FYI Allbinos review 8x43 ED2 (2 Viewers)

[ronh]

I agree there are things in Allbinos's ratings that don't have much to do with what I think makes a good binocular, but with those caveats, with which I have become familiar, I find the review thorough and useful, although shy in the subjective "ok now let's look through it" department. I realize Arek is trying to eliminate subjectivity: honorable, but still leaving important things unsaid. But I am happy for him personally--how happy he must be with the Swarovision! It meets his personal edge infatuations so perfectly. Even the HT doesn't stand a chance now, no matter how well you can see through it! But I suppose he is obligated to measure the transmission....

I don't think a defective unit should be forgiven. Like, so I murdered somebody, but I'm basically a nice guy, I was just having a bad hair day, it almost NEVER happens. Some innocent little old lady with 20/12 vision, or I myself, or even you, might buy that binocular and just suffer along with it, never feeling it was quite right. Get 'em, Arek.

As for Dennis, I actually rather like Dr. Jekyll, and Mr. Hyde is a hoot and a half!
Ron

 

[henry link]

Ron,

I guess we disagree a little about the value of reviewing defective optics. I think it's similar to road testing a car with a flat tire. It doesn't tell us what we want to know, which is how the car handles when the tire isn't flat. In this particular case it appears that Allbinos didn't even notice that they had a flat tire. As for the objectivity of their reviews, please read the article on their methods and see how objective you think they really are.

Henry

 

[ronh]

Henry,
Well, I did, and must say that several of the tests seem highly dependent on the tester's eyesight, and perhaps mood. Hardly suffering from subjectivity but more from plain wrongness, the measurement of "external objective diameter" is useless as it ignores internal aperture stops, and even becomes harmful as it enters into the calculation of magnification. Similarly, their calculation of apparent field ignores the effects of distortion, which otherwise "they hates it forever".

I think now, that if Allbinos really gives the binoculars extensive workouts in the field like they say, the reviews could be improved by eliminating some of the dubious measurements, and putting in more about "the view", even though completely subjective. It seems they are letting their considerable taste and experience go to waste, and reporting some cookbook measurements instead.

I admire your search for the Platonic ideal of optical intentions, and admit that the careful testing of a dog is unwarranted, since manufacturing flaws can take so many different forms. You do the best that can be done: you tell us frankly about the incidence of flaws, like, if it's got a good barrel and a bad barrel, or if you sent the first one back it was so bad. That tells us plenty about the quality control with that model. That is the ideal state of affairs.

Unfortunately, large scale reviewers like Allbinos apparently never recognize these things. So, I take what I can, and find it useful. I'm sure it doesn't surprise Arek to find his methods criticized here! Still, bully for them, for doing what they do, and for keeping the reviews rolling in...we love/hate binoculars, and we love/hate binocular reviews too, all part of the fun!
Ron

 

[james holdsworth]

If a bino manufacturer [or dealer] sends a product for review, and that product is defective, the manufacturer has only themselves to blame for not sending their best.

Look through it before sending it out as ''representative.''

 

[henry link]

James,

The flip side of that is the smart manufacturer who supplies a hand corrected cherry unit, better than anything you're likely to find in a store.

Henry

 

[james holdsworth]

James,

The flip side of that is the smart manufacturer who supplies a hand corrected cherry unit, better than anything you're likely to find in a store.

Henry

I agree, and would expect as much. As a result, I am often surprised by the number of defective units that seem to find their way into the hands of testers.

 

[kabsetz]

James, Henry,

I think that until recently, most manufacturers did not realize that we testers can see differences between their "better" and "worse" units as long as they met their "rigorous" quality checks. To me, it has happened once that a manufacturer that shall remain unnamed sent a unit specifically to be tested, and that unit just happened to be better than any other units of the same product I had seen before or have seen since. But generally you get a random pick.

- Kimmo

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

Wasn't the e-type that hit 150 a similar specimen Kimmo?

Rich

James, Henry,

I think that until recently, most manufacturers did not realize that we testers can see differences between their "better" and "worse" units as long as they met their "rigorous" quality checks. To me, it has happened once that a manufacturer that shall remain unnamed sent a unit specifically to be tested, and that unit just happened to be better than any other units of the same product I had seen before or have seen since. But generally you get a random pick.

- Kimmo

 

[NDhunter]

I agree, and would expect as much. As a result, I am often surprised by the number of defective units that seem to find their way into the hands of testers.

James:

I suppose the results and the rankings at Allbinos, are a good average of what the user would get with a purchase.

Take a look, I agree with the rankings, but once in a while, I am sure one is a bit out of place.

Jerry

 

[Steve C]

All they need to do is to make some attempt to account for the possibility they might have a unit with problems or not, or at least raise the issue in the review. I have no problem myself not commenting on what I think might have issues. The means to identify a poor unit should be well within their ability, if indeed their reviews are worth reading, which I do think they are. Any set of review criteria will be subject to much discussion.

The issues apparent in the review sample should have made them ask some questions, but didn't.

 

[pompadour]

Steve, re Allbinos and ZR (a) some others who commented above might have a look at your sign-off quote! (b) But Allb.'s decision to proceed right now on that model and individual instrmt. has puzzled me, too.

