Binocular Slagging Matches

[Blackstart]

"My sweet spot's .0013% bigger than yours."

"Oh yeah, well you've got a speck of dust in yours and I don't."

Do any of the posters of this kind of nonsense actually spend much time in the field watching birds instead of looking for things like chromatic aberration? Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?

Is it just me, or are there others reading the binocular threads who think these Leica-Swarovski-Zeiss "my bin is better than your bin" slagging matches serve the interests of no one reading them?

-Adam

[barry robson]

Good point.

I reckon most of us buy our bins using 3 criteria, how much money can I spend, what handles the best for me and what does a bird look like to my eyes through any chosen pair of bins? I bought the pair of binoculars that answered all those criteria and ended up with Minox 10x52. They were not what I went out to buy, but after trying Pentax, Nikon, Opticron, Steiner, and RSPB own brand, all within my pocket, they suited me the best. I,ve tried Swaros and leica and frankly couldn't see enough difference in performance to warrant doubling the amount I spent!

Chhers
B

[HokkaidoStu]

I've tried Swaros and leica and frankly couldn't see enough difference in performance to warrant doubling the amount I spent!


B

Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more. If binoculars (or scopes) have a German name they are triple (or quadruple) the price of locally produced ones here in Japan. I have other things to spend my hard earned money on too.

[Blackstart]

Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more. If binoculars (or scopes) have a German name they are triple (or quadruple) the price of locally produced ones here in Japan. I have other things to spend my hard earned money on too.
Hi Stu-

My original post wasn't anti-German or even anti-costly bins. It was anti-people-who-can-afford-something-most-people-can't-and-then-telling-everyone-that-their-bin-is-better-than-others'-bins-that-most-people-can't-afford.

-Adam

[Atomic Chicken]

Greetings, Adam.

Please don't take this posting as an attack, it is not meant to be anything but a clarification about binocular fanatics' interests and the reasons they discuss these issues ad-nauseum.

I agree that far too many of the discussions on this board involve optical phenomenon that are trival at best, and unobservable at worst. When it really comes down to the essence of birding, choice of optics is probably about 5% of the whole experience, if that. When I began birding, I spent my first year of observation without the aid of ANY optics - in order to see what my normal senses could discern about birds and their behavior. I feel that I am a better birder because of this decision, and I would strongly urge any novice birders to spend at least SOME of their beginning observations without optical assistance in order to see the "whole picture" and observe behavioral patterns that are not readily noticeable through a restricted/magnified view.

Having said that, I need to disagree with one aspect of your posting - the brand comparison portion and whether it really serves the interests of readers of this forum.

I am an unabashed and outspoken "binocuholic". I own more pairs of high-end binoculars "concurrently" than most readers of this forum will own "serially" throughout their entire lives. I currently own 9 pair of $400+ optics, and 9 or 10 pair of $40+ "cheapo" binoculars along with a Nikon scope that is not top-of-the-line, but still worth more than most native Africans will make in an entire year of back breaking labor. I am not saying this to brag or imply that I am in any way superior to any of the rest of you, in fact my wealth of fine optics occasionally makes me feel quite guilty when I run across a birder with $15 Tasco compact optics that I wouldn't be caught dead giving away to a local charity. Instead, I make the previous statements in order to say the following:

I love binoculars. Nothing in all of humanities creations quite reaches the pinnacle of perfection that has been obtained by shaping matter into this MIRACULOUS, MAGICAL object that brings the world (and its birds) closer to me... without needing batteries, regular maintenance, or an unaffordable subscription plan. Once you shell out countless hundred dollar bills to obtain these fantastic instuments, it's a free ride for THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!!! Almost too good to believe.

I own binoculars from almost every major brand selling them, including Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Swarovski, B&L, and Pentax. Every brand has it's pluses and minuses. In order to compete with each other, the various manufacturers have to make certain tradeoffs in order to stay within a certain target price window. Binoculars are both individual in character as well as high in price, and the decision to put out several months wages for a single instrument tends to make every little bit of information important to the prospective purchaser. Dust inside of binoculars, while not playing any significant roll in a binocular's actual optical performance, may give prospective buyers an insight into the manufacturing and quality control standards of the factory. Chromatic Aberration may not be that noticable under normal birding use, but it gives potential customers insight into the level of perfectionism that the company's optical designers aspire to.

There are many valid reasons to discuss these issues and observations, but the most important is that the optics companies have made a decision to not release this type of information to the public of their own accord. Therefore, we have to inform each other as a community... because the producers of these marvelous instruments have decided that we just "don't need to know" or that we "wouldn't understand anyway".

In principle, I agree with you that far too much of this type of discussion is taking place... but when you look at the big picture it is better that TOO MUCH of this type of discussion take place than TOO LITTLE.

