-
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.
Scope survey. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Henry B
- Start date
rogerscoth
Well-known member
Ruby,Ruby said:OK, Ok..... I'll go and buy the mag, read the review, and THEN I'll fume.....
Please do not fume, just use your energy for the enjoyment of birding!
One of the reasons that I decided to buy the expensive 'scope recently, was because I am in what is known as my "twilight years" and I realised the truth in the phrase - "you cannot take it with you!"
Roger
scampo said:
Scampo.
Birdwatching Magazine.
I think that Birdwatching should explain their findings to Opticron, Nikon and Zeiss.
It would be great to hear the views of their (Birdwatching) experts, and the views of the experts from the manufacturers. I have looked at my previous copies, and guess what? Can anyone tell me if Leica have not been #1 in all of the survey's or even had a poor review. I believe that even the Swarovski EL when it first came out did not make it to #1 in their category
"stop press", Leica came second in the compact survey.
Please Birdwatching (if you or anyone is a member of birdforum) get some new reviewers, and it might help if none of them are connected to any optical manufacturer. You are losing credibility in your survey's.
scampo
Steve Campsall
I was looking at two very obliging bitterns and other fine birds this morning and I had the chance to look through a Kowa Prominar (fluorite), a Swaro HD and a Nikon ED scope.
The birds looked, unquestionably, superbly clear through each scope. The Nikon was, objectively, the brightest image and was the one I liked the best out of the three. I don't know what the reviewers in the Birdwatch test were doing when they reviewed those scopes. What I do know is that very little objective testing was done; also, the discrepancies over the Nikon reviews is too much to be acceptable.
Also, when I was buying the Swaro with my son (it's his scope), hanging on the RSPB wall of the shop was a photocopy of a review of the new Zeiss 85T*FL Diascope. The reviewer, as I recall (and quite rightly, I should think), fairly raved over this scope. Hmm.
It seems that dumbed down subjectivity is all these days - that, and a general lack of discernment or real interest. Perhaps that's what is wrong?
The birds looked, unquestionably, superbly clear through each scope. The Nikon was, objectively, the brightest image and was the one I liked the best out of the three. I don't know what the reviewers in the Birdwatch test were doing when they reviewed those scopes. What I do know is that very little objective testing was done; also, the discrepancies over the Nikon reviews is too much to be acceptable.
Also, when I was buying the Swaro with my son (it's his scope), hanging on the RSPB wall of the shop was a photocopy of a review of the new Zeiss 85T*FL Diascope. The reviewer, as I recall (and quite rightly, I should think), fairly raved over this scope. Hmm.
It seems that dumbed down subjectivity is all these days - that, and a general lack of discernment or real interest. Perhaps that's what is wrong?
Last edited:
scampo said:
Given that BW magazine have previously reviewed and raved about the Nikon and Zeiss scopes, and in the latest survey they pan the Nikon and are less than enthusiastic about the Zeiss, I would expect them to comment on such wide divergence between reviews in the same magazine. That they are biased is 100% clear to me when I read the review of the Leica 8x32 BN and fail to mention the obvious optical defects.
I agree with CDKs comments on the Swarovski ELs. In 2002:
The scores for Swaro 8.5x42 were:
- Design and build: 9
- Optical performance: 9
- Ease of use: 8
- Value for money:8
The scores for Leica 8x42 were:
- Design and build: 9
- Optical performance: 9.5
- Ease of use: 9.5
- Value for money:9.5
In 2003:
The scores for Swaro 8.5x42 were:
- Optical: 9.5
- Design and ease of use: 9
- Value for money:9
The scores for Leica 8x42 were:
- Optical: 9.5
- Design and ease of use: 8.5
- Value for money:9.5
A quick look shows large changes. The Swaro is now significantly better value for money despite increasing in price by about £100, and has increased in optical quality to the level of Leica. Also the ease of use and design placings have been reversed. (Actually I think that one number to summarise something as complex as optical quality is crass nonsense. What about brightness, contrast, DOF, FOV and resolution.)
Consistent? No.
Why? Beats me.
The problem with these surveys is that most of these instruments are so close in optical quality and handling that the differences are largely subjective. In other words, the sensible user should go to a reputable dealer, handle them, and then try them on real targets.
