In my joke " BAD Binocular review " thread , relative newcomer Rick ( owner of the Steiner 25 x 80 recently under the microscope ) wrote THIS :
< In all seriousness, perhaps there should be a sticky guideline on how forum newbie like me can write a decent review supported by some simple objective tests that can be peformed under less than optimal conditions and that don't require special tools or equipment. >
Oh -- and Rick said " Cheers " afterwards too !
I thought it a good idea to start a new thread about this , because I doubt if every group member or more serious minded visitor would necessarily be inspired or inclined to scroll much further down the BAD thread than my opening line !
A while back , fellow member Milt Wilcox suggested such a set of guidelines be constructed by means of collective input , but for some reason , the proposed project seemed to get put on the backburner .
I am of the opinion that there are basically TWO ways of going about writing a binocular review for the likely readership of the Cloudy Night's binocular forum .
IDEALLY , it is great if the reviewer has the kind of in depth additional knowledge and experience of ASTRONOMY , as do many members here , so as to conjugate the hobby with the instrument , no better exemplified than by our own Ed Zarenski .
But unless the person NEW TO BINOCULARS happens to be one who has perhaps spent previous years looking through telescopes , this would be an unlikely scenario for a first time reviewer .
Which places he or she into the same category as myself .
The OTHER WAY I mentioned is the way I would recommend for such people .
Although I am a rare and notable exception to the rule ,it is NOT generally a very good idea to try to write about anything you know little about ! :-)
It IS a good idea to READ as many reviews as you can find , then print them off , then read them again -- then again .
Make notes of what YOU consider to be the MAIN points , and what you like or dislike about each offering .
Try to work out the METHOD which has been used .
Make a list of IMPORTANT aspects , such as :
1. WHY you bought the binocular
2. Your EXPECTATIONS
3. The Technical specifications , such as make , model , TFOV , weight , eye relief , type of coatings , individual or central focussing arrangement , waterproof or not , diopter range , whether or not phase corrected ( roof prism models only ) etc .
4. The usual retail PRICE
5. Your impressions of the FEEL and ergonomics , quality of BUILD , ease , smoothness and accuracy of FOCUS mechanism .
If the binocular is / was MOUNTED , were there any particular problems presented by trying to do so ?
6. Your impressions of OPTICAL performance , including BAFFLING , EFFECTIVENESS OF FIELD STOP , BRIGHTNESS , SHARPNESS , CONTRAST , FIELD FLATNESS or CURVITURE ,CHROMATIC ABERRATION , INTERNAL REFLECTIONS ,STRAY LIGHT etc.
Be sure to check for sharpness and aberrations both ON and OFF - axis , with estimated distances FROM centre of field of view at which image degrades from very good to average to poor to terrible .
7. IF at all possible , compare with another binocular of similar specification , or even make a few comments about the DIFFERENCES between the views attained through the REVIEWED binocular and one or two of DIFFERENT magnifications or objective sizes .
Such comparisons can make a review more interesting .
8. Keep an eye on PRESENTATION !
Leave GAPS and SPACES -- let the article BREATHE visually
Use CAPITALS and BOLD or ITALICS to separate HEADINGS from subject matter .
PLAN
BEGINNING ( introduction )
MIDDLE ( main body of review )
END ( summary and recommendations )
If you intend to use TABLES or CHARTS , be CAREFUL that whatever you design and construct can be TRANSPORTED to this web site and retain it's shape .
A PHOTOGRAPH can say a thousand words ! -- but keep it's size down to within the site's recommended maximum limit .
Do NOT be OVERLY critical -- remember that you MIGHT have specimen which is not truly representative of the quality of the product .
Stay within your limits of vocabularly
Re - read SEVERAL times before posting
COULD it be IMPROVED upon in any way ?
IMPROVEMENT can mean EDITING OUT as much as ADDING more !
If you are a terrible SPELLER -- use SPELL CHECK
If need be , send a " private copy " to a fellow member for proof reading and comments BEFORE posting it to the public domain .
TAKE YOUR TIME -- TAKE PRIDE in your work .
And ENJOY the experience .
--------------------------------
RIGHT -- THAT'S just a START !
Let's see some MORE hints from other members now !
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Bino Review Writing
Edit
Reply
Quote
