-
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
trealawboy
Well-known member
Exactly!GR Triever said:
scampo
Steve Campsall
I suspect (hope) that that is what folks generally do. But few would feel happy buying a scope that comes bottom in a test - and that's what this is all about, I suppose. We seem unable to trust to our own five senses - part of the socialisation process, as Marx would rightly point out. Orwell's 1984 is snapping at our heels as we write.GR Triever said:
Jay Turberville
Well-known member
Andy Bright said:
Well I usually hang my tripod from a branch in a net and use a green marker around the edge of my eyepieces.
The problem with technical specs is that they don't always translate well into perceived differences. But the good thing is that they often do and they can tell us things about design and execution of the design - like is my "apo" really an apo. So I still think the best thing is a combination of both methods. Objective tests and subjective evaluations. I think it would also be interesting to have a combined objective/subjective test where reviewers use the scopes at the limits of resolution and we find out if different reviewers actually see more detail out of different scopes.
As far as bias is concerned, I think it is very easy for bias to creep into the opinions of even the most fair-minded person. By nature, we are very subjective creatures. All of our senses get auto-adjusted by our brains and our emotional moods influence us greatly. I agree that there is a lot of good info posted in groups like these. But I also think that - through no ill intent - many exhibit significant bias. But then that perception may be brought on by my own biases.
Jasonbirder
Jason-occasional-twitcher
Also at the end of the day there is the "Human" element to choosing optics- as much as optical quality & ease of use i`d confess to wanting people to look enviously at my scope if i`d just paid £1100 quid for it!
Does that make me a bad person?
On a more serious note there is an american website http://betterviewdesired.com/index.html which does perform much more optically rigorous and objective testing on things like colour correctness, resolution, image brightness etc and actually explains how the tests are performed and measured - interesting reading and their reccomendations do differ substantially from what u"us brits" might expect to be rated as top in each category.
Does that make me a bad person?
On a more serious note there is an american website http://betterviewdesired.com/index.html which does perform much more optically rigorous and objective testing on things like colour correctness, resolution, image brightness etc and actually explains how the tests are performed and measured - interesting reading and their reccomendations do differ substantially from what u"us brits" might expect to be rated as top in each category.
IanF
Moderator
I'll second GR's comments.
I don't have a problem with the Birdwatching scope review at all and found it interesting and worthwhile to read. I took it as being a group of people testing out different models and giving their impressions. It would have been better presented if each reviewer had stated their pros and cons for each model rather than just giving a group summary.
The review is just another source of information to be taken into account when deciding on which of the larger scopes to consider.
I don't have a problem with the Birdwatching scope review at all and found it interesting and worthwhile to read. I took it as being a group of people testing out different models and giving their impressions. It would have been better presented if each reviewer had stated their pros and cons for each model rather than just giving a group summary.
The review is just another source of information to be taken into account when deciding on which of the larger scopes to consider.
I thought that Stephen Ingraham of Better View Desired stopped doing optic tests with resolution charts etc some time ago? Perhaps I missed them by mistake if he is still doing them.
A couple years ago he had nice graphs and explained how he did the tests. I just haven't seen them recently.
Bob D
A couple years ago he had nice graphs and explained how he did the tests. I just haven't seen them recently.
Bob D
When I chose a scope, I did exactly as suggested by GR Triever. Excellent advice.
When I bought a hi-fi, I bought a hi-fi magazine, looked through the recommended buys in my price bracket, when to a store to try the one I liked the look of, and bought it. I can't be done with all that audio-phile stuff. I expect many birders are the same: who cares about details, they just want to narrow the list to one or two, and then buy the one that feels best in the shop. And of course a rave review in BW magazine helps create a 'must have' item, thus influencing some to buy it, which in turn fuels the 'must have' status.
Unfortunately many people do not know how to test binoculars. Quite a few years ago I bought my first quality binocular and I partially based my decision on a BW magazine review. I took the view that the item had received a rave review, and hence I could not go wrong. In reality it was crap: the resolution was very poor.
