Scope survey. (1 Viewer)

It is only recently that mr Dudley has been moved to the position of 'compiler', was there any reason for this move from actually reviewing items? Does he or has he given 'advise' on optics reviewing to those who carried out the tests?
It's all very well that those with access to birding groups on the internet know that something is wrong with birdwatching magazine's optics reviews but I feel for the magazine's general readership who are unaware of the biased reviews and the unhealthy relationship between mr Dudley and Leica.
Sandy

Gordon: Well then why do they have an obvious pro-Leica bias, to the extend that faults in Leica optics are never mentioned? Also why are their reviews so inconsistent, except as regards Leica, and why do they differ so markedly from other respected reviews e.g. Alula, Better View Desired and so on? Note that Steve Ingraham who maintained the BVD site is now doing some work for Zeiss, which to me suggests that he is highly respected. I certainly find his reviews match my own experiences of equipment that I own, whereas BW magazine reviews are often horrendously wide of the mark to the point where the advice can be worse than useless. I did not believe some of Steve Ingraham's reviews, discounting them as rediculous, until I came to own and hence use the equipment in question.

I could also mention (again ) that the Nikon scope was recently tested with a different eyepiece from all other scopes, rendering the results meaningless, and BW magazine did not even say why. That to me is unfair to Nikon and I would expect them to complain vociferously.

IMO if BW magazine is to maintain any credibility for its optics reviews, and not become a laughing stock, then the staff have to change their testing methodology.

Incidentally, in case you are thinking that I am guilty of equipment envy, I have just purchased a Leica APO 77 scope, regarding it as the best of the bunch to MY eyes. (I am worried by the stories of lemons, as the RSPB had to order one in for me. The demo one had some wear. But that's another story.)

Gordon: BTW you asked for an example of obvious bias. I compared the Swaro 8x32 EL with my Nikon 8x32 SE. I carried out the tests on a dreary dull grey day, looking out on a lake, with ducks and gulls. Optically the Swaro was completely outclassed by the Nikon: the image was much less bright, had much more off-axis chromatic aberration, and seemed much flatter. So why did BW magazine rate the Swaro optics better?

I could go on, but one clear obvious example clearly suggests either bias or technical inability on the part of the testers.

I am sure other members of birdwatching's staff will be along to try and defend their position, thought it is hard to imagine how they can after yet another dubious optics review.

gordon hamlett said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's a bit naughty to use rheotoric to try to win the argument. The reason there is frustration with this magazine is that in several other high quality reviews, very different results have been reported for both Zeiss and Nikon - and the reviewers should have known this and commented on it in all fairness. Also, the complete lack of any worthwhile objective measurements is surely a reason for dismay.

The Nikon scope - when first launched late last year - was once again tested with the same very odd choice of eyepiece (as in this review, too - I wonder, was it the same scope?); and it is frustrating that on this occasion, this led to what can only be described as a rather facile comment that the Nikon's FOV was rather narrow: the Nikon 38x is one of the most highly regarded fixed wide angle eyepieces currently available and it has at least as wide a FOV as any similar eyepiece. Anyone who looks through the ED82A with that eyepiece cannot fail to be impressed with its quality (as was the reviewer when it was first tested at launch - see below).

The Nikon and Zeiss are also significantly more compact than the other scopes; the Nikon is beautifully balanced and the Zeiss is a relative lightweight, too.

In the earlier review, this is what the reviewer said about the Nikon:

"...optical performance of the ED82A was faultless and it performed outstandingly in the gloomy conditions around dusk"

Yes, I think there is room for criticism and I do hope that Nikon, especially, ask for an explanation.

I don't think anyone would be so daft as to suggest people paying for reviews......

just that they appear to be so random and unobjective eg the Nikon eyepiece described by Steve above etc etc etc......

I have no axe to grind a i have gear I'm very happy with, thoroughly field tested etc but I can see how some people after a new/first scope might feel ill informed after a purchase....

Tim Allwood said:

I don't think anyone would be so daft as to suggest people paying for reviews......

Click to expand...

Having had plenty of experience in the magazine trade, I can tell you that this is more common than you may think. I doubt this is the case with birding magazines and certainly not birdwatching mag, in fact it's less common in the U.K. than the U.S.
It pays to remember that some advertisers are more valuable than others, so it is not always a case of a brown envelope stuffed with 20's.

Ok, lets start at the very beginning. I have passed on all your comments to the magazine. I only freelance for them and have no direct involvement.

The point I was originally answering was the accusation that by having Steve Dudley write the article, it was somehow biased and corrupt. I am not commenting on the contents of any particular review and whether it was right or wrong.

I reiterate in the strongest terms, that there is not one shred of evidence that the contents of any of the optics reviews are anything other than the fair and honest opinions of the reviewers - of whom Steve Dudley was not one.

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with the findings of a review but that is another matter. Just because someone holds differing views to your own, does not necessarily make him or her wrong, biased or corrupt. It just means that he has a differnt point of view from your own.

It is sad when Sandy Martin writes a comment that is malicious, ill-informed and libellous.

It's all very well that those with access to birding groups on the internet know that something is wrong with birdwatching magazine's optics reviews but I feel for the magazine's general readership who are unaware of the biased reviews and the unhealthy relationship between mr Dudley and Leica.

Click to expand...

There are no biased reviews in the magazine. What unhealthy relationship? It is made perfectly clear in the magazine that Steve Dudley has a connection with Leica. There is no attempt at a cover up.

