-
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.
Websites with Binocular Tests and Reviews (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Canip
- Start date
Bill
You may be correct that these reviews aren't necessarily any more significant but they do provide additional opinions and this is especially useful to folks who are at an early stage in learning about binos and how to choose between them.
When you say that most of our members are sharp I suspect what you have in mind are the folks that post here and in that you are right, but Birdforum has over 157,000 members so it is only a tiny fraction of this membership that actually post. The other members visit for many reasons and among those reasons is a desire to find opinions about binos and signposting additional places where they can find them is helpful and in the spirit of Birdforum.
Lee
Being a curmudgeon myself, I have to say that this was not my point.
If you look at the first post of this thread, I wasn‘t after „sharpness“ (pun not intended
) but instead after „reliable reviews and tests“ - of course, a big word!These get usually written by people who
- know a thing or two about optics and the machine-human interface
- have quite a bit of experience
- know how to work and write systematically (or even scientifically).
Of course, there are many members here who fit that description. Nevertheless, most reviews I am reading on BF or CN (including those I have written myself!!!) are rather something like „user reports“, giving a more or less personal account of what was experienced with this or that binocular.
An then there are the more systematic reviews such as e.g. the current one on the Canon 10x32 here on BF by Henry Link, or others outside BF by people like Kimmo Absetz, or Holger Merlitz, or Gjis, or others who have unfortunately stopped writing reviews such as Ed Zarenski (to just name those that come spontaneously to my mind, but there are of course many others to which I apologize for not naming them here).
Please don‘t misunderstand me. I am not disqualifying the many nice and interesting user reports here on BF; I spend myself A LOT of time reading and enjoying those. It‘s just that from time to time, I like either a slightly more systematic analysis of what‘s going on, or an in-depth description of one or comparison of several binoculars.
And such write-ups are usually too big for a forum post, and therefore I was looking for websites where they are easily accessible (I will have to print out the many posts here from Henry on the Canon in order to have them as easily accessible as I like).
And I admit that I had to look up in the Collins what curmudgeon means ....:-O
Canip
WJC
Well-known member
Dear European Curmudgeon:
I think (nay, hope) you will agree we are all products of our experiences and environment. If so, then my time in optics allows me a different perspective than those who have had different careers. Elkcub has rattled my cage for being too preachy or braggadocio. But, that too, has had—based on experience—a valid and useful reason.
Everyone coming to a binoculars forum has an equal right to share their opinions. However, that does not mean all those opinions are equally accurate. My whole schtick is to provide—from experience—data that might help someone. Do I make mistakes? Yep. Do I mind being corrected when wrong? Absolutely not! It gives me better information to proffer my neighbor the next time the subject arises. I didn’t worship binoculars. I just used them to feed my family and put the kids through school.
The over the top behavior is used in an effort to get through to the one or two percent who MAY be listening and care. Sadly, most people believe ALL these forums are just chat sessions. And, if that’s what they believe ... that’s what they get. (see attachment)
Example: Over on Cloudy Nights a fellow stated that nobody had ever addressed a certain point about binocular collimation. I referenced 3 sources that would have answered his question. Not only that, I gave him my email address and invited him to contact me. Did he check any of the sources I offered? He did not. Did he call me as requested? He did not. Did he miss a beat in continuing to spread inaccurate information? What do you think?
In my previous post on BF, I was just trying to point out that so many revered “experts” ... aren’t—no more than a large number of members of this forum, some of whom you have already mentioned. As Lee points out, opinions from all quarters matter. But I’ve known some of these experts, been in their shops, and if I revealed all I know, I would be in court the rest of my life. In general, let me say that some still know nothing about binocular alignment and some of those who do, learned it through Cory or myself.