As far as I can tell the BW magazine review contains numerous inaccuracies. For example it states that all Leica optics use ED glass including the non-APO Leica Televid 77. Well I very much doubt that! As most people here know flourite glass and ED glass are both low dispersion glasses that lens manufacturers use to create 2 or 3 element apo-chromatic objectives. So using ED glass in both the APO (contains flourite glass) and non-APO scopes is non-sensical. They also state that the Zeiss scope was not the brightest, 3 others being brighter. I was not able to test the brightness of this scope (I could not find a shop stocking all four top end ones) but numerous comparative reviews all state that it is the brightest. I think this sort of thing is important, as for some people it is hard to find a shop that stocks more than one or two scopes. I certainly found it impossible to find a shop that both stocked all 4 scopes and provided facilities to test them outdoors. In focus had the Swaro and the Nikon at a field day, the Zeiss and the Nikon at a shop on a WWT reserve, and the RSPB had the Swaro and the Leica APO at a reserve shop. All staff were very helpful, but I'm sure that many unsuspecting people will rely to some extent on the BW magazine review. Otherwise what is the point of producing it if the conclusion is "Don't believe a word." because it is so inaccurate.
I think they need to combine objective scientific tests with field tests: both are important.
When I bought a hi-fi, I bought a hi-fi magazine, looked through the recommended buys in my price bracket, when to a store to try the one I liked the look of, and bought it. I can't be done with all that audio-phile stuff. I expect many birders are the same: who cares about details, they just want to narrow the list to one or two, and then buy the one that feels best in the shop. And of course a rave review in BW magazine helps create a 'must have' item, thus influencing some to buy it, which in turn fuels the 'must have' status.
Unfortunately many people do not know how to test binoculars. Quite a few years ago I bought my first quality binocular and I partially based my decision on a BW magazine review. I took the view that the item had received a rave review, and hence I could not go wrong. In reality it was crap: the resolution was very poor.
As far as I can tell the BW magazine review contains numerous inaccuracies. For example it states that all Leica optics use ED glass including the non-APO Leica Televid 77. Well I very much doubt that! As most people here know flourite glass and ED glass are both low dispersion glasses that lens manufacturers use to create 2 or 3 element apo-chromatic objectives. So using ED glass in both the APO (contains flourite glass) and non-APO scopes is non-sensical. They also state that the Zeiss scope was not the brightest, 3 others being brighter. I was not able to test the brightness of this scope (I could not find a shop stocking all four top end ones) but numerous comparative reviews all state that it is the brightest. I think this sort of thing is important, as for some people it is hard to find a shop that stocks more than one or two scopes. I certainly found it impossible to find a shop that both stocked all 4 scopes and provided facilities to test them outdoors. In focus had the Swaro and the Nikon at a field day, the Zeiss and the Nikon at a shop on a WWT reserve, and the RSPB had the Swaro and the Leica APO at a reserve shop. All staff were very helpful, but I'm sure that many unsuspecting people will rely to some extent on the BW magazine review. Otherwise what is the point of producing it if the conclusion is "Don't believe a word." because it is so inaccurate.
I think they need to combine objective scientific tests with field tests: both are important.
scampo
Steve Campsall
That's certainly a more than fair appraisal, Ian - but a lot of us (well, me...) would prefer to read more rigorous and more straightforwardly fair reviews. It simply cannot be reasonable to compare a Nikon with a 38x eyepiece against other scopes with 30x eyepieces and comment on the narrow field of the Nikon! Similarly, in the first review of that scope, the headline was, "Nikon Gets Heavy" - and yet the Nikon with its zoom is lighter than the leading scope (Leica - in volume sales terms) and far more compact than any other similar scope.IanF said:
It's certainly not difficult to introduce slant into what seems on the surface to be a balanced review - and not everyone is a close reader aware of or on the lookout for such subtle language usage. To call those who recognise such language use "conspiracy theorists" - as one member has done - shows either a surprising lack of awareness of modern marketing techniques or is itself an attempt at using language in subtle ways to create a particular response in the reader.
Last edited:
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I've read through all the comments about the 'Bird Watching' review of 'big' scopes and I regret to see the personal note that has crept in to the debate. I, perhaps, have the advantage over some commentators in that I've met Steve Dudley several times and have had the odd email correspondence with him. I have no doubt that he's an acute and honest observer who would have absolutely no part in any deliberate attempt to mislead fellow birders. Gordon's point that Steve does no more than oversee the tests is an important one as is the comment that Steve has been open about his role in designing the Leica scope. Of course this doesn't entirely exclude the possibility of unintentional bias creeping into the test, despite best intentions, but I can't see how this can account for the disparity between the appraisal in the test and my personal experience.
