Binocular hype-overpriced glass

[woody57]

I really cannot understand the huge prices good binoculars are ,i recently used my mates latest Leica 10x42 Ultravoids?,they cost over £1400,i compared them to my Zeiss Jenoptems 10x50,yes they are a few ounces lighter than mine,are rubber protected,but my glasses cost £100,and the multi coated lenses are far superior to the LEICAS.I really cannot see the value ,in these ultra expensive glasses,and its almost sheep like the way people have to have the latest model out???. jim

[stuart C smith]

wow, woody57 you have just stuck a stick in the cage, keep your head down !!! :t:

[NoSpringChicken]

Hello Jim. You are very brave making controversial statments like that on the binocular forum. I await the responses with interest.:smoke:

I have had a pair Zeiss 10x50 Jenoptems for about 20 years and still use them at home sometimes. They are all right but are showing their age badly in some areas. Compared to my £250 Swift HHS roofs they:
are much heavier
are much more bulky
are not waterproof
have less eye relief
have an image which seems colder and is not as bright.

I don't think I would want to pay £1400 for the Ultravids, even if I could afford to, but I think binocular technology has moved on dramatically since the Jenoptems were produced.

Just my opinion, of course.

Ron

[John Cantelo]

Personally I can't see why anyone in their right minds - unless they just won that £18 million on the lottery - would buy Leicas for £1,400 when you can get very similar 'top end' roof bins for about £500 less and very good quality binoculars (with very similar optical performance) for £1,000 less. It seems an awfully large premium to pay.

OK I did weaken a few years back and buy a pair of Zeiss but that was only because I'd done a bit of extra supply work to get them and I felt that, after 40 years birding, it was time I treated myself. But optically they're no great improvement on my old Nikon 8x32s!

John

[Sancho]

I really cannot understand the huge prices good binoculars are ,i recently used my mates latest Leica 10x42 Ultravoids?,they cost over £1400,i compared them to my Zeiss Jenoptems 10x50,yes they are a few ounces lighter than mine,are rubber protected,but my glasses cost £100,and the multi coated lenses are far superior to the LEICAS.I really cannot see the value ,in these ultra expensive glasses,and its almost sheep like the way people have to have the latest model out???. jim

I suppose it´s the same with all technology, Woody. Not so much "fashion" as being prepared to pay a higher and higher premium for minimal incremental improvements....people do it with cars, washing-machines, shoes, watches, etc. etc. It all depends on how much utility one is going to derive from using the bins over time. I wouldn´t spend 1,400 euro on bins, but I have in the past bought both relatively expensive bins and mid-priced bins, and funnily enough, just as a matter of taste, both my favourite bins that I use most often now cost under 500 euro (about 350 sterling) each. It all boils down to buying the bins that you like the most, and if people want to buy Leica HD´s, fair play to them, it´s their choice what they do with their money. And if you´re happy with an older cheaper pair, fair play to you. Happy Birding, folks, whatever your bins may be!:t:

[Blincodave]

I really cannot understand the huge prices good binoculars are ,i recently used my mates latest Leica 10x42 Ultravoids?,they cost over £1400,i compared them to my Zeiss Jenoptems 10x50,yes they are a few ounces lighter than mine,are rubber protected,but my glasses cost £100,and the multi coated lenses are far superior to the LEICAS.I really cannot see the value ,in these ultra expensive glasses,and its almost sheep like the way people have to have the latest model out???. jim


How long did you try them for and in what conditions? I paid £650 for my Ultravids and they amaze me every time I use them. We are all entitled to our views but I prefer to be with the sheep. BTW, when did you last have your eyes checked?
;);)

[woody57]

Bright sunny day -Blinco at Dungeness--eyes are ok glasses for reading only so far?.My point is that i feel the old Zeiss glass is better than the Leica glass,for the money - stated in my post -there is no comparism.yes the Leica's are far more pleasing on the eye,i could be on a U-BOAT with mine and not look out of place,but value for money look no further. jim

[Pinewood]