“No Brag; just fact.”— Walter Brennan, The Guns of Will Sonnett, 1967-1969
I will mention one example. Based on the success I was having at Captain’s in Seattle, the manager of Captain’s sister store in Portland hired a Navy Opticalman for his store. This “Opticalman” was a Corpsman who walked behind an F-14 Tomcat that was testing its engines and was blown— unceremoniously—off a flight deck, getting pretty banged up in the process.
Rather than lose a warm body, the Navy put a sword on his shoulder and said: “Thou art now an Opticalman.” So, what did this fellow know about optics? Does the term “ZERO” mean anything to you? Of course, the manager, not knowing anything about optics himself, hired him based on the rating he had when he left the Navy. A valid choice? He was a nice enough fellow; I liked him and spent hours teaching him what the Navy didn’t.
One day, while visiting the Portland store, I saw this fellow out in the pouring rain trying to collimate a sextant by looking at a flag atop a nearby bridge. When he came in, wet from head to toe, and leaned against his Mk 5 collimator to discuss his ordeal (At least it was warm. Portland can’t always get rain like that), I asked him why on earth he chose standing in the rain as opposed to using the collimator.
He replied: “You mean you can use this thing for that?” ‘Nuff said.
Most of the things in binocular repair require little more than a few hand tools, manual dexterity, and a modicum of common sense. Other things require a knowledge of the operation of the particular instrument and the whys and wherefores of 3-axis collimation, none of which are currently revealed on the Internet. Good intentions never equal technical accuracy. The same is true of sales, as well. If the bar of understanding is going to be raised, the salesperson must know more than what’s on the side of the box.
Accurate or not, all opinions are useful to someone. But as long as I see articles, ostensibly written by people some see as experts, stating waterproof “just means rubber armored,” people confusing distortion with curvature of field, think aberrations can be corrected independently, collimation (Columnation, Colluation, Kolimation, Kolimation, Kullmination, etc.) error seen as the inability to “focus,” why the left side of their binocular CAN’T be focused, or calling Bk7 “BAK7” (which is not made by any leading glass company), please forgive me, but I am going to be leery of experts. I have seen way too much bad information put out by them. The main reason being too many people take the first piece of research they see and run with it.
“So, you have enemies? Good, that means you have stood up for something sometime in your life.” — Winston Churchill
I’ll end by asking for your forgiveness if not your indulgence. :cat:
Bill
I think (nay, hope) you will agree we are all products of our experiences and environment. If so, then my time in optics allows me a different perspective than those who have had different careers. Elkcub has rattled my cage for being too preachy or braggadocio. But, that too, has had—based on experience—a valid and useful reason.
Everyone coming to a binoculars forum has an equal right to share their opinions. However, that does not mean all those opinions are equally accurate. My whole schtick is to provide—from experience—data that might help someone. Do I make mistakes? Yep. Do I mind being corrected when wrong? Absolutely not! It gives me better information to proffer my neighbor the next time the subject arises. I didn’t worship binoculars. I just used them to feed my family and put the kids through school.
The over the top behavior is used in an effort to get through to the one or two percent who MAY be listening and care. Sadly, most people believe ALL these forums are just chat sessions. And, if that’s what they believe ... that’s what they get. (see attachment)
Example: Over on Cloudy Nights a fellow stated that nobody had ever addressed a certain point about binocular collimation. I referenced 3 sources that would have answered his question. Not only that, I gave him my email address and invited him to contact me. Did he check any of the sources I offered? He did not. Did he call me as requested? He did not. Did he miss a beat in continuing to spread inaccurate information? What do you think?
In my previous post on BF, I was just trying to point out that so many revered “experts” ... aren’t—no more than a large number of members of this forum, some of whom you have already mentioned. As Lee points out, opinions from all quarters matter. But I’ve known some of these experts, been in their shops, and if I revealed all I know, I would be in court the rest of my life. In general, let me say that some still know nothing about binocular alignment and some of those who do, learned it through Cory or myself.