So I remain genuinely puzzled by the low scores awarded to the new 82mm Nikon scope. I can't pretend that mine was a scientific test, but comparing the Nikon with the Swarovski recently I found the difference vanishingly small - even in poor light. Yes, the Swarovski's image was better, but hardly to the degree of 2 points on a 10 point scale. I looked through both the Nikon and the Leica APO even more recently and, in an odd reverse of the BW test, found the Nikon looked as bright (or brighter) at x30 than did the Leica at x20. I do wonder whether the Nikon in the test might be one of those 'lemons'. As I recall that in one Alula article the testers found such a wide variation within makes as to make a comparison between makes of dubious validity.
I was also puzzled by the comments in the test about styling issues. Frankly I don't care if a 'scope is "ill proportioned" and has "mushroom-like" eyepieces or that the styling is "long in the tooth". Does this mean if the Leica had only just appeared it'd be a better scope simply by looking novel? I think not. Getting a 'scope isn't (or shouldn't be) a fashion statement. I don't give a damn about styling, but do care about utility, function and image quality!
Incidentally, in all this argument about 'objectivity' vs 'subjectivity' let's not forget that, however misguided and pig-headed individuals may be, if they subjectively think the image through one instrument is more bright/sharp/natural then they'll be happier with the view of the bird. Isn't that what counts?
John
So I remain genuinely puzzled by the low scores awarded to the new 82mm Nikon scope. I can't pretend that mine was a scientific test, but comparing the Nikon with the Swarovski recently I found the difference vanishingly small - even in poor light. Yes, the Swarovski's image was better, but hardly to the degree of 2 points on a 10 point scale. I looked through both the Nikon and the Leica APO even more recently and, in an odd reverse of the BW test, found the Nikon looked as bright (or brighter) at x30 than did the Leica at x20. I do wonder whether the Nikon in the test might be one of those 'lemons'. As I recall that in one Alula article the testers found such a wide variation within makes as to make a comparison between makes of dubious validity.
I was also puzzled by the comments in the test about styling issues. Frankly I don't care if a 'scope is "ill proportioned" and has "mushroom-like" eyepieces or that the styling is "long in the tooth". Does this mean if the Leica had only just appeared it'd be a better scope simply by looking novel? I think not. Getting a 'scope isn't (or shouldn't be) a fashion statement. I don't give a damn about styling, but do care about utility, function and image quality!
Incidentally, in all this argument about 'objectivity' vs 'subjectivity' let's not forget that, however misguided and pig-headed individuals may be, if they subjectively think the image through one instrument is more bright/sharp/natural then they'll be happier with the view of the bird. Isn't that what counts?
John
scampo
Steve Campsall
John - good points but you've intrigued me a touch. The difference between the Nikon and the Swaro was "vanishingly small" yet you then say that "yes the Swaro was better".
I regularly look through both scopes - I'd just like to know what it is about the Swaro image you find "better", however small (before I tell you what I think!).
I regularly look through both scopes - I'd just like to know what it is about the Swaro image you find "better", however small (before I tell you what I think!).
scampo
Steve Campsall
Indeed and quite regularly as there are a few people locally with the Swaro 80. I'm not convinced that the two Swaros are very different - have you looked through the two side by side? Both offer very bright images and the definition of the two is hard to separate.
I think as dusk sets in, the larger objectives would resolve more detail, though.
I think as dusk sets in, the larger objectives would resolve more detail, though.
scampo said:
No, I have not even looked through 65mm Swaro (or 82mm Nikon BTW). I believe that differences are small but eg in Alula's tests (www.alula.fi/gb/smalltelescopes3-2002.htm) 80mm scope resolved the same details 23% farther than 65mm scope (sounds quite a lot to me) - which they say is in accordance with optical theories.
Ilkka
scampo
Steve Campsall
I haven't read that review - is it on their website or in the magazine (I'm looking into a subscription)?
Most reviews of the two scopes place them on a par for seeing detail on birds - but the theoretical aspect is bound to show a difference. The human eye is so adaptable and itself has resiolution limits.
