Endurance test of binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

Allbinos showed a clear and hostile bias in their summation. That alone tells me they don't understand science, testing, or fair play. They could have reported their results to Leica (and other water logged victims), waited two weeks for replies and then published their results. Imagine the effect of saying "well, we gave them two weeks to investigate and get back to us...but they didn't." Now that might influence me. As it is, we don't know where the bins in question are at the moment. Does Leica have them in house?

People are pretty much free to do as they please. Take your bins swimming; it matters not to me. Throw them off a cliff. Bake them, freeze them and microwave them. I don't care in the least. But, when you decide to deliberately take down a legendary company you better expect a challenge. A couple of paragraphs on a website proves absolutely nothing. When the text is riddled with negative bias it speaks volumes.

PS
No insult was ever intended.

"microwave them" !!! :eek!: :eek!:

Probably not a good idea 'ZAP' - BOOM! :storm: ...... 'Ouch' :gn: |=(|

Still, figure of speech; I get your gist - do whatever you want to your own bins - try not to hurt yourself though! :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[oetzi]

That seems a good approach, as long as the initial result and the switch are clearly noted.
Otherwise, there is the possibility(probability) of getting a skewed sample.

This possibility is always there. But there are two facts which offset this danger with a binocular:
1. If it gets through QC into retail, it can be bought and therefore the performance can be evaluated.
2. A reviewers eyes (and brains) are probably the weakest point in a review of a binocular.
I think that a reviewer should have his own personal standards of honesty and know about the level of his own performance. And he always should point out how subjective his peronal review is.

 

[chris butterworth]

I would consider a good pair of binoculars more a precision instrument rather than a scientific instrument. Not all scientific instruments have to necessarily be particularly well made. A wind vane for instance.

Many decades ago I recall my father used to take every newly purchased rifle scope and place it in the freezer overnight. He did this so that when he went hunting in the winter that he would know that it would likely able to be focused. He had had a few that failed him when on week long January camping/hunting trips. Seemed to me like a reasonable approach to checking out your gear.

A few decades ago I bought a pair of Leitz Trinovids (which I still have, use and love). First thing (well not literally the first thing) I did was put them in the freezer overnight so I could see how difficult they would be to focus since they would be frequently used on weekend winter backpacking trips and would be frozen for most of that time.

Personally I don't think it is imprudent to check out your gear beforehand to gain some idea as to how/whether they will function once one is out in the backcountry.

I accept your point on the difference between 'scientific' and 'precision', perhaps it's because of the way I use my bins as part of my job that leads me to consider, and treat them in the same way I treat my microscopes. The other point, about your father, also is valid. I suspect, on a week's hunting trip, he relied on his gear to provide a certain amount of his food and it would be extremely remiss not to make doubly sure everything was 100%. How many of those that are supposed to have put their binoculars in the freezer are doing as he, or going birding in a 'Minnesotan winter'. I suspect the answer would be " very few". I rely on the manufacturers to live up to their claims and when they don't - I create hell, I don't jeopardise any warranty by doing something that could quite easily invalidate it.

Chris

 

[dalat]

So we have to consider that, most likely, more than 20% of their binoculars are leaking (or, to be precise, are leaking after having been treated according to their test).

No need to ring corporate alarm, perhaps, but statistics can tell us a lot even when the number of samples is small.

Holger, your conclusion would be true if there was a perfect random sampling.

However the result of your calculation could also indicate that sampling was acutally not random but biased. We have already enough speculations here in this discussion about what kind of bias could have been introdcued, i.e. what could have happend to the Leicas (or the doctor btw, coming from the same dealer) prior to the test that did not happen to the other tested bins.

 

[ronh]

Regarding the leaky Leicas, it is only two binoculars, which although certainly better than one, is not a decent statistical sample.

What if only one had been tested, and leaked? You would have to conclude that they ALL leak. That is entirely reasonable if one leaky sample is your only knowledge. But we know from many other sources that Leicas are good and rugged binoculars. So we would never conclude such a silly thing from one that leaks. Heck, several leakers of various brands have been reported here, just part of the game it seems.

Going from one to two doesn't improve things much, statistics wise. You'd need at least ten, if you really insisted on throwing out all other tests and years of user experience, and single handedly pronouncing on Leica's quality.

I think Arek is suffering needlessly. I suspect that the main thing this result shows is how a sample of two can get you into trouble.

Ron

 

[Chosun Juan]

A statistical sample of 2 (whether truly randomly selected or subject to some special variance here), with 2 out of 2 failures, is only irrelevant if you don't end up purchasing those two samples. Otherwise full relevance! ||


Chosun :gh:

 

[Pinewood]

Hello all,

Some significant failure in the samples of one brand may be of little practical consequence. If the distributor provided a brand new glass or a demo from the back room does not matter too much. Here in the States, the guarantee would cover the failure, then it would be a question of how long it took for repair or replacement. Leica, Zeiss, that Austrian brand and Nikon back their products' specifications and some go farther, in providing no fault coverage.

