After handling them all while focusing back and forth between our backyard feeders and squirrels in the neighbor's trees, she took about 30 minutes to carefully make her selections.

I had her line them up in order of favorite to least favorite. Here were her pics:

1) Bushnell Legend M
2) Swarovski SLC
3) Leupold Acadia
4) Zeiss Conquest
5) Sightron Blue sky.

She really didn't care for the Zeiss and said she would rate them equally with the Sightrons as the last two she would pick for a day of birding. Her comments on why she picked the Bushnells as her favorite were the image sharpness and brightness. She said they just had the most pleasing image to her eyes. When I told her what they all cost, she and I had a pretty good laugh.

Next, our college-age daughter (who wasn't in the room when my wife was looking) had her chance. She does not wear glasses, and I suspect has the same "eyes" as her dad. After about 15 minutes, she ranked them much as I would have:

1) Zeiss Conquest HD
2) Swarovski SLC
3) Bushnell Legend M
4) Sightron Blue Sky
5) Leupold Acadia

I asked why she chose the Ziess as the top model and she said she could see the fine detail on the moss on the tree branches better with those than any of the rest, but that the Swarovski and Bushnells were "about the same and really close" to the Zeiss. I suspect, like me, the touch of increased contrast the Zeiss offer allowed her to see slightly more detail.

When I told her what they all cost, her response was "you know I still need a car, right?" LOL :D Ah, parenthood.

Anyway, I found it to be a fun and not that surprising experiment between two users with similar levels of inexperience, but very different vision.

It just goes to show how important it is that we try several different pairs of binoculars before we decide which ones work best for our eyes. It can be very different from one person to another!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0125.JPG
    IMG_0125.JPG
    447.3 KB · Views: 139
Last edited:
Thanks for reporting. I can't say I'm particularly surprised. I occasionally use my wife, son or visitors for similar comparisons. Sometimes it's a real puzzle to me why one model or another gets the top ranking. On one occasion, two visitors were adamant that a cheap, low resolution, minimally coated, compact roof provided the best view. A total mystery that one! Generally my son will pick out the best effective resolution. My wife's preference is less clear cut, but she does seem to be more influenced by colour balance than either of us.

David
 
Last edited:
Thanks for reporting. I can't say I'm particularly surprised. I occasionally use my wife, son or visitors for similar comparisons. Sometimes it's a real puzzle to me why one model or another gets the top ranking. On one occasion, two visitors were adamant that a cheap, low resolution, minimally coated, compact roof provided the best view. A total mystery that one! Generally my son will pick out the best effective resolution. My wife's preference is less clear cut, but she does seem to be more influenced by colour balance than either of us.

David

Exactly. Hard to figure sometimes why people choose certain models. One thing I've noticed over the years (having been around literally 1000's of birders since the early 90's) is that the things that matter to women typically have nothing to do with sharpness. Ergonomics, weight, brightness, color, rubber armoring (or lack thereof) and overall size tend to be more important to women in most cases. My wife kept commenting on the "feel" of the armoring from one to the next. Feel, weight and balance sure seemed to be very important to her. I had to encourage her to keep looking at the image before she started to see the differences. LOL
 
Those "blind" tests are always interesting to me, as biases usually go out the window. I recall much the same test regarding wine, where doing a blind test is rather easy and people could not see the bottles or labels. The most expensive stuff seldom "won" a test. Interesting the reality of these tests. Thanks for posting.
 
I think the way a pair of binoculars 'fits' someone, either in the hand or to the eyes, can often outweigh optical qualities, particularly if you don't have a preconceived bias.
 
When the Zen Rays first came out someone did a blind test on a multi-day outing with a group of non enthusiast comparing Swarovski and Zen.

First day most chose the Zens, on the second day some were liking the Swaro better, by the 3rd day the majority were choosing Swaro. The tester surmised it was possibly the eye relief that was what most found better but after a few days of using they noticed other differences. Wish I could remember the forum it was on.
 