What I find is that most good scopes 'do the job' - what usually prevents a good view is rarely the optics but, rather, the prevailing weather conditions, atmospheric pollution or the sheer distance of the bird from the viewer.
That said, I do agree that, in general, the wider the objective, the more universally useful will be the scope, especially if you don't mind the extra weight and, in particular, if you are using the scope for photographic purposes.
Coming back to comparisons, the Nikon ED82, with an equivalent eyepiece, is, I feel quite sure, is the practical equal of say a Swaro 80, a Zeiss 85 or a Leica 77. If it were possible to carry out a double-blind test, I feel more and more certain that we would all struggle to choose one that was optically better for watching distant birds than another.
Most reviews of the two scopes place them on a par for seeing detail on birds - but the theoretical aspect is bound to show a difference. The human eye is so adaptable and itself has resiolution limits.
What I find is that most good scopes 'do the job' - what usually prevents a good view is rarely the optics but, rather, the prevailing weather conditions, atmospheric pollution or the sheer distance of the bird from the viewer.
That said, I do agree that, in general, the wider the objective, the more universally useful will be the scope, especially if you don't mind the extra weight and, in particular, if you are using the scope for photographic purposes.
Coming back to comparisons, the Nikon ED82, with an equivalent eyepiece, is, I feel quite sure, is the practical equal of say a Swaro 80, a Zeiss 85 or a Leica 77. If it were possible to carry out a double-blind test, I feel more and more certain that we would all struggle to choose one that was optically better for watching distant birds than another.
Last edited:
scampo said:
Hopefully some people will get together at the BF weekend and do some scope comparisons? I am happy to do likewise with anyone nearby who is interested (I can provide a Leica APO 77).
When I read a scope review I look for concrete statements about resolution, brightness, contrast, edge sharpness and distortion with each eyepiece, resistance to flare and so on. I also like phrases that are meaningful to me e.g. brighter but not significantly so. Saying something is brighter is meaningless. Is it a tad brighter, noticeably brighter or massively brighter? I found it hard to see marked differences between the top end scopes except for the Zeiss which had a noticeably and welcome wider field and noticeable distortion at low zoom, and a slightly lower contrast than the others. I did not see the obvious optical superiority of the Swaro 80 HD which many people do see and wonder what it is? The zoom was lovely with superb edge sharpness though. Of course I might be wrong but I like the sort of review that Steve Ingraham writes as he tells you in detail why he (dis)likes something, and does not come out with silly over the top nonsense.
I was very impressed by the subjective image quality of the Nikon scope and its typical Nikon "own eyes" feel. The quantitative quality also seemed very good.
One aspect about magazine reviews has not been mentioned. A rave review, or a poor one, will no doubt affect the re-sale value and ease of re-sale of a product.
Great thread folks, this is why BF is so worth while. my tuppence worth, owned a Leica APO77 for many years and was delighted with it, however it came to a sticky end and in replacing it bought a Nikon 78ED from WHE as a susbstitute until finances improved. This scope was practically unheard of in this neck of the woods and reviews etc were few and far between so I took a gamble and went ahead with the purchase. Thats over a year now and I wont be upgrading in the near or distant future. I do not miss the Leica in the slightest, and the "water resistance" of the nikon seems more than adequate.
Will
Will
Edward woodwood
Member
substitute Will?
with the new MC eyepiece it is certainly as good as...if not better and a lot cheaper but who wants to be seen with 'cheap' or 'old' gear? Apart from me......
regarding universality as mentioned above
surely 60 mm scopes are universally suitable as you can use em anywhere. You wouldn't want a whacking great 80/85/100 mm scope somewhere hot and humid. You can take 60s anywhere, you can't easily carry, or use 80s, in the tropics......
with the new MC eyepiece it is certainly as good as...if not better and a lot cheaper but who wants to be seen with 'cheap' or 'old' gear? Apart from me......
regarding universality as mentioned above
surely 60 mm scopes are universally suitable as you can use em anywhere. You wouldn't want a whacking great 80/85/100 mm scope somewhere hot and humid. You can take 60s anywhere, you can't easily carry, or use 80s, in the tropics......
Last edited:
Brendan Doe
Active member
For anybody in the east of Scotland wanting to compare some scopes, RSPB Vane Farm has an optical weekend this weekend coming 10.30-4pm both days.
Brendan
Brendan
