That may be, but do the best binoculars have to be the best optically? I could make a case for my best bino having an 11+ degree FOV, or ultra close focusing, or IS, or lightest weight, or having interchangable eyepieces, or the most magnification, or the sharpest image when mounted. What's best is in the eye of the binoholder.
Certainly, every person is free to decide what attributes in each pair of binocular is most important for them. As many on this forum know, I enjoyed using my $149 Burgess 20X80 LW for day time viewing and for astronomy for more than 6 years, Mounted AND handheld. I also know that EdZ tested the same model and found serious problems with the pair he had, including tilt prism and reduced aperture.
But at 3.6 lbs I found the 20X80 LW fairly comfortable to hand hold. Enough heft to dampen the shakes but less taxing than my 5.5 lb Japanese 20X80. No, I am Not a "human tripod", and I can not hold 20X binos motionless. But I can hold them still enough to discern more details than my friend's Canon 18X50 IS in extended, critical side by side test sessions. (No surprise there, ~74mm vs. 50 mm, 19X(?) vs 18X).
I am one of those who "have unintentionally trained our brains to compensate for a certain amount of image shake".
The Burgess 20X80s offer me the satisfaction of bigger image scale than a pair of 15X70 Ultra, HD or SS costing twice as much. 1/6 the cost of the 18X IS.
The 20X80 LWs with 70+ deg Afov are the "BEST" for ME till I can find something better.
But do they offer the same image quality as a pair of Astroluxe, FMT SX, Superior E or Tak Astronomer? I have NO illusions about that at ALL....
Several month ago Wes offered up a pair of Nikon 7X50 ProStars for sale at a Very attractive price. I was sorely tempted. I know they have been rated as one of the two best 7X50 astro binoculars ever made. I recall reading a glowing review of the ProStar back in the 1980s in Astronomy magazine. At a time when I can only Dream of premium binoculars. But I also know I have pair of 7X50 NOVA EWA binos sitting in the case for sometime, so I didn't.
I think I first came across a very favorable report of the Canon IS binoculars on CN nearly a decade ago. IIRC, it was by Allister on the 15X45 IS. I was excited and eager to try my friend's 10X30 and 18X50 IS after his purchase six years ago. I used them many times since, also looked thru the 12X36 IS II and 10X42 IS L briefly. IS worked on all of them. Small IS artifacts were visible in the 18X, but not a big issue for me. OTOH, The "Wow" experience of observing with "world class optics" many (including Holger and Kimmo) mentioned never came to me, so I haven't felt a pressing desire to own a pair either.
I am old enough to know my limitations, and secure enough about my optics choice to be at ease with both. ;-))