Edward woodwood
Member
The nikon ED60 mk 111 and Kowa 613/614 should be in any review of 60mm or thereabouts scope if the reviews are a service to birders. Sure they're old, but they are compact and very very light and optically excellent. Only new gear is reviewed as people are trying to sell it. we shouldn't give surveys the importance they don't deserve.
likewise bin reviews....the 'new' zeiss 7 x 42 (see that thread) match the old 7 x 42 classics for FOV. Given that the construction of the old version was first rate, the image brightness doesn't need to be greater (never seen brighter bins than old ones) surely any review would question whether the 800 odd pounds they cost represents real advancements and value?
likewise bin reviews....the 'new' zeiss 7 x 42 (see that thread) match the old 7 x 42 classics for FOV. Given that the construction of the old version was first rate, the image brightness doesn't need to be greater (never seen brighter bins than old ones) surely any review would question whether the 800 odd pounds they cost represents real advancements and value?
Edward woodwood
Member
think they're finished.
I part x'd my old tsn for one when it was on offer three years back...only had £250 to pay!
they have a couple sec. hand at cley spy
did Nikon 60 get a good review?
I part x'd my old tsn for one when it was on offer three years back...only had £250 to pay!
they have a couple sec. hand at cley spy
did Nikon 60 get a good review?
Jasonbirder
Jason-occasional-twitcher
I can`t help but feel (oops subjectivity!) that at the top end Leica vs Swarovski vs Zeiss then the differences in quality are minimal and it is really down to user preference - Its like asking which is better? A Merc a BMW or an Audi - you won`t be disappointed with any and diffferent features are more important to different users.
I`ve been thinking about upgrading my scope to the Zeiss 85 but its a lot of cash and I can`t really justify it for the difference (i have the Opolyth 80 flourite currently).
I`d be interested to have a look through the new Opticron 100 or hear from anyone that uses one - the amateur astronomer in me tells me the bigger the lens the better the view!
I`ve been thinking about upgrading my scope to the Zeiss 85 but its a lot of cash and I can`t really justify it for the difference (i have the Opolyth 80 flourite currently).
I`d be interested to have a look through the new Opticron 100 or hear from anyone that uses one - the amateur astronomer in me tells me the bigger the lens the better the view!
Jay Turberville
Well-known member
scampo said:
Hmmm.... well, I'm going to pick a nit here. What was the objective test that you did to determine which was the brighter image? If you used just one person's eye or even just two person's, I'm not sure I could agree that you have an objective test. Now if you measured it with a calibrated instrument (or perhaps even an uncalibrated one) or surveyed 15 or more people's impressions of brightness, then I might buy that the test was objective.
Did you like the view throught the Nikon because it was brightest, or perhaps it seemed brighter because you liked the image better? Of course, maybe the image was, in fact, brighter - whatever that means. Does "brighter" refer to average brightness or how well dark areas are revealed. Imagine a scope of high contrast and one of somewhat lower contrast. Two different people might come to differnent conclusions about which was brighter depending on what type of image they were looking at and what portions of the image were important to them. Can color casts affect impressions of brightness? I'd bet that they do.
When someone aims the scopes at a white wall of known and controlled brightness and measures the light coming out of the eyepiece of a scope - then, perhaps we'll know which scope's light transmission is greater. But I'm still not sure if we'd know which is "brighter". And considering the state of optics and coatings, I'm betting that the transmission differences will be pretty small given the same scope aperture and magnification.
And while we are on about objectivity, I've tried to do objective resolution testing of scopes while digiscoping. And frankly, its darned hard to be truly objective because of the great number of variables to keep under control. Its easy to come up with a wrong conclusion because you failed to control some variable like camera f-number or proper camera to eyepiece placement. And maybe the optics of one camera just happen to match up better with a certain scope while another camera's optics match up better with another scope. And when you are done, its hard to even say when a scope makes a "better" image than another - even if we narrow our conclusion to the use of a particular camera.
For instance, I set aside an hour this afternoon and shot resolution targets through a Swarovski ATS80HD with 20-60x zoom and through a Lomo 70 (a small relatively inexpensive catadioptric) with a 35mm Siebert eyepiece. Equivalent focal lengths were about 1500mm. Both resolved esentially the same level of detail but the Swaro was sharper as it had more acutance. But the edge sharpness of the Lomo was far better than the Swarovski. The Swaro was a half stop faster than the Lomo which is what we'd expect given the larger aperture and the Lomo's central objstruction. But maybe a shift in outside brightness is what really accounts for the difference?
You can conclude objectively which is better in a limited circumstance about specific attributes. But I don't think a person can objectively say which takes a better image while digiscoping at a 1500mm equivalent focal length with a CP5000.
But my subjective impression of the scopes would have me bet that 10 out of 10 people will prefer the Swarovski's image while direct viewing. It just has more "pop" and a more neutral color. So don't assume that the scope that gives you the direct view that you prefer is necessarily the best scope for digiscoping - or visa-versa.