Knowledge is power... and an informed buyer is better off than an ignorant one. I hope you don't disagree.

Best wishes,
Bawko

[Blackstart]

Points taken, AC.

I still think, however, that when discussions can become so heated over binoculars (as many are on BF), something is amiss.

My feeling is that far too much emphasis in birding these days is on what equipment one has (and what someone else does or doesn't have) and not on developing any birding skills.

If one is lucky enough to be able to purchase top-end optics (and that person is not an optics reviewer), it seems that the optics are put to better use actually watching wildlife than watching the edge of the field or shining flashlights through them looking for a few dust particles.

-Adam

[John Cantelo]

Personally, I'm in awe of the degree of knowledge (and not less the visual acuity) that some posters seem to possess re various binoculars. I actually do find the arcane debates quite interesting even though I don't have Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski bins. So what, if they may not be the greatest of 'field birders' (and this is a big assumption). If they want to debate the nicities of high end bins, then good for them. If I am tempted to buy a pair of Zeiss et al then I know that the likes of Atomic Chicken and others will give me plenty of advice. Whether I'm bright enough to understand it, is another matter! John

[Bill A]

I'm not a binocaholic like Bawko, but I like to read the posts about binocs, and would also say that, to me, good binocs are the essence of birding; I birded on and off for years, but never really got into it until I bought a really fine pair of binoculars (in my case, Swaro 8.5x42's). This just changed the whole experience for me, and made me realize how crucial good optics are to happy birding, at least as far as I'm concerned. I do agree that the vituperative comparisons between top brands become a little silly, but I still like to read 'em.

Best,
Bill

[Steve]

Is it just me, or are there others reading the binocular threads who think these Leica-Swarovski-Zeiss "my bin is better than your bin" slagging matches serve the interests of no one reading them?



If they bother you Dont read them.

[salty]

If they bother you Dont read them.

my point exactly Steve! :clap:

ps: leicas are the best ;)

[Alan G]

my point exactly Steve! :clap:

ps: leicas are the best ;)

Yep - if you don't like a posting or poster don't read it.

ps: Swarovskis are the bestest in the whole wide world.

;)

[Otto McDiesel]

"My sweet spot's .0013% bigger than yours."

"Oh yeah, well you've got a speck of dust in yours and I don't."

Do any of the posters of this kind of nonsense actually spend much time in the field watching birds instead of looking for things like chromatic aberration? Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?

Is it just me, or are there others reading the binocular threads who think these Leica-Swarovski-Zeiss "my bin is better than your bin" slagging matches serve the interests of no one reading them?

-Adam

People like to talk about their expensive toys.

[iporali]

ps: Swarovskis are the bestest in the whole wide world.

;)
Except in South-America, where they get fogged ;)

Ilkka

ps. My Nikons have at least 110% sweet spot.

[AUDIE]

zeiss,zeiss,zeiss. simpley the best,better than all the rest!

[alan_rymer]

:bounce: Eyetx. Cheaper, and 92.444% as good as all the rest!.

[Tim Allwood]

bins aren't that important

as long as you have a half decent pair - any of the top brands over the last 20 years are more than sufficient - you are well equipped.

you can't however buy skill, knowledge (and fieldcraft), without which bins are pretty useless; witness the blathering around at a twitch when the bird is 'spotted' as evidenced by young timmyjones at the Little Bunting...

Tim

where?...directions please?....where from the tree? Which tree? No that's a sparrow! ;)

[salty]

you can't however buy skill, knowledge (and fieldcraft), without which bins are pretty useless

good point Tim.

yesterday my girlfriend mistook a boulder for a pink footed goose - she was using leica trinovids costing £700!.

as i was busy wetting myself, she pointed out the time i mistook a pheasant for a red kite while field testing my £950 leica ultravids in november! - ahem...

[Tim Allwood]

we've all been there i think Richie

me as much as anyone :eek!:

Tim ;)

[pduxon]

The best bin is the bin you have with you at the time. When I'm out with non birders I slip some small bins in the pocket when I'd never take a full size set.

[ranburr]

I enjoy these bino debates. Binos are the focus of this section, not birding. Granted that is the end use for most of these products. I use my binos for much more than just birding and I enjoy the technical side of things. You will probably never see me post in the birding sections. I am just not as knowledgeable in that category. I know just enough about optics to be good and dangerous. I think the reason you don't see a lot of cross over in the forums is simply personal comfort levels and interest. I would have use for binos whether or not I ever birded again. Thus, my intense interest in this forum.

ranburr

[Al livsey]

Ha Ha Ha!! some good posts here. Excuse me for interrupting, but could anyone tell me what chromatic abberation is??

[rezMole]

Chromatic abberation is something that owners of expensive bins constantly harp on about. Strange really - i've got some "cheap" Opticrons and can't, for the life of me, find any chromatic abberations!