“No Brag; just fact.”— Walter Brennan, The Guns of Will Sonnett, 1967-1969
I will mention one example. Based on the success I was having at Captain’s in Seattle, the manager of Captain’s sister store in Portland hired a Navy Opticalman for his store. This “Opticalman” was a Corpsman who walked behind an F-14 Tomcat that was testing its engines and was blown— unceremoniously—off a flight deck, getting pretty banged up in the process.
Rather than lose a warm body, the Navy put a sword on his shoulder and said: “Thou art now an Opticalman.” So, what did this fellow know about optics? Does the term “ZERO” mean anything to you? Of course, the manager, not knowing anything about optics himself, hired him based on the rating he had when he left the Navy. A valid choice? He was a nice enough fellow; I liked him and spent hours teaching him what the Navy didn’t.
One day, while visiting the Portland store, I saw this fellow out in the pouring rain trying to collimate a sextant by looking at a flag atop a nearby bridge. When he came in, wet from head to toe, and leaned against his Mk 5 collimator to discuss his ordeal (At least it was warm. Portland can’t always get rain like that), I asked him why on earth he chose standing in the rain as opposed to using the collimator.
He replied: “You mean you can use this thing for that?” ‘Nuff said.
Most of the things in binocular repair require little more than a few hand tools, manual dexterity, and a modicum of common sense. Other things require a knowledge of the operation of the particular instrument and the whys and wherefores of 3-axis collimation, none of which are currently revealed on the Internet. Good intentions never equal technical accuracy. The same is true of sales, as well. If the bar of understanding is going to be raised, the salesperson must know more than what’s on the side of the box.
Accurate or not, all opinions are useful to someone. But as long as I see articles, ostensibly written by people some see as experts, stating waterproof “just means rubber armored,” people confusing distortion with curvature of field, think aberrations can be corrected independently, collimation (Columnation, Colluation, Kolimation, Kolimation, Kullmination, etc.) error seen as the inability to “focus,” why the left side of their binocular CAN’T be focused, or calling Bk7 “BAK7” (which is not made by any leading glass company), please forgive me, but I am going to be leery of experts. I have seen way too much bad information put out by them. The main reason being too many people take the first piece of research they see and run with it.
“So, you have enemies? Good, that means you have stood up for something sometime in your life.” — Winston Churchill
I’ll end by asking for your forgiveness if not your indulgence. :cat:
Bill
Being a curmudgeon myself, I have to say that this was not my point.
If you look at the first post of this thread, I wasn‘t after „sharpness“ (pun not intended
These get usually written by people who
- know a thing or two about optics and the machine-human interface
- have quite a bit of experience
- know how to work and write systematically (or even scientifically).
Of course, there are many members here who fit that description. Nevertheless, most reviews I am reading on BF or CN (including those I have written myself!!!) are rather something like „user reports“, giving a more or less personal account of what was experienced with this or that binocular.
An then there are the more systematic reviews such as e.g. the current one on the Canon 10x32 here on BF by Henry Link, or others outside BF by people like Kimmo Absetz, or Holger Merlitz, or Gjis, or others who have unfortunately stopped writing reviews such as Ed Zarenski (to just name those that come spontaneously to my mind, but there are of course many others to which I apologize for not naming them here).
Please don‘t misunderstand me. I am not disqualifying the many nice and interesting user reports here on BF; I spend myself A LOT of time reading and enjoying those. It‘s just that from time to time, I like either a slightly more systematic analysis of what‘s going on, or an in-depth description of one or comparison of several binoculars.
And such write-ups are usually too big for a forum post, and therefore I was looking for websites where they are easily accessible (I will have to print out the many posts here from Henry on the Canon in order to have them as easily accessible as I like).
And I admit that I had to look up in the Collins what curmudgeon means ....:-O
Canip
Attachments
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bill:
I like your style, no matter what it is called, and I suppose I am much the same.
Internet Forums have a personality, so we all need to take any review posted, evaluate and take it
with a grain of salt.