Bright sunny day -Blinco at Dungeness--eyes are ok glasses for reading only so far?.My point is that i feel the old Zeiss glass is better than the Leica glass,for the money - stated in my post -there is no comparism.yes the Leica's are far more pleasing on the eye,i could be on a U-BOAT with mine and not look out of place,but value for money look no further. jim

Jim,

Value for money, indeed, although those Jenoptems would cost rather more than 100 quid, if they were made, today. As soon as you compare a Porro witha roof prism, that difference becomes obvious. There is a lot of expensive engineering, phase coating and dielectric coatings, making that roof glass perform well, optically, and it will still lack the field of view of a comparable Porro. The modern roof binoculars will be lighter, waterproof and more shock resistant.
However, I have found that with the edition of FL, ED or HD glass, the new
roof binoculars are a pleasure to use.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :brains:

[Blincodave]

Bright sunny day -Blinco at Dungeness--eyes are ok glasses for reading only so far?.My point is that i feel the old Zeiss glass is better than the Leica glass,for the money - stated in my post -there is no comparism.yes the Leica's are far more pleasing on the eye,i could be on a U-BOAT with mine and not look out of place,but value for money look no further. jim

Woody,

I think your comparison would have led you to a different conclusion had you done the comparison on a typical gloomy winter's day.

Dave

[SteveClifton]

The perceived wisdom seems to be 'spend your money on a good pair of bins, and then get a good scope when you have the money'. This advice is often given to new birders, yet after well over 20 years birding, I am a confirmed 'scope man' and value the view offered by a top scope over any pair of 'top bins'.

The reason for this is that I can atually see the difference between one model and another because my scope is always on a tripod, so I can perceive every detail of resolving power that it delivers to my eyes. That is why I reckon it's worth spending big money on the best scope I can afford.

My bins (Nikon HG 8x32) cost me less than a third of the cost of a new pair of Leica Ultravid HDs, and I reckon the view through them will be at least 95% as good as the Leicas. The other 5% doesn't bother me because my eyes can't see it anyway. Anyone who has followed the recent thread on IS bins will understand exactly why my eyes can't see the difference (unless they are mounted on a tripod-which I never do anyway).

If course, this is just my opinion, and says nothing about differences in 'character' of the view, control of CA, handling etc. Others will not share my views, but I can live with that and keep the £800 difference in my pocket!

[Vectis Birder]

I have a pair of Leica Trinovids that I bought in 2003 for £679. They are, without doubt, the best binocs I have ever looked through (and that includes Swaros). However that is half the price of the Ultravids - I wouldn't personally pay £1400 for binoculars, as I feel the price is excessive.
Apart from the Leicas the best bins I ever had were a cheap pair of 10x50 Chinons I bought in Dixons for about £20 in 1991 - they went everywhere with me, including a 2-month trip round Australia and I was gutted when I dropped them in 1999 and broke them. A good pair of bins.

[P H]

Best pair of bins I've owed where Swift Ultralites 10x42 porros £50 3 years ago secondhand in as new condition. To my eyes they where pin sharp and no CA problem sold em for what I paid. I go on image quality rather than a name seen it many times before in other hobbies I do all the gear and no idea. But if you got the money and got nowt else to spend it on knock yourself out. I'd rather keep the money in the bank.

[Swissboy]

I really cannot understand the huge prices good binoculars are ,i recently used my mates latest Leica 10x42 Ultravoids?,they cost over £1400,i compared them to my Zeiss Jenoptems 10x50,yes they are a few ounces lighter than mine,are rubber protected,but my glasses cost £100,and the multi coated lenses are far superior to the LEICAS.I really cannot see the value ,in these ultra expensive glasses,and its almost sheep like the way people have to have the latest model out???. jim


Jim, are you sure you don't need an eye-check? Maybe that's why you can't perceive the quality difference? It's not the outside that makes the Ultravids so costly! Sorry, just saw it had been said before. But I don't mean it jokingly. People usually don't realize a gradual decrease in visual ability for quite a while. I have long noticed a certain decline in my wife's vision, for example. And she has only recently admitted to it. She had been using reading glasses for years.
But you are certainly correct that porros like your Zeiss provide much better value than roof models. The predecessors of the current Trinovids were, at the time (about 30 years ago) considered to be the top-notch models. And for years I had been wondering why my wife's 8x40 Fujica porros were at the same level as my extremely expensive Leica 10x40s. Meanwhile it is clear, and it has been told many times here on BF, that roofs were inferior until the onset of phase coating the prisms.