[Steve]

I am forced to post this again so Please listen up folks, these forums are designed so that members can discuss WHATEVER they wish to in a designated forum provided it is on topic and within the forum rules. So if Binoculars and the gubbins of them floats your boat you can post about chromatic abberations to your hearts content and I will defend your right to do so. Members who do not wish to discuss it STAY AWAY, it is not compulsery this goes for every forum on Birdforum, if you dont want to get involved in a post because it is not your thing either start a thread that is or move on to a thread that suits you.

[AlanFrench]

"My sweet spot's .0013% bigger than yours."

"Oh yeah, well you've got a speck of dust in yours and I don't."

Do any of the posters of this kind of nonsense actually spend much time in the field watching birds instead of looking for things like chromatic aberration? Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?

Is it just me, or are there others reading the binocular threads who think these Leica-Swarovski-Zeiss "my bin is better than your bin" slagging matches serve the interests of no one reading them?

-Adam

I have a long standing interest in optics, including binocular optics, and I enjoy learning and talking about binoculars.

As to birding, I do actually go out and look at birds, and all thoughts of aberrations and the optics I use are forgotten. I enjoy birding, and I find birds interesting and entertaining, but I have little interest in talking about birding, and, indeed, could argue that talking about birding often becomes a game of one-upmanship ("I've seen more/rarer/better birds than you have,..."). I am a social amateur astronomer. I am not a social birder.

Everyone approaches life differently, and I find it is very comfortable not to worry about what other folks do with theirs, unless, of course, it has some direct adverse effect on mine. Not many folks have ever been to that point.

Clear skies, Alan

[Swissboy]

Do any of the posters of this kind of nonsense actually spend much time in the field watching birds instead of looking for things like chromatic aberration? Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?
-Adam

Adam, I agree with you as far as the aggressive wording in some of the discussions is concerned; and there is too much repetition at times. But to call it nonsense is questioning some peoples' legitimate hobbies.

There is probably just as much debate over some rarities. And, biologically speaking, those stragglers are just equally unimportant as a speck in a tube of a particular piece of optics. I think the right attitude has been mentioned above: if you are not interested, don't bother to read it.

There is another reason, however, why you may not find many posters in the birding section. How am I - living in Switzerland - to discuss observations in Britain or the US or whatever? In fact, I am not even looking at those websites giving all the actual rarity information for those areas. I might only grow an ulcer for not being able to go there! And this probably holds for most of us. However, there is no problem discussing the merits and possible faults of optics right around the globe. In addition, this discussion can be done at times when there is no chance to go birding.

[Leif]

"My sweet spot's .0013% bigger than yours."

"Oh yeah, well you've got a speck of dust in yours and I don't."

Do any of the posters of this kind of nonsense actually spend much time in the field watching birds instead of looking for things like chromatic aberration? Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?

Is it just me, or are there others reading the binocular threads who think these Leica-Swarovski-Zeiss "my bin is better than your bin" slagging matches serve the interests of no one reading them?

-Adam

I like to visit local nature reserves and watch birds, and any other wildlife such as mice, and deer. In Summer I might be out walking in the countryside most evenings. I don't like hard core birding, mainly because I quickly show my ignorance and the serious lot shuffle off.

I recently saw 100's if not 1000's of Golden Plover flying over our local patch which is one of the most impresive things I have ever seen.

Like many here I like talking about optics, as much to learn as anything. I'm not keen on the "my instrument is better than your instrument" style of discussion. All binoculars are a compromise, and we all have different needs and tastes. From what I've seen most people on BF are easy going.

Unless I am mistaken, the really heated bun fights take place on the birding forums, and I've seen more than one BF member throw their toys out of the pram. When was the last time an optics thread was shut down due to fighting?

If you want navel gazing par excellence (or "nombrilisme" to use a French term) I suggest you look at binocular discussions on amateur astromomy sites. Those people really are obsessive.

Leif

[nigelblake]

Ha Ha Ha!! some good posts here. Excuse me for interrupting, but could anyone tell me what chromatic abberation is??

Chromatic aberation occurs because all of the colours in the spectum are at slightly different wavelengths, therefore they do not focus in exactly the same plane. The result of this is colour fringing around the image in the binoculars, in some bins this can be across the whole image or just noticable around the edge of the field of view.
This can be made less of a problem with well designed and engineered lenses, in the more expensive optics there will be very little or no colour fringing at all.

[elkcub]

"My sweet spot's .0013% bigger than yours."

"Oh yeah, well you've got a speck of dust in yours and I don't."

Do any of the posters of this kind of nonsense actually spend much time in the field watching birds instead of looking for things like chromatic aberration? Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?