Interesting. I like doing these sort of things as often as I can. This is where I largely developed the view point that I cease to be surprised at the differing reactions of different people to different binoculars. It surprised me most I guess when dyed in the wool 10x users seem to mostly pick 8x as the best one. Talk about sputtering befuddlement when they found out what they picked. They still all use 10x too. After all everybody knows you can see more with 10x. ;)

I'd like to try this one some time with small differences in fov. Just to see if those who claim to instantly see minuscule differences in fov really can tell if they don't know the difference before hand. I have no real idea how to get this done, but...
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I like doing these sort of things as often as I can. This is where I largely developed the view point that I cease to be surprised at the differing reactions of different people to different binoculars. It surprised me most I guess when dyed in the wool 10x users seem to mostly pick 8x as the best one. Talk about sputtering befuddlement when they found out what they picked. They still all use 10x too. After all everybody knows you can see more with 10x. ;)

I'd like to try this one some time with small differences in fov. Just to see if those who claim to instantly see minuscule differences in fov really can tell if they don't know the difference before hand. I have no real idea how to get this done, but...

Scotch drinkers, people swear they can tell minute differences, then in blind tests think the Johnny Walker Red is better than Highland Park 18 year. Perception is reality for many folks
 
Scotch drinkers, people swear they can tell minute differences, then in blind tests think the Johnny Walker Red is better than Highland Park 18 year. Perception is reality for many folks

'Kinda like those who swear by their "auto-focus" binocular. In about 80% of the cases, if they're that far gone they won't fathom your realities. :cat:

Bill
 
Scotch drinkers, people swear they can tell minute differences, then in blind tests think the Johnny Walker Red is better than Highland Park 18 year. Perception is reality for many folks

Scotch or wine like in JGR's post. One question does it come into play before, during, or after the blind test ? ;) I don't think people can sort out optics any better in a good blind test (whatever that may be) than Wine or good Whiskey.
 
Scotch drinkers, people swear they can tell minute differences, then in blind tests think the Johnny Walker Red is better than Highland Park 18 year. Perception is reality for many folks

That's funny. I did a similar test last year with a couple of friends who claim they know all there is to know about whisky. They also preferred the Johnny Walker Red over a Famous Grouse 12 year and an old Highland Park.

Funnily their wives were present as well, and they gave their husbands hell for spending so much money a whisky even though they actually liked the Johnny Walker Red best ...

I reckon it's only Johnny Walker for them now. Great stuff.

Hermann
 
Simple things like ease-of-view [no black-outs] often trump everything optical for the novice bino-user. If it's finicky, many are instantly turned off.

I've had non bino users tell me they didn't like my bins as they were too sharp and hurt their eyes.....
 
Simple things like ease-of-view [no black-outs] often trump everything optical for the novice bino-user. If it's finicky, many are instantly turned off.

I've had non bino users tell me they didn't like my bins as they were too sharp and hurt their eyes.....

So that's an interesting comment because the first time I owned a pair of Swarovski SLC's, they were so bright in good light that I had the same reaction. They were actually uncomfortable for me to use for very long. My eyes are very sensitive to bright light and I have to wear sunglasses more often than most.

I have another pair of SLC's that I'm field testing at the moment. I figure 3 years later I'd give them another try becuase "everyone" says they are the bee's knees... yada, yada, yada.

Yea, they are optically superb. But I have to agree with my daughter that the Zeiss Conquest give me a slightly better view in good light with better contrast and detail.
 
Some binoculars are too bright for me in bright sunshine and I prefer a Russian binocular.

Johnnie Walker red is my favourite followed by Ballantines and Black and White. Also Haig, especially the better quality one dimple bottle.
However, if a bottle of Johnnie Walker is dropped it breaks, whereas regular round bottles don't.
 
I agree, and I think that's especially true for women.

I'd also mention that, similar to ergonomics for, sometimes one specific negative quality can bother someone so much, that it may outweigh other positives. As an example, the 8x32 Swarovision I owned was an amazing pair of binoculars, bright, razor-sharp, easy viewing, and great control of CA; however, in several instances glare made them practically unusable at times, for me, and so I had to get rid of them. The Zeiss Conquest HD is another example pair of binoculars with exceptional views, but poor control of CA (to my eyes) rendered me unhappy with the image overall.
 
