Just found this a couple of days ago. Cornell updated their comprehensive listing of Binos this Winter. Looks like Zeiss 8x42 Fls rule the "unlimited" roost, Leica and Swaros do well too.
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Public.../Age_Binos.html
Many of the people here are familiar with that "study". If any study could be an example of how not to research a product, the Cornell attempt would rate #1.
The sampling of each particular model numbered from 10-40 reviews. Just the spread of users testing one bin and not another throws any reasonable belief that any achieved rating was fair and consistent with the other binoculars.
The testing was performed mostly indoors, and I would assume mostly during daylight hours. Although there is one picture of a group of four "hardcore" testers (numbering 4 in the picture), as the article says, this outdoor testing was done during the morning hours. No mention of dawn or dusk testing. Sunset and sunrise, and the few minutes before and after will say a lot more about a binocular than viewing on a nice bright, day. Some binoculars were tested in different conditions than others. Do you think the group of 5 "hardcore" testers that looked at all of the binoculars viewed them all under the relatively same lighting conditions?
There are just too many reasons why this is just an "article" and not any real evaluation. Methodology was just too inconsistent and sloppy, and the results at least slightly skewed by the lack of sampling control... How many children contributed to the report, and their inclusion into the final results without notation is especially troubling when 'every binocular was tested by at least ten'. Add to it that most of their testing was done indoors through glass.
I'm sure I overlooked many other reasons why thier results may be quite misleading, but overall as a guide, it doesn't conclude with any cold-hard facts and the margin of inconsistent bias between any two given models may be greater than the ratings spread any two close binoculars may have received.