Rarity of technical binocular reviews (3 Viewers)

[metalmacaw]

Hi All,
I am relatively new to this forum and have a question to the BF community about the relative rarity of technical binocular reviews.
To give a bit of background on myself, I am an avid backpacker and nature lover and frequently go into the mountains, coastal areas or desert (in southern California) with a pair of binoculars to look at nature and wildlife.
For years I did this with a pair of Vortex Diamondback 8x32, but discovered the difference in quality when borrowing a pair of EDGs from a friend and in the last 2 years have bought
a few nicer binoculars used on eBay, including Nikon EDG 10x32, Nikon HG L DCF 8x32 and 10x32, and Zeiss T FL 8x32. All very nice binoculars with excellent qualities, as a weekend nature observer I cannot ask for more.
I really like all of these and am not necessarily looking to replace any of them, but have been seeing the Zeiss 8x40 SFL model mentioned online and their owners seem to like them and I am considering another purchase. In researching their qualities I noticed that binocular reviews tend to be very qualitative and subjective, with few or no technical reviews that rigorously measure light transmission, chromatic aberration, blurring, glare, etc. Even something relatively simple as edge to edge image sharpness is illustrated at the best with simple camera shots that are open to interpretation.
My question to the Bird Forum community is this: Why aren't there more binocular reviews that rigorously measure and compare the critical optical qualities of these instruments? (the only site I know of that posts technical reviews is Allbinos, but they seem to be far behind in reporting on the latest models)
Is this too difficult and expensive to do?
Is it not relevant to which binoculars perform best in the field?
Is binocular performance inherently subjective and not suited for standard analysis?
Have I not looked in the right places?
Please send me your thoughts or point me in the right direction.

 

[dries1]

It is all about the almighty dollar, and yes subjective. So the main suggestion is try before you buy, give SFL 8x40 a try on your eyes, since they will differ from any reviewers.

 

[henry link]

I did a quick review of a 8x40 SFL at a store using a few improvised non-subjective tests here:

Zeiss 8x40 SFL: A Few Tests

I recently had the opportunity to do a few quick tests of a local dealer's newly arrived Zeiss 8x40 SFL. Here are the results. Distortion: I brought along my usual target of small circles to test for angular magnification distortion as well as a grid pattern I view backwards through the...

www.birdforum.net

If I had been able to take the binocular home I would have made high magnification star-test photos at both full aperture and stopped down to about 20mm to simulate performance under daylight conditions and also would have measured the true resolution at those two apertures using a USAF 1951 chart with magnification boosted to 64x. Those are the two tests I consider essential to understanding any binocular's basic optical performance, but there are 7 or 8 other tests I do to measure or photograph other characteristics like true AFOV, clear aperture, lateral color, true magnification and better controlled versions of the tests I did in the store. I used to do more of this, but frankly running a full battery of non-subjective tests takes me several days and is a pain in the rear, which may be why there isn't more of it done.

 

[mwhogue]

In addition to the input of dries1 and henry link, I notice you have a nice selection of high end glass but all in 32mm (nothing wrong with that per se). So given your primary use - backpacking - something small and light in 40mm like the SFL would be a logical next step, and not necessarily as a replacement for any one you already have. No review, regardless of how technical or "objective", will tell you as much about whether you will enjoy any given binocular as actual use in the field, or at least an in store comparison to a couple of the bins you like best.

Mike

 

[beacon hill]

"Even something relatively simple as edge to edge image sharpness is illustrated at the best with simple camera shots that are open to interpretation".
When I do my you tube reviews I tend not to use a camera for quality of images, as 50% of the end result is showing the optical performance of the camera.

I always try to give an honest opinion of CA in varying condition. Tend to say it as it is in plain talk rather than measurements and charts.
Think I am one of the few, if any that mention pincushion distortion.

"but they seem to be far behind in reporting on the latest models. Is this too difficult and expensive to do?"
Not difficult for me. But expensive,yes, as I buy in all the stock, and have no donations or loans from manufactures , I buy all my own stock for reviews.
Other than the brands I deal with, all others have not replied when asked if I could review their gear, or said they will get back to me and never do.
Would have thought with a YT channel with 25-30,000 views PM they would be queuing up to loan the latest models.

 

[Trinovid]

For years I did this with a pair of Vortex Diamondback 8x32, but discovered the difference in quality when borrowing a pair of EDGs from a friend and in the last 2 years have bought a few nicer binoculars...