[lucznik]

It is probably a reasonably verifiable truth that the best image quality in modern binoculars is going to be found in a top-end roof prism model. This is not however, sufficient justification to conclude that roof prism binoculars are inherently better. IF manufacturers lavished as much time, energy, and money developing the "ultimate" porro prism binocular as they do on developing improvements in their roof prism lines, the porro prism would always offer a superior image quality. Manufacturers would also be able to use the money they would save from the lack of a need to develop things like phase correction coatings to invest in developing better waterproofing, reductions in bulk, etc.

The reality is that market forces have decreed that the roof prism binocular's improvements in ergonomics, size, ease of waterproofing, and most importantly style, are at least as important as image quality. People were gravitating toward roof prism offerings long before phase correction coatings, dialectric coatings, ED glass, etc. became popular and back then, the image quality differences were so obvious even a rank novice could easily see them.

If birders, hunters, or whoever else were truly dedicated to the concept of getting the absolute best image possible, no compromises allowed and were willing to enforce that expectation with their pocketbooks, manufacturers would not be offering only roof prism designs in their high-end offerings. As it is, we as consumers have voted with our pocketbooks and we have been overwhelming in both our demand for roof prisms and our general distain for porros.

Although it may not be popular to say, the reality is that binocular purchases are only partly influenced by image quality.

[MSA]

After spending a week at Portland Bill with my Zeiss Jenoptems drying out in the airing cupboard for half the week following a rainy day seawatching, I consider my Leicas to be invaluable! They are also far superior in low light conditions, but admittedly litle or no better optically in "normal" conditions.

Buying optics is a bit like buying cars, as someone has already mentioned. A Mk 1 Ford Escort will get you from a to b, but will leave you stranded on the hard shoulder one day. An Audi will give you great performance at a reasonable price. A Roller will carry you from a to b and give you a foot massage on the way, but will cost the same as a small flat! It's always going to be a trade-off between quality and price, and at the upper end the differences are small. I guess the market for top-end binos is fairly limited in any case, so there's never going to be much competition, and therefore little incentive to change the status quo.

[richt]

Hi Jim

In a way i see where you are coming from with this
My first ever pair of "quality" bins were Zeiss Jenoptem 10 x 50 very late T3M Multi coat model
Purchased in 95% + original condition for the princely sum of £39 with beautiful leather case
For 2 years almost these where and sometimes still are my air show choice pair
I own several other High end Nikon and Swift Porros including E2, Se, Audubon, Opticron Minerva etc
I also have a couple of mid range Phase Coated Roofs now
Over time i have come to realise there are gains and losses in every pair i ever take out anywhere one way or the other
At times its size at times its weight at times its durability and yes at times its just pure image
I compared my Jenoptem with a bird watching chap's Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL some time ago at a bird sanctuary in daytime summer light conditions for a good few hours
I actually saw little difference in overall performance other than the larger apparent fov with my Zeiss but better edges with the Swarovski
The chap using my Zeiss commented on how good he found the centre res but .... and heres the thing
He found the eye relief unsuitable
He couldnt hold them very smoothly
He was terrified of dropping or man handling them

It takes all sorts of useage and preference for folk and in a way its a benefit to the optic community in one sense because manufacturers strive to meet new demands (albeit allied to profit)

Essentially Jim i agree the Zeiss Jenoptem was and is a fabulous design and a binocular made when porros still held the marketplace
I doubt i could ever sell my own and i am still pleasantly reminded how good the centre image is even now

The Jenoptems are still a great buy provided they have not been knocked around or had a hard life
The image quality from a good pair is way ahead of most budget end bins though China is producing some excellent stuff lately with much better coatings
Eyeglass wearers would be best advised to avoid the Jenoptems really

Regards
RichT

[Nick Elliston]

Apart from the Leicas the best bins I ever had were a cheap pair of 10x50 Chinons I bought in Dixons for about £20 in 1991 - they went everywhere with me, including a 2-month trip round Australia and I was gutted when I dropped them in 1999 and broke them. A good pair of bins.