I'd also mention that, similar to ergonomics for, sometimes one specific negative quality can bother someone so much, that it may outweigh other positives. As an example, the 8x32 Swarovision I owned was an amazing pair of binoculars, bright, razor-sharp, easy viewing, and great control of CA; however, in several instances glare made them practically unusable at times, for me, and so I had to get rid of them. The Zeiss Conquest HD is another example pair of binoculars with exceptional views, but poor control of CA (to my eyes) rendered me unhappy with the image overall.

Very true. I've owned (sadly) at least a dozen pair that had some feature that I found annoying, but figured I could learn to live with. Eventually they rubbed me the wrong way long enough, and off they went. Thankfully, I usually buy low and sell high, so I don't feel I've taken too much of a financial hit over the years. I look any loss as the price of satisfying my curiosity, I suppose.

One reason I keep my Sightron Blue Sky's handy is that they are one of the few binoculars that have no annoying qualities for me. I wish they were brighter and had a wider field of view, but I can live with the image they provide because it's so darn sharp and easy on my eyes. And the ergonomics make them a joy to use. The other pair I could say that about were the Nikon LX-L's I owned for several years. Like the Sightrons, they made me forget I was even using binoculars, which is a very good thing. Only reason I sold those was they were lacking a tripod socket in the hinge.

So the search continues...
 
I'd also mention that, similar to ergonomics for, sometimes one specific negative quality can bother someone so much, that it may outweigh other positives. As an example, the 8x32 Swarovision I owned was an amazing pair of binoculars, bright, razor-sharp, easy viewing, and great control of CA; however, in several instances glare made them practically unusable at times, for me, and so I had to get rid of them. The Zeiss Conquest HD is another example pair of binoculars with exceptional views, but poor control of CA (to my eyes) rendered me unhappy with the image overall.


Knowing that you are pretty susceptible to CA, as am I, your observations are nearly the reverse of my own. My 8x32 Conquest has only a hint of edge CA, tested in the worst of conditions yet I find almost all the SV models to exhibit thick blue, distracting CA in the outer quarter of the FOV.

Different eyes and all that but I am sensitive to CA and usually see it where others do not. I do a lot of birding in overcast, cloudy or snowy conditions so CA control is a big priority for me, especially for raptor and waterfowl surveys when a bit of CA can render a distant bird quite shapeless.
 
Last edited:
Only reason I sold those was they were lacking a tripod socket in the hinge.

Personally I don't think it's a very good idea putting a shear load on a short 1/4" thread, particularly with heaviear binoculars. Also, unless you leave the adapter on the binocular with a QR plate it's going to be slow to deploy.

I use the Leica platform adapter (there's a similar one from Swarovski) and at binocular magnifications the stability leaves nothing to be desired.

The superb Nikon WX comes with a tripod adapter, which clamps to the central hinge, similar in principle to the screwed hinge adapters. Like so many other binocular accessories it is a minor catastrophe. When I stepped on to the Nikon stand at Photokina, the WX was oscillating on its flimsy tripod adapter. And I'm not overweight! ;).

John
 
Knowing that you are pretty susceptible to CA, as am I, your observations are nearly the reverse of my own. My 8x32 Conquest has only a hint of edge CA, tested in the worst of conditions yet I find almost all the SV models to exhibit thick blue, distracting CA in the outer quarter of the FOV.

Different eyes and all that but I am sensitive to CA and usually see it where others do not. I do a lot of birding in overcast, cloudy or snowy conditions so CA control is a big priority for me, especially for raptor and waterfowl surveys when a bit of CA can render a distant bird quite shapeless.

Very strange indeed. Waterfowl surveys, spring breeding bird counts, and shorebird migration counts are my most demanding viewing needs (work hours), but I'll bird in just about any sort of conditions for my own personal enjoyment as well. Of the binos I've owned, the T*FL and Kowa Genesis are my reference standard for this, with the Meopta Euro HD, Golden Ring HD, SLC-HD, and SV behind. I would put the Conquest HD another tier down, nearer some the 'mid-range' class and the Leica Ultravids to my eyes (in this particular category). I don't have what I consider enough experience with the EDG series, under demanding field conditions, to make an informed comparison.

I'm mostly talking from experience with the 8x42, the 8x32 may be a different beast altogether but I just can't seem to make 8x32s work with my eyes, no matter the brand. I'm interested to see how the Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 I ordered compares to my notes of the T*FL/Kowa Genesis/Conquest HD.

Justin
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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