I know this has no bearing on your question, but I'm curious as to whether you might do well to check out the totally different class of binocular from Vortex in their Viper series. I only have one so far, but as a Leica fan and Vortex denigrator (based on the Diamondback series), it took the Viper to make me realize how wide a range of quality their company puts out.

 

[dries1]

If a binocular is providing a good view at 10X who cares if it shows something else at 64X, most viewers don't care.

 

[henry link]

(the only site I know of that posts technical reviews is Allbinos, but they seem to be far behind in reporting on the latest models)

Hi metalmacaw,

Before giving Allbinos too much credit you should read this article about their methods:

How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.

Binoculars tests, published on Optyczne.pl/Allbinos.com are conducted by a group of great optics enthusiasts with a lot of experience under their belts. We’ve handled about 500 pairs of binoculars so far plus several dozen of spotting scopes, telescopes, many eyepieces and plenty of other...

www.allbinos.com

Aside from the light transmission measurements using a spectrophotometer I think you'll find that most of their measurements are quantified subjective observations.

If a binocular is providing a good view at 10X who cares if it shows something else at 64X, most viewers don't care.

Yes, binoculars get away with a lot thanks to the low magnification and the hand holding. Star-testing and measuring the true resolution at high magnifications separates the truly outstanding from the just good enough to get by. Only those curious to know which is which will care.

 

[WJC]

Hi All,
I am relatively new to this forum and have a question to the BF community about the relative rarity of technical binocular reviews.
To give a bit of background on myself, I am an avid backpacker and nature lover and frequently go into the mountains, coastal areas or desert (in southern California) with a pair of binoculars to look at nature and wildlife.
For years I did this with a pair of Vortex Diamondback 8x32, but discovered the difference in quality when borrowing a pair of EDGs from a friend and in the last 2 years have bought
a few nicer binoculars used on eBay, including Nikon EDG 10x32, Nikon HG L DCF 8x32 and 10x32, and Zeiss T FL 8x32. All very nice binoculars with excellent qualities, as a weekend nature observer I cannot ask for more.
I really like all of these and am not necessarily looking to replace any of them, but have been seeing the Zeiss 8x40 SFL model mentioned online and their owners seem to like them and I am considering another purchase. In researching their qualities I noticed that binocular reviews tend to be very qualitative and subjective, with few or no technical reviews that rigorously measure light transmission, chromatic aberration, blurring, glare, etc. Even something relatively simple as edge to edge image sharpness is illustrated at the best with simple camera shots that are open to interpretation.
My question to the Bird Forum community is this: Why aren't there more binocular reviews that rigorously measure and compare the critical optical qualities of these instruments? (the only site I know of that posts technical reviews is Allbinos, but they seem to be far behind in reporting on the latest models)
Is this too difficult and expensive to do?
Is it not relevant to which binoculars perform best in the field?
Is binocular performance inherently subjective and not suited for standard analysis?
Have I not looked in the right places?
Please send me your thoughts or point me in the right direction.

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say; a fool when he has to say something." — Plato

There are several people on this forum who are experienced and write well. There are MANY people on the forum who want their opinions raised to fact. If you know what you are talking about you are "arrogant, condescending, egocentric," and worse. I am an old Navy Chief Opticalman so I have learned to roll with the abuse and am pretty good at separating fact from fallacy (see attached). The more mature choose not to get involved. I spent 2 weeks being mature when I was 15. I wasn't fun ... so I quit. One can quickly learn who the real players are.

Remember: "Education is important but good ice cream is importanter!"

 

[lmans66]

There is a reason why technical reviews are not high in numbers....... Many people need to see the binoculars in hand and play with them. Much of what the technical side has to report on is just that, technical. I might look at a couple of technical aspects (we all have our fav's) about an optic and once seen, ....bam..I am done with the technical review. In fact I can obtain most of my technical stuff just by reading the spec's of the binocular from the manufacturer.

Then, I move on to the following 'in the field' characteristics I do myself:

Ergonomics, ease of use, hand placement, focus knob play, quickness of focus, feel of overall body armor or quality of, accessories such as rain /eye guards and strap, eye placement and blackouts for your face/body, eye cups and quality, diopter placement and use of...what am I missing?

I will take the latter 'in the field and in my hands' review over a technical one any day of the year.

