I am posting this to a new thread, because this has wandered way off the topic of the original post. This is more or less n response in post #63 in the 8x42 thread, although the blind test idea surfaced some posts before that.
Let me go after the blind test in a different manner. AP, you can’t participate in the test. Neither can guys like Henry Link, Renze De Vreis, EdZ, Elkcub, and Koshkin among many others whose posts I enjoy reading here, and from whom I have learned much. I thank you all for that. The level of experience you guys have eliminates the possibility of disguising much from you. In other words, you can’t go blind into a test. You know too much. So you guys and your seconds can monitor the test, provide technical assistance, record the data, and analyze the results. You can also keep Tero and his cheese cans under control. Now that I think about it, his cheese idea has more merit than I originally thought. Maybe everybody would have to pay enough attention to keeping the cheese off the lenses that more attention would be paid to the optics.
I have posted enough here for it to be known hat I am a mid-price range user. I have neither hopeless idea nor naive expectation that any blind test will prove the mid price level to be the optical equal of the high price optic. I can and do see a difference between the $500 and the $2,500 optics. What I do say, is that the difference I pay for the amount of improvement I perceive is just not worth the cost to me. I used to go “wow” at high end glass. The last time really was the period between the introductions of the phase coated Leica Trinovid and Zeiss Classics in particular. That lasted until the Pentax DCF WP. It then became “wow look how good these are, shoot I can afford one of these things!” So, AP, it really is news that the $500 range binocular is getting ever better.
Let’s assemble a bunch of information from a bunch of people and rank this information on some sort of uniform analysis of the optics knowledge and abilities of this group. I think it is a reasonable assumption that some shape of a bell curve would emerge. I have already identified the top end of the curve. The blind part of the test is for the rest of us. My test has two parts.
First, we take this mystery binocular and just for kicks we get a whole bunch of them and dress half of them in full Swarovski EL uniform. Let’s take the other half and dress them up in a Barska or maybe a BSA suit. Which group do you really think will get the highest ranking? I know I’ve just assumed a result, which is bad science. But since this is my test, we will see I guess. The premise to be tested would be something to the effect of determening how the degree of preconceived brand difference would actually affect the result. This is way too easy for the top group. They’d spot the rat in an instant. I think perceived “bragging rights” and product loyalty and even vitriolic product dislike are going to be major factors here.
Second, we’d get another whole bunch of binoculars representing the whole range of prices and types of binoculars. We’d disguise them as best we could as to who they really are. This isn’t really possible, but would work for a large number of people. Not the top end though, they’d likely be able to tell one from the other under any condition of disguise. This bunch would of course include the mystery newcomer. The whole idea of the “blind test” is to remove as much prejudice and add as much objectivity as is possible.
Let’s see what this newcomer can do on its merit before some expert or a bunch of non experts with opinions who haven’t even seen one blow it off as just another cheap piece of Chinese junk, or just another generic mid price glass. Maybe it’s both, maybe it’s neither. It seems to me to be a sound idea to get it out at least somewhat blind in order to get some sort of initial objective appraisal. I’d be more willing to assign this test to the top group, but they have their biases too. You guys just see more fringing, flare, CA than the rest of us. I wonder if you realize that. Maybe the rest of us need to see more of it than we do. But I have tried to avoid it because then I’d have to spring for a Leica (my favorite) which I really can’t afford.
I'm happy to participate. From previous postings of mine it should be obvious that I don't fall into the 'expert' category when it comes to optics. Haven't read the 8*42 thread so assume I would be perfect unbiased participant.
I just require a good selection of reasonably priced/expensive binoculars with which to carry out the tests. Please pm me and I will give you my postal address to post them on to.
This sounds like a very good idea, more than happy to oblige and take part in the name of science. Eagerly awaiting the new optics to trial.
Thanks in advance,
Dan.
Steve C,
I enjoyed the post, especially the first bit about Tero and his cheese cans, and I follow the general idea, but I'm not sure what you have in mind to demonstrate. What, ultimately, would be the product/result of this blind test effort? To demonstrate that the naive or casual user can't tell the difference between a good $200 binocular and a good $2000 bino optically? I wouldn't be surprised (The weaker of my eyes is better than 20/15 when corrected as best glasses are able, yet some kind of coma-like residual aberration that cannot be corrected and which keeps it from being better than 20/15 and as good as my other eye drives me crazy--not just when I'm testing optics, but often in everyday situations. I just revisited all this at my annual eye exam and my optometrist told me that many people with 20/30 or worse vision, or those with severe astigmatism are often unaware that there is anything wrong). To demonstrate that they can tell the difference but not enough to spend an extra $100 let alone $1800? To establish what level of optical quality is good enough for the job, such that anything better is simply to satisfy the needs of optics fanatics rather than birders?
To what use would the results of this test be put? I haven't met an optics fan who doesn't already acknowledge (and when asked for advice, argue) that a good $200-$300 bino can provide all the optical quality that a birder really needs. The attraction of the more expensive instruments has to do with how well they perform optically, but also in other respects, especially ergonomics, environmental stability, and durability, but I'll be the first to admit that it is as much about appreciation for the design and manufacture of fine instruments. I'd be surprised if consumers didn't already know this because it's already part of the dynamic involved in the production and consumption of all precision tools and playthings. How much do you need to spend to get a good, functional pair of socks? Go to the store and you have to choose how much to spend, between about $2 and $30. How much do you need to spend to buy a good watch? A good, durable, waterproof digital watch from Casio for $20 with a battery that lasts 7 years and costs only $3 to replace is, as far as I know, as good as it gets when it comes to reliable precision time keeping. Anything else is a fashion statement, probably a step down in precision, and a step up in price (up to many thousands or even millions of dollars). I don't think binos are like watches--premium models are better than mid-priced models. Maybe binos are more like bicycles. Expensive bicycles are better than cheap bikes (so long as they are a proper fit for the person and designed for the use they are put to), but given the range of price and quality, it's the rare user that really benefits from spending more than $500, yet many bike shops are filled with $5000 bikes these days. How many bino buyers are persuaded, against their best interests, to spend vastly more on binos than they should, given their wants and needs? Sometimes I get the feeling from the mid-priced bino devotees that they think that the existence and sale of better or more expensive binos owes only to a conspiracy between optics fanatics and the owners of prestige brand labels. Actually, given the low expectations that the average buyer has for binos (Witness the number of folks who buy, and are perfectly satisfied with milky view $20 bubble pack models that are out of alignment right out of the box), I'm actually amazed that there is enough of a push from consumers to drive optical improvement of mid-priced models. I'm very pleased that the manufacturers still seem to be striving to improve the optics at all price levels because such progress is not inevitable. Witness the current market in compact and EVF digital cameras, where the latest and greatest models have more pixels but provide no improvement in resolution and which actually often perform worse than past models because of increased noise at ISO equivalents above their very low (ISO 50 or 80) base setting. I think it would be a sad day if we were to wise up and realize we didn't need $2000 binos, but then I'm still lamenting moving past the days when Modern Photography reported how many electrical connections had to be broken when disassembling 35 mm SLRs (the concern being that such cameras would be more difficult or expensive to repair. Repair a camera??? what???) and when buyers were cautioned that cameras with LCD displays were destined for an early death (or repair service) because engineers weren't sure they would last more than 10 years before starting to "bleed".
--AP