I still have a pair of 10×35 Chinons which must be 20+ years old and which I still use as my "large binos". They are deteriorating though and I will change soon.

The old adage of get as good a pair as you can afford is pretty sound, but "value for money" is a consideration. I am confirmed Leica fan. The "feel" of them to me is so much better than other top marques and, all else being equal, I would select them above Zeiss and Swaro. Having said that, I'm not convinced that they will provide better value than top range Nikons so the latter is a distinct possibility.

[sharptooth]

Apart from the Leicas the best bins I ever had were a cheap pair of 10x50 Chinons I bought in Dixons for about £20 in 1991

I'm still using 10x50 Chinons, bought around the same time and still serving me well despite some of the rubber finally starting to wear. I'm also thinking about changing, but not sure what I would gain from a newer pair, and even less sure what benefits are to be had from spending several hundred pounds plus!

As far as value for money is concerned, my Chinons have certainly been that at least and I'd never even considered changing them until the recent wear occurred.

[John Cantelo]

It is probably a reasonably verifiable truth that the best image quality in modern binoculars is going to be found in a top-end roof prism model. This is not however, sufficient justification to conclude that roof prism binoculars are inherently better. IF manufacturers lavished as much time, energy, and money developing the "ultimate" porro prism binocular as they do on developing improvements in their roof prism lines, the porro prism would always offer a superior image quality. Manufacturers would also be able to use the money they would save from the lack of a need to develop things like phase correction coatings to invest in developing better waterproofing, reductions in bulk, etc.

The reality is that market forces have decreed that the roof prism binocular's improvements in ergonomics, size, ease of waterproofing, and most importantly style, are at least as important as image quality. People were gravitating toward roof prism offerings long before phase correction coatings, dialectric coatings, ED glass, etc. became popular and back then, the image quality differences were so obvious even a rank novice could easily see them.

If birders, hunters, or whoever else were truly dedicated to the concept of getting the absolute best image possible, no compromises allowed and were willing to enforce that expectation with their pocketbooks, manufacturers would not be offering only roof prism designs in their high-end offerings. As it is, we as consumers have voted with our pocketbooks and we have been overwhelming in both our demand for roof prisms and our general distain for porros.

Although it may not be popular to say, the reality is that binocular purchases are only partly influenced by image quality.

I'd largely agree, but would add the caveat that the optical performance of Nikon SE porro binoculars do equal (and arguably exceed in some respects) the top of range roofs.

A recent review of 'bottom end' bins in the current edition of UK magazine "Bird Watching" certainly seemed to prove that cheap porros offer a much better optical experience than equivilent roofs. Only one of the roof prism bins was rated an '8' for optical performance - a figure equalled or bettered by all but one of the porros. The best porro scored '9.5', but the worst roof bins got a '6' (I think - the article isn't before me as I type).

Whilst you can debate whether porros or roofs are the best option in the upper & middle ground, the former are clearly the best for that cheapo spare pair,

John

[SteveClifton]

After spending a week at Portland Bill with my Zeiss Jenoptems drying out in the airing cupboard for half the week following a rainy day seawatching, I consider my Leicas to be invaluable! They are also far superior in low light conditions, but admittedly litle or no better optically in "normal" conditions.

Buying optics is a bit like buying cars, as someone has already mentioned. A Mk 1 Ford Escort will get you from a to b, but will leave you stranded on the hard shoulder one day. An Audi will give you great performance at a reasonable price. A Roller will carry you from a to b and give you a foot massage on the way, but will cost the same as a small flat! It's always going to be a trade-off between quality and price, and at the upper end the differences are small. I guess the market for top-end binos is fairly limited in any case, so there's never going to be much competition, and therefore little incentive to change the status quo.


