-
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.
Blind Binocular Test (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
Steve C
Well-known member
Kevin,
I am not quite sure how to respond. Now, I didn't come close to taking offense. I will say that you did not "pigeon hole" anything either. I hope you didn't think I was taking a poke at you. There was a post right after yours that chacterized the glass as just another $500 glass, which was not news. He may be exactly right, but maybe not.
I maybe should have stated outright that I think there is an oxy-moron hiding in the terminology "blind optics test". I also realize that there are enough knowlegable folks who you couldn't fool if you planned this thing all night and into the middle of next week. I thought I dealt with that.
You are exactly right about national bias, especially with regard o China. But that is political. I don't think racism is nearly as much of a factor as is communism. But I go NO further here. Not the place. I have some Chinese optics that I use a lot. Particularly both flavors of Yosemite and a Vortex Fury 6.5x32. They have gotten better and will continue to do so. As you correctly point out, that is a fact of life. Something to factor into the blind test oxy moron.
It is quite common to see somebody post and adamantly assert they could immediately tell some feature from another. No doubt some can. No doubt some just think they can. I'd like to test folks on this too as part of the blind test protocol as well.
It's not about proving some right and others wrong. It's more about seeing how preconcieved notion affect evaluation results and if there is an effect. I try hard to spend my money to get what I want at the best price I can get. SO I try hard not to get too ijnvolved with brand. Unless of course previous positive or negative experience clouds my judgement. I suppose in that I;m no different than anybody else. If I am down to a pick between X and Yand I know about X and not about Y, than X will likely get the nod. Yeah it really is about being human.
I am not quite sure how to respond. Now, I didn't come close to taking offense. I will say that you did not "pigeon hole" anything either. I hope you didn't think I was taking a poke at you. There was a post right after yours that chacterized the glass as just another $500 glass, which was not news. He may be exactly right, but maybe not.
I maybe should have stated outright that I think there is an oxy-moron hiding in the terminology "blind optics test". I also realize that there are enough knowlegable folks who you couldn't fool if you planned this thing all night and into the middle of next week. I thought I dealt with that.
You are exactly right about national bias, especially with regard o China. But that is political. I don't think racism is nearly as much of a factor as is communism. But I go NO further here. Not the place. I have some Chinese optics that I use a lot. Particularly both flavors of Yosemite and a Vortex Fury 6.5x32. They have gotten better and will continue to do so. As you correctly point out, that is a fact of life. Something to factor into the blind test oxy moron.
It is quite common to see somebody post and adamantly assert they could immediately tell some feature from another. No doubt some can. No doubt some just think they can. I'd like to test folks on this too as part of the blind test protocol as well.
It's not about proving some right and others wrong. It's more about seeing how preconcieved notion affect evaluation results and if there is an effect. I try hard to spend my money to get what I want at the best price I can get. SO I try hard not to get too ijnvolved with brand. Unless of course previous positive or negative experience clouds my judgement. I suppose in that I;m no different than anybody else. If I am down to a pick between X and Yand I know about X and not about Y, than X will likely get the nod. Yeah it really is about being human.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Steve,
I've been following this thread with some enjoyment. The notion of making the observers "blind" to the specimens, unfortunately, won't work. As you pointed out, there are too many identity cues. It would also be arduous, to say the least. However, it is possible to do an experiment, similar to the surveys done by Cornell a few years ago, but with proper attention paid to experiment design and subsequent analysis. For example, if all of the observers were given a thorough questionnaire revealing, age, familiarity with binoculars, ... current equipment, and so forth, it would be analytically possible to tease out some of the bias effects you're talking about. In the end, this would be expressed as a percentage of response variance that is accounted for by demographic factors of interest. In that way, all members of the community could participate, since the analysis would associate response patterns with the characteristics of the respondents.
My guess is that casual birders or neophytes to optics would show quite different survey response patterns than serious birders or optogeeks. Just some thoughts, but I agree with your basic notion that the badge on the instrument would also have an effect that differs depending on the demographics of the observer. It could be very interesting. Of course, it could also be very expensive.
Ed
I've been following this thread with some enjoyment. The notion of making the observers "blind" to the specimens, unfortunately, won't work. As you pointed out, there are too many identity cues. It would also be arduous, to say the least. However, it is possible to do an experiment, similar to the surveys done by Cornell a few years ago, but with proper attention paid to experiment design and subsequent analysis. For example, if all of the observers were given a thorough questionnaire revealing, age, familiarity with binoculars, ... current equipment, and so forth, it would be analytically possible to tease out some of the bias effects you're talking about. In the end, this would be expressed as a percentage of response variance that is accounted for by demographic factors of interest. In that way, all members of the community could participate, since the analysis would associate response patterns with the characteristics of the respondents.
My guess is that casual birders or neophytes to optics would show quite different survey response patterns than serious birders or optogeeks. Just some thoughts, but I agree with your basic notion that the badge on the instrument would also have an effect that differs depending on the demographics of the observer. It could be very interesting. Of course, it could also be very expensive.
Ed
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
Ed,
You're right of course. Very expensive. Outside of a generous philanthropist, I have no idea how to fund the thing. You make a good point about the Cornell review. It would be nice if there was some sort of standard review format. When you look over a Cornell Review, or some other comparative review from some other source, and even if brand X is in both the reviews fomats are different so you are left comparing apples and oranges. I don't think there is anything for it but to accept it as the way it is.
You're right of course. Very expensive. Outside of a generous philanthropist, I have no idea how to fund the thing. You make a good point about the Cornell review. It would be nice if there was some sort of standard review format. When you look over a Cornell Review, or some other comparative review from some other source, and even if brand X is in both the reviews fomats are different so you are left comparing apples and oranges. I don't think there is anything for it but to accept it as the way it is.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Though that in itself would be a useful observation: how much is enough for a neophyte? When can they tell the difference and when can't they? And what's that price point (using the price as a proxy for optical quality).
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Do you know someone handing out an anonymous porro prism with ED glass for review.
Sign me up!
Sorry Kevin. I could not resist. Nicely done on the comparative thread. I enjoy reading it each day.
The bigger question perhaps is "Do you know who is making reasonably priced middle and upper quality porro prism bins (with decent eye relief!)". Then we could anonomize it
It seems the lure of margin (and perhaps fashion ... "All the cool kids have roofs") is dismantling the porro market even though the best value (for the consumer) is there.
OK, the porros aren't all gone but the distribution is skewed e.g.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=site:www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp+"porro+prism"
And innovations like porros with internal focusers, like the Leupold Cascades, Vixen Foresta, avoid leakage issues or the "rocking bridge" but none have ED. And I don't see any reviews of them here either.
Am I missing one?
Does the roof prisms design (despite the drawback in transmission) make other design trade-offs easier (FOV, ER, etc)?
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Very interesting. I decided to scrap my earlier response. I'd vote for the "Best Buy" determined by those with more experience.
Ed
Last edited:
Similar threads