 

[Maljunulo]

To chose a binocular by comparing spec sheets is a great way to end up with a binocular you won’t like.

 

[Patudo]

Lack of folks that are (a) technically competent and (b) interested enough. Plus a lack of readers who really understand the technical detail, and - just as important - its nuances and caveats.

There are some posts here that discuss the more technical side of things - if you search for threads started by henry link and kabsetz, you'll find enough reading matter to keep you occupied for a while. As to how relevant these are to how binoculars perform in the field, you'll need to decide on that yourself.

 

[Steve C]

Technical reviews require several things. First is the possession of appropriate equipment. Next there is the ability to use the equipment and to be able to tell what the results mean. Then there is the ability to access enough binoculars to provide a meaningful data base. There are not many who have the equipment, skills, and access to accomplish this. Then there is the ability to finance such a venture. It takes a lot of time to properly evaluate a binocular. Pretty soon the day job gets in the way. Let alone what happens when marketers get in the fray.

Regardless of the technical attributes of a particular binocular, the choice among several candidates comes down to a holistic (read subjective) combination of its various features. CA has been mentioned here, but because someone else is sensitive to it, that does not mean somebody else will be also. How color bias of a design may well not be viewed equally positively or negatively by everyone. The list here is a long one.

 

[William Lewis]

I'd love to read more technical reviews too.

It's just tricky to do in practice though, particularly light transmission but also a lot of other areas.

2 tripods or a good solid way of mounting up a couple of optics to boost magnification for resolution/c.a tests, and maybe a third tripod and a camera if you want to try and photograph the results well enough to check your findings against other optics.

A good understanding of how to produce and interpret the results of star tests along with atmospheric conditions being favourable.

There is just a lot to it - I've tried but wouldn't feel confident in my findings to publicise any results.

I've found star tests to be useful with scopes though to confirm ones I don't think are quite right. That brings up the other problem though - how many samples do you need to test and if some are good and some are not which result do you publish, an average?

It's slightly different with scopes but with binoculars it's really just a case of finding a view you like and suits your needs by trial, error, reading what information you can find and taking it with a pinch of salt in case when you finally raise them to your eyes in the expectation of optical nirvana you find they don't fit and your left in a place that's too dark with kidney beans or too bright with glare!

If I'm writing what I've experienced when using an optic (which is something I quite enjoy doing) for the reason outlined above it's relatively subjective - it's not definitive but then I don't find most other peoples subjective reviews useless either.

Will

 

[Ted Y.]

Aside from the light transmission measurements using a spectrophotometer I think you'll find that most of their measurements are quantified subjective observations.

Also, nothing about the resolving power.

 

[metalmacaw]

Hi All,
Thank you for the excellent information and pointers, including other binos for me to check out.
What I am hearing in general is that binocular usage, fit and personal preferences are so important that the measured specs are secondary (not unimportant but secondary). I will try to heed the advice to test drive before buying, although I have done well so far purchasing binos sight unseen (and then being pretty happy with them).
I will also continue to go through the voluminous information and message history on this forum to learn more. A recurring theme of these is that you can't go too wrong when purchasing high-end binos, assuming compatibility with the budget
Thank you again for the feedback,
MMcw

 

[Maljunulo]

Don’t fall into the trap of obsessive overthinking and over analyzing.

Just look through a few binoculars.

 

[Canip]

A recurring theme of these is that you can't go too wrong when purchasing high-end binos

You can still experience kidney-beaning, incompatibilities with your face anatomy, uneasiness when panning due to globe effect, etc etc etc …. so even with high -end binos, there is no way around personal testing !!!

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Interesting thread, I'm a consumer psychologist and had the same question!

Yes, it's true that you have to look for yourself before buying binoculars. On the other hand, it is possible to integrate user experiences and technical aspects in reviews and give recommendations for the main consumer groups. It is difficult though, causal modelling is needed, the standard approach of marketing researchers will not work. Besides, there are huge regional differences in the ways birders use their binoculars, spotting scopes, cameras, tele lenses and other outdoor equipment. Unfortunately I'm not working in this world right now but I speak with hundreds of birders/photographers and other outdoor enthousiasts every year about their consumer behavior, decisions, preferences etc. Blood is thicker than water (if that's the right way to express it )

 

[dries1]

post #17 summs up this thread perfectly.
It is amazing the amount of over the top analysis that folks can be engaged in (on binoculars). Though there are businesses that sell this info online for $$.