@Richard D., your continued comments indicate that you either did not thoroughly investigate OGL’s test methods, the data used and their actual conclusions, or you are just attempting to fog the obvious. Claiming there are worse reviews on the web is hardly a ringing endorsement of an obviously flawed evaluation from a long-standing review organization. What OGL attests this review to represent [their published claims], “
This in-depth review offers expert recommendations to help you see the fine details of each pair of binoculars.” Since you are defending OGL’s published test and results please directly defend the following obvious flaws (just two - there are many others) from their published review:
FOV RATINGS
EL 8.5x42 = 399ft - OGL Score = 8/10
Noctivid 10x42 = 337ft - OGL Score = 5/10
Zeiss SF = 360ft - OGL Score = 5/10
Viper 8x42 = 409ft - OGL Score = 8/10
Monarch M5 8x42 = 337ft - OGL Score = 6/10
The ratings defy the specs without specific justification. In fact, they even contradict their own findings - in the written summary on the SF as they praise it for having a “great FOV” yet give it their lowest score. Of all the countless reviews of the SF 10x42 (Roger Vine, BirdForum, Rokslide, numerous others) [with several putting specs to the test] this one is unique in attempting to find issue with the SF’s FOV.
BRIGHTNESS
OGL used light meter measured transmission as a significant portion of their comparative scoring on brightness. In fact, they even claim to have weighted brightness/transmission scores to adjust for differences in exit pupil size. This destroys
@Richard D.’s repeated claim that OGL did not conduct transmission tests and is simply finding that binoculars with greater sized exit pupils are brighter. In fact, OGL concluded, “Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 did not let in as much observable or measurable light as other models with similar exit pupil diameters and clarity.” They also claimed this difference in brightness/transmission was significant. This runs counter to countless other reviews of the SFs and transmission testing done by House of Outdoor - which found the SF’s transmission neck-and-neck with the EL and Noctivid, but behind the NL Pure (not part of OGL’s test).
That’s just a small sample of issues with the OGL test and conclusions. So, I stand by the observations that this test is terribly flawed and its results dubious. Certain I am not alone in raising an eyebrow to their testing methods and less than solidly substantiated conclusions. If folks want to give merit to or defend OGL’s testing and results that is their own affair.