I am not bashful either, so if I see something I consider not right I like to call it out.
I have a type A personality, and proud of it.
Jerry
I like your style, no matter what it is called, and I suppose I am much the same.
Internet Forums have a personality, so we all need to take any review posted, evaluate and take it
with a grain of salt.
I am not bashful either, so if I see something I consider not right I like to call it out.
I have a type A personality, and proud of it.
Jerry
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Jerry, I'm pretty sure your personality is not just limited to the A type! I can think of a few more letters as well
Chosun :gh:
WJC
Well-known member
“EXPERT” broken down into its basic components for the sake of clarification and better understanding.
EX=has been
SPERT=a drip under pressure
:cat:
WJC
Well-known member
„Spert“?
Bill, I think the auto-correction feature must be off on your laptop ...
Nope. That’s called “literary license.”
However, for a few months after my stroke, I couldn’t type. If you would like to have a good laugh at my expense—I’m used to it; I’ve raised 3 to adulthood*—you might note some of the other stupid things I’m doing. A stroke is like a wrecking ball to an IQ.
Today, I will substitute words (are for as, in for is, end for the ... where did that come from?), we leave out as many as 3 words in a row that the brain THOUGHT were there, or use a word that is totally foreign to the topic at hand. Or, as you saw in the first line of this paragraph, substitute “we leave out as many ...” for “will leave out as many.” The title of my last Op-Ed was to be, “TO WALL, OR NOT TO WALL.” But after proofing the piece several times, and pressing the key to send, I noticed what I had actually typed was: “TO WALL, OF NOT TO WALL.” “OF,” really?
Of course, there is a positive side. Before the stroke, I had to take responsibility for my own stupidity. Now, when I do something stupid, I say, “Oh, that’s just a stroke thing.”
* Let it be known that those bloody baby changing tables are all a blatant fraud. I must have had my oldest on a couple dozen of those things. Each time I prayed for a puppy. But all that ever got changed was a dirty diaper! :cat:
Bill
Well, Bill, a stroke is an extremely serious thing, and I am very sorry to hear that you had to cope with one.
However, today we sure are all happy that you are here among us and as astute, critical, witty and sharp as you are, holding up a mirror to the many know-it-alls, sperting“ unheard words, making this forum a more fun place.
Canip
However, today we sure are all happy that you are here among us and as astute, critical, witty and sharp as you are, holding up a mirror to the many know-it-alls, sperting“ unheard words, making this forum a more fun place.
Canip
WJC
Well-known member
You are kinder than I deserve. But I DO try to make my presence of benefit to some. Of course, those who have a predilection for THINKING faster than they can REASON can often take offense at my straight talk. ‘Seems I’m not politically correct enough for the faint of heart. You may recall I was once thrown off this forum because a couple of those people got bent out of shape at my straight-forward method of getting given points across in a meaningful way.
It took Lee going to bat for me to get me back on. Then, because of the stroke, I got in hot water because I couldn’t remember who did me the good deed.
The attached graphic will explain my plight. It’s from a book I shouldn’t mention because I am greedily making a fortune from it. Oh, look, there’s the Brinks truck now with today’s second delivery of cash.
But I am grateful to be alive; so many other stroke victims are not so fortunate. Also, it has been good for understanding quirks in others. I used to see handicapped people on chairs rocking endlessly back and forth for seemingly no reason and I wondered if they ever got tired. Since the stroke, I can get my right leg bouncing and it will bounce constantly for 45 minutes to an hour without me getting tired. Question answered. These days, I can stop it; right after the stroke, I couldn’t. :cat:
Attachments
OMG philosophy before 08:00!
My dad died of a stroke and our next door neighbour's dad is in hospital now after one, so lets give thanks we still have Bill amongst us.
Lee
WJC
Well-known member
Although I have yet to go down the drain, the rate with which I’m circling it is quite disconcerting. :cat:
Bill