I continue to waver about the wide-field 8x42 (pl. see post #19 above). Worried about the durability of ZR and Kruger, being rel. new cos. Could you please tell me about that as presently known to you - also anyone else reading this! Thanks. Among the large number of users' reviews on the Bushnell Ultra in the mail order websites - mostly v. brief - several praise that and its use in rain: waterproofing matters a lot to me.

 

[Steve C]

I continue to waver about the wide-field 8x42 (pl. see post #19 above). Worried about the durability of ZR and Kruger, being rel. new cos. Could you please tell me about that as presently known to you - also anyone else reading this! Thanks. Among the large number of users' reviews on the Bushnell Ultra in the mail order websites - mostly v. brief - several praise that and its use in rain: waterproofing matters a lot to me.

Since this veers somewhat off topic of Allbino's reviews, check your PM box .

 

[pompadour]

Steve, thanks. In addition to my PM replying yours, I'd say here that the qn., although partly off-topic (sorry!) was posted as it's partly on quality control by Zen Ray, and will convey here that your reply to that point is: in your experience it's good.

 

[Steve C]

It looks to e like ZR QC is OK for the rice range. Overall quality and durability should increase ae with cost. If you don't want the cost, then personally, I'm fine with te ZR,

 

[ZEN-RAY]

I probably should have voiced my own opinion here sooner. But it has been so busy in the last couple of months that I was spending less time on BF than I should have. Guilty as charged. But for all BF members, please PM me if you have any question. It will send an email to me directly. So no post from me on BF does not mean that I am not around.

It is interesting to see some continuous interest in our ED2 binoculars despite of being discontinued for over a year. Out of respect to reviewer's opinion, I will not comment on their numerical points system. I always tried to look up something new with fresh persepective. For example, we have never been contacted by a single complaint about IPD not wide enough (73mm). The author raised the question why we cannot make it even bigger. I have to quiz our designer on this one and see what are the consequence of doing that. How much weight increase will that lead to? Will it lead to increase of minimum IPD? How many people will benefit from this change? It definitely poked my curiosity.

Charles

 

[xbted52]

I'm a bit confused about the review. The pair of ED3s I tried out this summer was from the dealer in Poland. How could Allbinos not have access to them? Also, considering that the ED2 is discontinued, how old was the test pair?

Allbinos mentions the numerous positive reviews of Zen-Ray products, and I myself have written one of those reviews. I have compared Zen-Rays to other comparably priced binoculars and they are without a doubt superior to many products in the same price range. I wish I had the same methodology and testing facilities, but I don't. But what I will say is that out in the field, the difference is quite noticeable. The ED3s are very nice. Once again, I do not know why Allbinos would choose to publish a review of a product that has been surpassed by 2 improvement cycles, but I think the review on this forum speak for themselves. I have been extremely pleased with my experience with Zen-Ray, and will continue to do business with them well into the future!

 

[bh46118]

I absolutely love my 8X43 ED2 for their unbeatable combination of attributes for the money. My comments about light transmission are not a slight to ZEN-RAY, I just feel that a good Porro captures a very important element that a roof misses by design. That's the reason I started a thread a while back about a ZEN-RAY Porro, as I feel they could design and market a ground breaking new design if they started with a clean slate. I also understand the economics of such a venture.

 

[filipek]

The ED2 8x43 unit was from us Lanius-Books, the only representative in Poland. It has been sent for evaluation about 1.5 year ago. Unfortunately it was not possible to send ED3 unit as at the same time Allbins carried a year long test which had to proof bins reliablity in the field under elements. Reason why we could not exchange it for ED3. The ZR ED2 test has raised in Poland a lot of comments about test methods, their real value. There are many Zen-Ray user in Poland already, they provided their own opinions which generally rate ZR much higher then other brands at the same price level.

 

[ZEN-RAY]

I absolutely love my 8X43 ED2 for their unbeatable combination of attributes for the money. My comments about light transmission are not a slight to ZEN-RAY, I just feel that a good Porro captures a very important element that a roof misses by design. That's the reason I started a thread a while back about a ZEN-RAY Porro, as I feel they could design and market a ground breaking new design if they started with a clean slate. I also understand the economics of such a venture.

bh46118, thanks for the encouragement for Porro. Besides the business end of decision, I do want to invest on preserving some dying "breeds". Now I am at the crossroad of deciding the fate of 7x36 format. It is one of my favorite binoculars. But you have to admit that many people do not really understand the beauty of it (at not fault of theirs, since it takes years of using binoculars to really understand that less is more, sometimes).

Charles

 

[Surveyor]

Charles, I know the general public goes with the 8x/10x choices but put me down as one who would buy a quality 7x20, 7x30/35ish and 7x50 very quickly.

The 7x36 ED2 is probably my most used bino now, just about an even mix between the Leica 8x32 and 8x20 Ultravids. Only quibble is the size.

I like the Leica profile somewhat better than yours but 7x is just more useful to me as a general purpose bino.

I hope your deliberations go to keep the 7x36 and maybe even extend that line.

PS: I would be interested in knowing the how the sales compare between the 7x43 ED3 and the 8x43 versions. Thanks.