And while I think scope reviewers should do objective testing of the scopes in their reviews, such tests shouldn't replace subjective evaluations either. They should be offered in addition. Both matter and its a shame that the objective tests are almost always absent.
Jay Turberville said:
Looks like I'm a dissenter. I preferred both the Nikon 82 ED and the Leica APO 77 to the Swaro 80 HD, at least in terms of image quality.
You make excellent points about testing. The actual light transmission is not really what bothers me. I am more interested in the apparent brightness, which is a function of contrast and light transmission. What concerns me about the recent BW reviews is that each tester cannot have spent more than 20 minutes maximum with each scope, and they probably did the tests in good light, from the look of the photos they published. I compared the Nikon and Swaro on an awful dreary grey day and I am sure the Nikon showed more detail in distant Pochard using the eyepieces at maximum. I am also fairly sure (but not certain) that the Nikon 'seemed' brighter. When I compared the Swaro and Leica APO using the zoom at 60x I felt the Leica showed more detail in deep shade. Now of course this is all subjective, just one pair of eyes, and limited tests, but at the end of the day I trust my eyes more than BW group tests, given their past howlers. I also hear from Steve/Scampo that he has reached similar conclusions to me from much longer testing.
The fact that they saw no colour fringing in the Swaro and Nikon sugests that their testing methodology is weak, as I saw subtle but obvious fringing through both scopes. Andy Bright also comments somewhere that the Swaro is not completely colour corrected. (The Leica APO and Zeiss 85 are near perfect apo-chromats.)
The Swaro has the best edge to edge definition in the zoom and maybe this is what wow-ed the testers.
scampo
Steve Campsall
Fine points, Jay and having tried what you have with different scopes I have reached similar conclusions.
Of course, I wasn't suggesting my tests yesterday were objective - what I meant was that the magazines appear not to carry out any objective tests. It must be possible to do some useful analysis of a scope's objective performance under controlled laboratory conditions - as camera lenses were so tested in past years, if not now, by magazine reviewers.
What is frustrating is the inconsistencies we are presented with by such reviews and their determination to separate out the inseparable by the use of dubious choices of epithets and rhetoric.
What did I mean by "brighter" - well, not luminance, I suppose alone, but perhaps a preceived combination of this with acutance.
Of course, I wasn't suggesting my tests yesterday were objective - what I meant was that the magazines appear not to carry out any objective tests. It must be possible to do some useful analysis of a scope's objective performance under controlled laboratory conditions - as camera lenses were so tested in past years, if not now, by magazine reviewers.
What is frustrating is the inconsistencies we are presented with by such reviews and their determination to separate out the inseparable by the use of dubious choices of epithets and rhetoric.
What did I mean by "brighter" - well, not luminance, I suppose alone, but perhaps a preceived combination of this with acutance.
Last edited:
CDK said:
What a muppet! Did they also say "The contrast and brightness were not as high as I was expecting, then I realised I had not removed the objective cap". Ooops, sorry, George Bush was not a tester (US citizens might understand that remark!)
I think it can take many hours to get used to a given products ergonomics, and only then can one give a valid judgement.
gordon hamlett
Well-known member
Can we kill this wrong impression once and for all. If you read the article carefully, it quite clearly states - as have all the recent optics reviews - that Steve Dudley merely compiled the article. He was **not ** one of the testers and had no input whatsoever on the reviewers' comments.
You might like to look at other magazines and websites and see if the reviewers always declare what make and model they use normally. At least the magazine is very open about who uses what. And why shouldn't they - they have nothing to hide.
I'm sorry if you believe that the piece was biased in any way. It wasn't, and nor have any of the other surveys or reviews in the magazine been. But then I suspect that nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Conspiracy theories always make for a better read, no matter how ignorant of the facts they are.
If you can show that any make or model has been unfairly awarded higher marks than it deserves, or that any company has paid for a good review then state your evidence. Otherwise, shut up.
Gordon - who declares an interest in that he writes book reviews and does some editing for Birdwatching magazine.
pduxon
Quacked up Member
Your point about Mr Dudley is of course correct but shall we say it does question the independence of the process when someone who helped design one of the pieces of kit is involved, if only in an administrative role.
I think the complaint is that every other test I've seen sees the Zeiss and Swaro as very close optically which in this one review they aren't.
Of course no one can "prove" that one make or model has been slighted its just that we could have guessed the result before opening the magazine!!
I think the complaint is that every other test I've seen sees the Zeiss and Swaro as very close optically which in this one review they aren't.
Of course no one can "prove" that one make or model has been slighted its just that we could have guessed the result before opening the magazine!!
