Originally Posted by henry link
The Porters seem to be making a genuine effort to improve their telescope reviews, but there are still basic problems in their methods and reporting that should be pointed out to anyone relying on them.
I would ignore the resolution numbers in the test which have been so dumbed down that they're useless. Why did they go to the trouble to measure resolution and then not report the actual measurements in the chart? Is the numbering system they use weighted to allow for resolution differences related to aperture or is it simply based on raw resolution? In some cases it appears to understate and in others to exaggerate the probable measurement differences among the scopes. Why not just give us the measurements? Then there is the anomalously poor resolution number for the Nikon EDG (whether weighted or not). Almost certainly this specimen was defective and shouldn't have been tested alongside non-defective scopes. Before any comparison test like this all the scopes should be star tested for sample defects.
The "lowest eye relief" measurement for the zooms was done at the highest magnification. That's the wrong place to measure because the shortest eye relief usually occurs in the middle of the zoom range.
I always try to remember to take everything I read about optics with a pinch of salt.
Reviews are good to point you in the right direction but you've got to believe in your own eyes and common sense and try them out. If they're no good for you, it doesn't matter how highly others rate them.