I get your basic drift, but there is really far less difference between top and mid-priced bins than there is between various makes and models of cars.

There are a few significant improvements to modern bins that do make a noticeable difference (most modern bins are waterproof now, whereas 20-odd years ago it was unusual), but they all do basically the same thing, just in slightly different ways.

If you spend £200-£300 pounds on a bin these days, it will probably offer almost the same performance as a top model. It might even prove more reliable and durable than some top models. How many threads have we seen on BF about unhappy Leica customers recently? Unhappy both with the design of the product and with the after-sales service they received (or didn't, as the case may be!).

No doubt there are many happy Leica customers out there too, it's just that we often don't hear from them. Are they really getting more than twice the performance and service for thir money? Of course not, but in the end it's down to personal choice and (more importantly) what you can afford that dictates what you buy, and how much you spend.

Steve

[Alexis Powell]

I don't follow the car analogy at all. With binoculars, the differences according to price are at least incremental along most measures of performance, even if those increments are small. Cars of different prices are like apples and oranges. My preferred sort of car are those like the Honda Civic hatchback manual transmission (and bought used, say for $3000). It's hard to find a more reliable mode of transport (good for ~200,000 miles easily), that can haul as much stuff at any price. As a bonus, the Civic is also very economical (initial cost, gasoline and maintenance), and I find cost a more relevant criterion with cars than binoculars since cars are essentially consumables.

--AP

[Robert / Seattle]

I don't follow the car analogy at all. With binoculars, the differences according to price are at least incremental along most measures of performance, even if those increments are small. Cars of different prices are like apples and oranges. My preferred sort of car are those like the Honda Civic hatchback manual transmission (and bought used, say for $3000). It's hard to find a more reliable mode of transport (good for ~200,000 miles easily), that can haul as much stuff at any price. As a bonus, the Civic is also very economical (initial cost, gasoline and maintenance), and I find cost a more relevant criterion with cars than binoculars since cars are essentially consumables.

--AP

Alexis,

I quite agree. But aren't you minimizing the prestige factor and how that may be relevent to the comparison?

Cheers,
Robert

[Alexis Powell]

Alexis,
I quite agree. But aren't you minimizing the prestige factor and how that may be relevent to the comparison?
Cheers,
Robert

Oh right, sorry, I honestly forgot about that. I can say with confidence that it really doesn't enter into the equation for me or my friends that I know well enough to judge its influence. Some of us go for top-end binos for their beautiful build and styling though, independent of the brand. That can be similar for some people with cars. Guess I was just being argumentative. It's a hot button issue for me because I hate cars, love binos, own and use both a lot.

--AP

[Sancho]

......I hate cars, love binos, own and use both a lot.
--AP
Ditto here, Alexis. And hating my car, I try to cycle as much as possible, and that's led me off into a whole other "price increase v. marginal improvement in performance" issue..... You can buy lovely bicycles now that cost a lot more than your 2nd Hand Honda Civic, but the average cyclist would argue that a bike's a bike....with bins, bikes, cars or baked beans, we draw our personal lines.

[Robert / Seattle]

... ....with bins, bikes, cars or baked beans, we draw our personal lines.

Baked Beans? Now just wait a minute! No two beans are alike. The ergonomics of the Fava far outweigh the Cannellini, but are paltry in comparison when compared to the flavor and texture of other beans such as ...

Oh, nevermind ...

(Sorry, Thomas Lazar made me write this!)

[Sancho]

Baked Beans? Now just wait a minute! No two beans are alike. The ergonomics of the Fava far outweigh the Cannellini, but are paltry in comparison when compared to the flavor and texture of other beans such as ...

Oh, nevermind ...

(Sorry, Thomas Lazar made me write this!)
3:-) I'd be a Haricot man myself if I knew how to pronounce them.....

In any case, folks, there's no need to fret anymore about how and why different people spend their money differently. A bit of secondary-school Economics.....It's the First Law of Consumer Demand, or the "Equi-Marginal Principle", which states that the individual consumer is enjoying maximum utility (i.e. having a larf) when he/she spends so that the ratio of marginal utility (extra satisfaction) to price is the same for all items consumed. That's why I have nice bins and a crap car.