If one is worried about catastrophic failure in any binocular, for that trip of a lifetime, take a backup glass. It is not the glass that makes the bird watcher, but fieldcraft, patience, persistence and experience. I think that there are more than a few on BF, who can bird watch without optics, other than their own eyes.

Having written the above, I will mention that I went out today, with a Leica BN which fared better than I did in a rain shower. I suspect my Zeiss FL, now in repair would have done as well.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Hello all,

Some significant failure in the samples of one brand may be of little practical consequence. If the distributor provided a brand new glass or a demo from the back room does not matter too much. Here in the States, the guarantee would cover the failure, then it would be a question of how long it took for repair or replacement. Leica, Zeiss, that Austrian brand and Nikon back their products' specifications and some go farther, in providing no fault coverage.

If one is worried about catastrophic failure in any binocular, for that trip of a lifetime, take a backup glass. It is not the glass that makes the bird watcher, but fieldcraft, patience, persistence and experience. I think that there are more than a few on BF, who can bird watch without optics, other than their own eyes.

Having written the above, I will mention that I went out today, with a Leica BN which fared better than I did in a rain shower. I suspect my Zeiss FL, now in repair would have done as well.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

Hello Arthur,

I suspect that after what is too much time in front of this screen, the low light ability of my eyes is going a bit naff (looks like millions of little red, gold, and blue fireflies, in a high noise digital photo turned into a GIF).

Yesterday afternoon as the dark set in I found something better to use than bins, or my eyes ..... ears! - (was the only way I could track the little buggers!) |=)|


Chosun :gh:

 

[Lyrebird79]

We need 8 Leica owners here to submerge their binoculars in water for an hour.

 

[oetzi]

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,420605,420627#msg-420627

In a german forum, they will do it this weekend: 5 Leica binos will be submerged.

 

[Kammerdiner]

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,420605,420627#msg-420627

In a german forum, they will do it this weekend: 5 Leica binos will be submerged.

Interesting. Keep us posted, Oetzi. :t: I followed the link and read the thread but my German is...um..a little rusty I guess. They're only dunking them for 5 minutes? Well, of course their own binoculars are on the line, so...

Mark

 

[etudiant]

I think Arek is suffering needlessly. I suspect that the main thing this result shows is how a sample of two can get you into trouble.

Ron

Seen that the Allbinos site contents remain inaccessible, it sure seems that Arek is suffering. Why is currently unknown.
Hopefully I am wrong on this, but it seems plausible to me that he got stepped on as a result of this review.
So we should not bitch when binocular reviews only focus on the positives and are functionally useless, because the evidence here is that anyone who simply reports what they experience gets crushed.
Arek is not suffering needlessly imho, he is suffering to send a message to other reviewers.

 

[james holdsworth]

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,420605,420627#msg-420627

In a german forum, they will do it this weekend: 5 Leica binos will be submerged.

If all 5 pass or fail, is anything else proven? Is a sample of 5 that much better than a sample of 2? What if two fail and three pass? etc.

 

[Pileatus]

Seen that the Allbinos site contents remain inaccessible, it sure seems that Arek is suffering. Why is currently unknown.
Hopefully I am wrong on this, but it seems plausible to me that he got stepped on as a result of this review.
So we should not bitch when binocular reviews only focus on the positives and are functionally useless, because the evidence here is that anyone who simply reports what they experience gets crushed.
Arek is not suffering needlessly imho, he is suffering to send a message to other reviewers.

http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_lo=18
works just fine...with no corrections I might add.

 

[etudiant]

http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_lo=18
works just fine...with no corrections I might add.

Try to get any of the other binocular reviews.
You will get : Table 'allbin_optyczne.dystrybutor' doesn't exist

 

[eitanaltman]

It could also just be a simple website error. Lets not jump to conclusions and declare him a martyr quite yet.

The "punished for criticism" theory doesn't really hold water considering the endurance test is one of the only articles that is visible!

 

[etudiant]

It could also just be a simple website error. Lets not jump to conclusions and declare him a martyr quite yet.

The "punished for criticism" theory doesn't really hold water considering the endurance test is one of the only articles that is visible!

Very true and I hope that is the case of simple error, but I fear the worst.

It is surely surprising that the site has now been without most of its data for three days and counting, assuming the outage started about when 'Ceasar' noted it on May 7.
Of course, it may be simply that Arek is so busy with the issues arising out of the endurance review that he has not had the time to fix this problem.

 

[mercedes_sl1970]

Haven't had a problem with the Allbinos site. There is a message about a change to their cookies/permissions so perhaps that is causing a problem for some people?

 

[oetzi]

The reviews are still not accessible for me.

 

[mooreorless]

I had no problem with re-reading the reviews. It will interesting to see how the Leica's fair in the German experiment of WP. In my opinion the Allbino's review of the 2 is what they found with these 2 samples. They just reported what they found.