A couple of points on reviewing in general. No magazine or paper in the world comments on what other papers have said in their reviews - and nor should they. A review is about what the reviewer thinks, not what somebody else thinks. If 99 reviewers like a film and I don't, I am not going to write a review saying how great it was. I am going to use rhetoric to put my case (yes scampo, despite what you say, that is what an argument is all about) At the end of the day, if I write a review, then those are my opinions and I am trying to persuade you to think along similar lines. Whether you choose to do so is irrelevant.

As I have said, I didn't take part in any of the testing so I can't comment on the reviews themselves. Just one general point occurs to me though. The review of the Nikon eyepice that seems to have got a lot of you hot under the collar was IIRC a review of one particular piece of equipment, not a group test. There is a big difference.

As always, if you think you know of a better way to conduct reviews, then email the editor David Cromack at [email protected] He is always happy to hear constructive criticism

Gordon

gordon hamlett said:

It is made perfectly clear in the magazine that Steve Dudley has a connection with Leica. There is no attempt at a cover up.

Click to expand...

fair point, it is made clear

Although I wonder would I turn round to the compiler and say this scope is duff when the bloke concerned has a connection with said scope. The scope is a goody by the way - I've used it.

But a review is not for the reviewer, it is for the reader, for goodness sakes - and any reviewer that's worth his salt will surely try very hard to take the reader's requirements into consideration. It does seem that many feel this is not being done by these magazines if the comments running through this thread are any measure.

I can see no sensible reason for a reviewer (or at least the editor of the review) not to refer to other reviews to illucidate a point or to recognise and try to explain a discrepancy (and perhaps most especially when the other review was carried out with the same odd choice of eyepiece!).

Now, you have told one of us to "Shut up!", and you have accused another of libel. Ah well - lackaday!

Obviously there are some very strong feelings on this particular subject but could members remember the laws of libel and be careful in what you write.
Cheers,
Andy@birdforum

Gordon:
Of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with the findings of a review but that is another matter. Just because someone holds differing views to your own, does not necessarily make him or her wrong, biased or corrupt. It just means that he has a differnt point of view from your own.

Click to expand...

No. I would have hoped that they were trying to determine the actual performance of an instrument, rather than just giving opinions. The fact that they diverge so strongly from so many other reviews (including their own) is worrying. Of course the subjective feel of an image is also very important. After all, the reviews are supposed to help other people.

And incidentally the recent group test of scopes compared the Nikon 82 ED + 38 xw with other scopes and a ~30xw.

Andy Bright said:

Obviously there are some very strong feelings on this particular subject but could members remember the laws of libel and be careful in what you write.
Cheers,
Andy@birdforum

Click to expand...

yup,

Andy how about have a BF reviewing session at Rutland?

I seem to remember you've reviewed the Zeiss85 and Swaro 80 is the Swaro THAT much better than the Zeiss?? I know its personal opinion and all that but I'd be intrigued.

Andy Bright said:

Obviously there are some very strong feelings on this particular subject but could members remember the laws of libel and be careful in what you write.
Cheers,
Andy@birdforum

Click to expand...

Good point. FWIW I would be surprised if the BW magazine reviewers were not doing their best to carry out fair and honest reviews. I just don't think that the tests are sufficiently complete, rigorous or objective.

scampo said:

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.

Click to expand...

The situation reminds me a LOT of the situation with esoteric audiophile equipment. But at least in that situation you could find reviews that did objective testing as well as subjective evaluations.

Jay Turberville said:

The situation reminds me a LOT of the situation with esoteric audiophile equipment. But at least in that situation you could find reviews that did objective testing as well as subjective evaluations.

Click to expand...

As the owner of some now aging 'esoteric' audio kit (including some beautiful sounding Snell Acoutics speakers from the USA, by the way) - I can relate to what you say. In the end it must come down to what the individual can see or hear. Perhaps we rely on reviewers more than we really ought, trusting in who we deem, perhaps unfairly, to be "experts" (that very word "expert" comes loaded with its own very interesting connotational and ideological baggage, of course).

Mind you - I feel I could trust the views of many of the experienced folk we are lucky to have on this forum - as the intensity of interest and educated comment from them is often only to clear.

What is different here compared to what we read in most modern magazine reviews is that the folks here obviously don't need to comply with the kind of editorial pressures that forces them to write in a non-technical (yes - even on reflection, I'd still call it 'dumbed down') way to suit a perceived 'non-tchnical' audience. I feel that more rigour would be a good thing such as we read in, for example, the Alula tests.

As another audiophile, I'd have to say that hi-fi reviewing is even more curious in that you can get lousy tech specs from a certain item and yet the audio is more appealing than an item that produces all the 'correct' data. My old Jadis tube amps (and Stax headphone driver amp) are perfect examples of something that should sound awful but don't.

God forbid that optics reviews go down the same route that hi-fi has taken in the past...Peter Belt and Jimmy Hughes putting little bits of paper under one of their tripod legs!!!

All I want to know is - if we are continuing with the Hi-Fi/Optics analogy what is the optical equivilent of the Krell Pre/Power Amps I lust after?

I'll wade in , and then get out... before buying my last scope (Zeiss, BTW) I didn't depend on one review. Instead, I searched and read reviews from a variety of sources, and then went out and tried to compare what I'd read with what I actually SAW through various models.

Please, use the reviews only as a tool to help narrow your choices; nothing more, nothing less.

Regards,

GR

Jasonbirder said:

All I want to know is - if we are continuing with the Hi-Fi/Optics analogy what is the optical equivilent of the Krell Pre/Power Amps I lust after?

Click to expand...

expensive, large, heavy and impractical for most....gotta be talking Questar