[medinabrit]

I am fortunate enough to have about 20 bins.From swaros ,leica , nikon se etc .
But by far the most useful & most used are my Canon 10x30 & 12x36.
If more people experienced them they would be using them .
They dont cost 1400 pounds either.
Brian.

[Sancho]

I agree, Brian, but there are few of us out there. I've given up trying to demonstrate to people the obvious superiority of IS.....we'll just have to accept that we are Enlightened, and the non-IS masses are still floundering about in the Darkness (or at least the rather jittery Light...);)

[John Cantelo]

Looked through Canon IS bins once - dull image & indifferent image wholly negated the advantage of IS. Perhaps they were a substandard offering, but lets face it 10x30/12x36 will never equal 8x42s for brightness,

John

[Sancho]

Looked through Canon IS bins once - dull image & indifferent image wholly negated the advantage of IS. Perhaps they were a substandard offering, but lets face it 10x30/12x36 will never equal 8x42s for brightness,

John
It could also be, John, that you have Rock-Steady hands. In which case the IS is a non-issue. The Canon IS to me aren't dull, but the image isn't as crisp as, say, in my EL's. But I can "see" much more detail with the IS, and to me, the best optics are the ones I can see most detail with. A great image that jitters doesn't reveal as much to my eyes as a slightly poorer image that is Rock-Steady. What does bug me about the IS is the narrow-ish FOV...5 degrees in the 12x. I know it's okay at that mag, but 1.4 degrees more would make all the difference......

[etudiant]

John,
Try the Canon 10x42L IS glasses. They are bright enough to be comfortably competitive at the very least with the big 3 optics, with a 6.5deg field of view. Admittedly, they sell at a premium price compared to Canon's other IS binocs, but that is still well off from the 3 premier brands.

[KorHaan]

What a coincidence the IS pops up here, as I just spent this afternoon trying out Peewee's 12x36 Canons. He'd invited me to come and check them out. Good man!
Compared to my own non-IS 10x42 they were superior in giving much much better detail, a Mistle Thrush in a meadow I was able to ID with my 10x's on jizz mostly, but showed a beady eye, and fine dots on the breast with the 12x IS. And white edges on the outer tail feathers I could discern as well.
A sign I wasn't able to read with 10x I could easily read with 12x IS.

So what they say about IS is true; soon I'll be browsing in shops to check them ALL out and pick one. Looking forward to the 10x42 IS, in particular.

Nice weight too, the 12x's IS; very light.

Greetings, Ronald

[Sancho]

Nice weight too, the 12x's IS; very light.

Greetings, Ronald
That's what's put me off the 10x42 IS....they get brilliant reviews, but they're very heavy...over a Kilo. The beauty of the 12x is you get stonking mag and detail but with the weight of a premium 8x32.

[KorHaan]

That's what's put me off the 10x42 IS....they get brilliant reviews, but they're very heavy...over a Kilo. The beauty of the 12x is you get stonking mag and detail but with the weight of a premium 8x32.

Hi Sancho,

You shouldn't have said that, now, about the expensive 10x42's getting brilliant reviews. I deliberately ignored to look at Jan Meijerink's review but then I did.
Now my greed has surpassed my impatience.
Thank heavens I still got a month and a half to get my senses back and regain control of myself.

Greetings, Ronald

[Sancho]

Together we can get through this, Ronald.....I'm going to start a "Don't buy anymore unecessary optics" support group.....

[ceasar]

"Optics Anonymous?" Anyone?:-O

Bob

[Peewee]

What a coincidence the IS pops up here, as I just spent this afternoon trying out Peewee's 12x36 Canons. He'd invited me to come and check them out. Good man!
Thanks for the kind words Ronald. Before you know it you will be able to return the favour by letting me try your new bin. When was your birthday again? ;)

Together we can get through this, Ronald.....I'm going to start a "Don't buy anymore unecessary optics" support group.....

