Consumer Reports Binocular review in Jan 2007 issue (1 Viewer)

[Tvc15_2000]

January 07 issue of Consumer Reports ranked binoculars that cost under $1000.

The article explained they tested for sharpness, brightness, flare, how well they focused, portability, grip, ease of adjustment, durability at temps of +13F and +185F for several hours each. The article is 2/3 of a page long, and short on details. It is not an in depth report.

The test result bubble columns include image, Durability Ease of use, Field with glasses.

I did not have the time to show all ratings but I think most of us would be interested in the image rating which I did include.

I do not agree with their findings but am posting them for those who may not have access to the article. I apologize in advance for any unintentional errors I might have made while summarizing.

For 10 Power the overall rating scores and the image bubble ratings are as follows:
Nikon Premier 10X25 90% Image Excellent
Zeiss Victory Compact 10X25 89% Image Very Good
Pentax DCF HR II 10X42 81% Image Very Good
Swarovski 10X25 BP 81% Image Very Good
Leica Ultravid 10X25 BR 78% Image Very Good
Audobon 10X42 HP 74% Image Good
Olympus 10x42 EXWP 71% Image Good
Pentax UFC-X II 10x25 69% Image Good

For 8 Power the overall rating scores are as follows:
Zeiss 8X20 BT 89% Image Very Good
Cannon 8X25 87 % Image Very Good
Zeiss 8X30 Conquest 87% Image Excellent
Olympus 8X21 RC 1 84% Image Very Good
Eschenbach Trophy 8X32 78% Image Very Good
Nikon SportStar 74% Image Good

 

[FrankD]

You might want to bump this over to the regular bin forum.


I find the choice of binoculars the most interesting part. How did they arrive at these models? I find it curious that they lumped the Pentax HRII 10x42 in with many 10x21-25 mm models. That tends to indicate to me that they do not segregate binoculars in the fashion that many of us do.

I also find it somewhat interesting that the Nikon 10x25 was placed first and the Leica Ultravid 10x25 last out of the "big 4". After reading all of the comments here on the forums if I were looking for a high end 10x25 then my search would most certainly start with the 10x25 Leica.

Curious, very curious.

 

[bodromarsh]

I don't think so.

Consumer Reports is great for things like washing machines, fridges, and car reliability, but they really seem to have a poor grasp on bincolars and stereo equipment. For example, I have seen them pick receivers and speakers that I consider horrible.

I would say that in something like binoculars they do not really understand what we truly use them for and are looking for in a pair.

 

[Tero]

Nikon SportStar 74% Image Good

It's close, it is at least adequate. Wisely they left out the 10x. Which is poor.

 

[RAH]

You might want to bump this over to the regular bin forum.


I find the choice of binoculars the most interesting part. How did they arrive at these models? I find it curious that they lumped the Pentax HRII 10x42 in with many 10x21-25 mm models. That tends to indicate to me that they do not segregate binoculars in the fashion that many of us do.

THis was what they call a "quick survey, only filling about half a page. It was a hodge-podge of expensive, moderate, and cheap binocs, grouped by 10x and 8x. They rated them on image quality, durability, ease of use, and "field with glasses" (kind of a summary of field-of-view plus eye-relief). The final score considers all these factors. They did some stress testing at high and low temps to get the durability score.

Although I agree that their binoc reviews are often kind of odd, I do think that this turned up some interesting ideas, especially in the cheaper category, especially the "Best Buy" designation of the Olympus 8x21s. This model was given above average in image quality, excellent in durability (!), above aver in ease of use, and average in field with glasses.

The Pentax Pentax DCF HR II 10X42 also got a "best buy" designation, even though they cost $300, so it wasn't just the cheaper binocs that might receive this designation.

 

[Doug Greenberg]

Consumer Reports is great for things like washing machines, fridges, and car reliability, but they really seem to have a poor grasp on bincolars and stereo equipment. For example, I have seen them pick receivers and speakers that I consider horrible.

I would say that in something like binoculars they do not really understand what we truly use them for and are looking for in a pair.

I agree. And would go on to say that even for large appliances I would take CR's recommendations with a proverbial grain of salt. My wife and I bought a new refrigerator some years ago based on CR's ratings, and it turns out they neglected to consider some very important things such as the durability of interior shelves and racks. The refrigerator has been a nightmare of broken shelving because of a fundamental design flaw in how the shelves were engineered.

CR's writeups certainly should be considered, but people have to do a LOT more research before buying, I'm afraid.

 

[nctexasbirder]

they are for the people who are too lazy to learn and research on their own....go figure on the binocular results

 

[Tero]

The only issue I buy is the car issue. Then I buy another buying guide as well, if I am buying a car that year. Not really interested in most of their stuff, as the models in the store almost never are the ones they review, they change so fast.

We buy a fair number of computers and most are equally bad. But our HPs have bee OK lately.

 

[Tvc15_2000]

I agree with some of what was written about CR. But I do find CR has value overall particularly on the durability evaluations. But I agree CR is not perfect.

We might agree the image quality is a judgment call but durability to abuse is a less subjective (to me). I am not taking the side of CR nor am I defending their durability rating. But it does raise some questions for me.

The article states “we determined whether the binoculars could withstand a tough field trip: 10 hours at 13F and 16 hours at 185F. Humidity, rain and being swung against a hard surface.” No details are available (to me) on what failed.

I did expect a higher rating on the durability category. The Leica 10x25 was rated good (but did not make a very good or excellent rating). The other top binocs scored very good or excellent. I don’t want to bake mine in a toaster, swing them against a wall and then check if its still submersible!

Can someone else please try this test and report back? Ha ha. Sorry mine are only a month old and I can't afford to do this test even if the Passport Protection might cover the repairs.

 

[FrankD]

Although I agree that their binoc reviews are often kind of odd, I do think that this turned up some interesting ideas, especially in the cheaper category, especially the "Best Buy" designation of the Olympus 8x21s. This model was given above average in image quality, excellent in durability (!), above aver in ease of use, and average in field with glasses.

I would tend to agree. Something struck a cord though when you metioned the Olympus model. Didn't Consumer Reports do another bin review a few years back where the Nikon Sporter I came out on top? I may be way off but I think one of the Olympus models did well then as well. I could be thinking of another report though too.