-
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.
BVD keeps being "blind" on Leica (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Swissboy
- Start date
pduxon
Quacked up Member
trudge trudge
He does report some unit to unit differences but says this is the same for the other brands.
All scopes were only tested with zooms.
ok in summary.
Resolution - Nikon = Zeiss and better than Swaro.
Contrast - Nikon better than Swaro "which means that it is better than in any scope I have tested"
Brightness - on comparable mags. Zeiss, with Nikon close and then Swaro.
with respect to flare and backlight Nikon on a par with swaro and better than Zeiss.
He comments that general ease of viewing on the Nikon is below the others "since eye placement with the small eyepiece lens of the zooms is more critical". There is also a comment about the narrow field of views and lack of eye relief. Although the wide angle eyepieces are "fully comparable" to the zeiss and swaro.
In conclusion he reckons its "optical performance is top class" and that its a choice of wider fields of view or higher magnifcations. I got the impression that build quality was a little below the others. He reckons its a marked improvement over the ED78
Anyone keen for the whole review PM me with your address..........
He does report some unit to unit differences but says this is the same for the other brands.
All scopes were only tested with zooms.
ok in summary.
Resolution - Nikon = Zeiss and better than Swaro.
Contrast - Nikon better than Swaro "which means that it is better than in any scope I have tested"
Brightness - on comparable mags. Zeiss, with Nikon close and then Swaro.
with respect to flare and backlight Nikon on a par with swaro and better than Zeiss.
He comments that general ease of viewing on the Nikon is below the others "since eye placement with the small eyepiece lens of the zooms is more critical". There is also a comment about the narrow field of views and lack of eye relief. Although the wide angle eyepieces are "fully comparable" to the zeiss and swaro.
In conclusion he reckons its "optical performance is top class" and that its a choice of wider fields of view or higher magnifcations. I got the impression that build quality was a little below the others. He reckons its a marked improvement over the ED78
Anyone keen for the whole review PM me with your address..........
Pinewood
New York correspondent
In America BVD is a brand of underwear
I discovered that BVD's opinions were too highly subjective to match my desires in a glass. I am happy with a binocular he panned: the Zeiss Victory I. It has a bright image, in a lightweight package, that is ergonomically fine. A friend tells me that the resolution of that Zeiss is indistinguishable from the Nikon Venturer LX 8x42, a glass which BVD gives great accolades. He gives the Nikon better colour but poorer brightness. It would seem that the Abbe Koning prisms more than make up for the smaller objectives
Happy birding,
Arthur
I discovered that BVD's opinions were too highly subjective to match my desires in a glass. I am happy with a binocular he panned: the Zeiss Victory I. It has a bright image, in a lightweight package, that is ergonomically fine. A friend tells me that the resolution of that Zeiss is indistinguishable from the Nikon Venturer LX 8x42, a glass which BVD gives great accolades. He gives the Nikon better colour but poorer brightness. It would seem that the Abbe Koning prisms more than make up for the smaller objectives
Happy birding,
Arthur
Last edited:
Pinewood said:
Author: I don't think he panned the Victory I, but he did say that in his opinion they had some shortcomings which he did not like i.e. eye tubes, strap lugs and slightly lowered contrast. Zeiss did subsequently 'rectify' these 'faults'. Although I agree with the BVD review, as I hated the strap lugs and the armour, many people on this forum have said the same as you. Interestingly there is a review of the Victory I on the Cloudy Nights site which concludes that it beats the Leica 8x42 BN optics in most issues e.g. contrast. At the end of the day it really is important to try them for yourself if at all possible. I use reviews to eliminate the dogs, to find out which ones I need to test, and to pick up hints on what to look out for e.g. flare, slow focus etc.
Edward woodwood
Member
as far as i'm concerned (in all walks of life) once you take the money your opinion is worthless to me. That's not to say i blame the guy, mind. Just that i wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if i were being paid by one major player......
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Absolutely! Binoculars are a personal choice. My biggest complaint about shops, is the inablity in some places to use try them outside the shop, where I intend to use them.Leif said:
I maintain that among the first quality marques, there is little to chose, mostly personal preferences,as we analyze each design compromise. Indeed, many of us seem to have several glasses to fit the circumstances of the day.
Cloudy Nights has a slightly different perspective as its viewpoint is that of astronomy enthusiasts. What is clear is that knowledgeable people may have rather different opinions.
As others have suggested, a fox cannot run with the hounds. Our opinion of Ingraham's comments are now colored by his employment status.
With warm wishes for happy birding,
Arthur
Edward woodwood
Member
Good for him....he's obviously got some integrity.
Jay Turberville
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
There are many factors - in addition to money - that can color someone's opinion. Maybe its the nation of origin. Or perhaps its the brand that the reviewer first fell in love with. Who knows? Show me a fully impartial reviewer and then we can take blood samples to verify if she is actually human.
Years ago I read a review of the early 1970s Firebird (automobile) in Consumer Reports. That publication never accepted advertisement in order to mainain its objectivity. But their review was extremely biased toward a "family car" point of view - something that the Firebird simply didn't fit - and they wrote a very biased article that probably said pretty much what most of their readership wanted to read.
I take ALL opinions with a grain of salt. I prefer objective measurments and evidence. But which scope reviews have that?