On no please ..... don't try to talk Ronald out of buying a new IS bin. He deserves it. ;)

Cheers Peter

[KorHaan]

"Optics Anonymous?" Anyone?:-O

Bob

Not yet, Bob. I'm still in denial phase.

Greetings, Ronald

[KorHaan]

Together we can get through this, Ronald.....I'm going to start a "Don't buy anymore unecessary optics" support group.....

Great idea, Sancho!
I hereby volunteer for the post of treasurer; then I can buy as many unnecessary optics as we need for reference material, to compare to our own indispensable optics, and then we go " boo !! " and all feel better!

Greetings, Ronald

[Robert / Seattle]

... "Don't buy anymore unnecessary optics" support group ...

Sancho,

Please define: "unnecessary".


Cheers,

Robert, aka ...

"I'm a bin collector, but I can change, if I have to ..... I guess".

(Sorry, Red).

[KorHaan]

Thanks for the kind words Ronald. Before you know it you will be able to return the favour by letting me try your new bin. When was your birthday again? ;)

Cheers Peter

:-O

Haha! My pleasure, Peter!

[woody57]

Good morning,ok since my starter post and on a nice post from Swissboy, i have had the eye test, suggested?,which has proved my mince pies are ok,especially for distance.I have re -tested my Zeiss again against the Leica's and i can only state again that the Zeiss glass is far superior to the Leica glass,ok this is going to get up some peoples noses,,but as a personel preference my £100 bins win hands down.I feel there is a great deal of snobbery re :[just my opinion]that you must have the very best lenses to be the very best bird watcher?????,its more of a status thing,which i suggest operates in all hobbies.Anyway at the end of the day it's up to the person to decide .jim.

[ThoLa]

I feel there is a great deal of snobbery re :[just my opinion]that you must have the very best lenses to be the very best bird watcher?????

This may well be true for bird watchers. It certainly isn't for ornithologists!
By the way "the very best lenses" can turn out to be emperor's clothes.

Fully dressed,
Tom

[ThoLa]

Please define: "unnecessary".




I am at a loss to give a definition but I can offer translations:

"unncessary":

1) (German) leicish (also used academically in the field of psychopathology where it means "exhibiting the odd behaviour of a man drooling with his nose flattened against an optician's shop window")
2) (Austrian vernacular): swarovskiish (can also mean "stylish", "posh", "cool", "belonging to the in-crowd but absolutely unfit for socializing in circles in which muddy boots are not welcome").

hope this helps,
Dr. Trans

[marcus]

I am at a loss to give a definition but I can offer translations:

"unncessary":

1) (German) leicish (also used academically in the field of psychopathology where it means "exhibiting the odd behaviour of a man drooling with his nose flattened against an optician's shop window")
2) (Austrian vernacular): swarovskiish (can also mean "stylish", "posh", "cool", "belonging to the in-crowd but absolutely unfit for socializing in circles in which muddy boots are not welcome").

hope this helps,
Dr. Trans
I liked that. I giggled good reading it.

[Sancho]

Sancho,

Please define: "unnecessary".



"Unnecessary" = Mrs. Sancho says I don't need it....

[ThoLa]

I liked that. I giggled good reading it.

Thank you for the flattering remark.
It's appreciated.

Thomas

[medinabrit]

Kinda funny seeing bins costing 1400 pounds .When i left the UK in 1967 that was 18 months pay for me as a toolmaker. Or the price of 2 ford Cortina cars.Amazing what inflation has done .
Brian

[Pinewood]

A good question is how many weeks of net salary would £1,400 be, today? I would guess that the binocular is more affordable, today.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Swissboy]

Kinda funny seeing bins costing 1400 pounds .When i left the UK in 1967 that was 18 months pay for me as a toolmaker. Or the price of 2 ford Cortina cars.Amazing what inflation has done .
Brian

At that time gasoline was often less than 30 US cents a gallon.

[Sancho]

The bins are certainly more affordable today, as are all consumer goods, which is why the world is awash with them. My first pair of bins cost twelve pounds (when Ireland was still using sterling, about 1972). That represented a week´s salary for my Dad, a schoolteacher. They were rubbish, equivalents would cost 60 euro max nowadays.