Is it just me, or are there others reading the binocular threads who think these Leica-Swarovski-Zeiss "my bin is better than your bin" slagging matches serve the interests of no one reading them?

-Adam

Blackstart.

You are 110% correct (normally I stop at 100% but when a guy is absolutely right he get's more). None of the slaggers (I take it those who slag are slaggers) watch birds, and when they do it's simply to see if CA ruins the view. For your courage in bringing this to our attention I think you should receive the "Chutzpa Award" (i.e., CA) of the year. Sorry about the acronym but I am from CA after all. :'D

Elkcub

[Blackstart]

Touche, Elkcub.

I guess I deserve it.

-Adam

[Pileatus]

I watch birds and other wildlife as much as time permits and my experience has led me to conclude that the better my bin, the greater my enjoyment. Since I’m unwilling to buy and carry each make and model, I find it beneficial to listen to others. In the absence of BF we are left with trade magazine reviews, Usenet, and local opinion. Overwhelmingly, I prefer BF.

I enjoy reading the bird forums, but never participate. I do not have the time to chase transients around the countryside, my life list is in my head, and I enjoy seeing the same birds day after day. I’m fortunate to be able to study Pileated, Northern Flicker (yellow shafted), Red Belly, Downy, and Hairy woodpeckers on a daily basis. Coops and Sharpies regularly visit my hillside looking for voles, screaming Red Tails steal me away from my outdoor chores, Turkey Vultures soar directly overhead, and migratory birds strain my neck muscles. That’s a selection of birds I see from my property. A short drive in any direction will provide more than ample birding opportunities.

I think birding should be simple, fun and non-competitive. I’m not interested in keeping score, fashion statements, or displaying a company badge. Give me a solid black bin that does what I want and I’ll be happy. If there’s a bin out there that will please me more than what I own, I’m interested in hearing about it. BF allows me to do just that.

There’s plenty of new snow on the ground and I’m going birding.

John

[Al livsey]

Chromatic aberation occurs because all of the colours in the spectum are at slightly different wavelengths, therefore they do not focus in exactly the same plane. The result of this is colour fringing around the image in the binoculars, in some bins this can be across the whole image or just noticable around the edge of the field of view.
This can be made less of a problem with well designed and engineered lenses, in the more expensive optics there will be very little or no colour fringing at all.

Thanks for the information Nigel, that makes it easier to understand.I may have chromatic abberation on some of my digiscoped images.
I've often admired your work in Birdwatching Magazine, how do you do it? It must take a lot of hard work and patience.
Thanks again.

Alan.

[Yooper]

Well put John Traynor!! That was a perfect post IMHO!

[Wehr]

Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more. If binoculars (or scopes) have a German name they are triple (or quadruple) the price of locally produced ones here in Japan. I have other things to spend my hard earned money on too.

You should ask your own industry whether it is only the name. They will explain to you, why they are trying to copy those products since more than hundred years, respectively to construct products with comparable advantages and quality standards. I'm sure, they will not argue with the name.

[nick scarle]

If no-one questioned the optics' quality then perhaps the manufacturers wouldn't strive to improve their products and we'd all be paying just as much as we do now for inferior bins.

ps my bins are miles better than yours - because from here I can't see a damn thing through yours !

[Yelvertoft]

Why do we rarely see any of the names that pop up with regularity in binocular threads in any of the bird-related discussions?

-Adam

At least on Birdforum there ARE forum areas where there is the opportunity to discuss the birds being viewed.

If you think it's bad here, try looking at some of the hi-fi forums where there is endless discussion about equipment in such obsessively trivial detail it makes you weep. On some sites there aren't even sub-forums to discuss the music you are supposed to be listening to, but you will find endless discussions about which way round you should connect simple pieces of wire. At least no-one here starts an argument about which way round they should be using the optics.

Duncan

[Otto McDiesel]

At least no-one here starts an argument about which way round they should be using the optics.

Duncan

Hm, i tought that i should always use the thumb and the index of my right hand to focus my Nikon E2 10x35, which, by the way, is much better than y'all's binoculars. o:)

[Henry B]

Hm, i tought that i should always use the thumb and the index of my right hand to focus my Nikon E2 10x35, which, by the way, is much better than y'all's binoculars. o:)
Oh no it isn,t.....hb

[Wehr]

Hm, i tought that i should always use the thumb and the index of my right hand to focus my Nikon E2 10x35, which, by the way, is much better than y'all's binoculars. o:)

There you are completely wrong. Especially the E2 shows much more DOF, if you use the middle finger of your left hand. Besides to conserve optical performance you have to immerse your E2 into salty water twelve hours a month (but not at full moon).

Walter

[Yelvertoft]

There you are completely wrong. Especially the E2 shows much more DOF, if you use the middle finger of your left hand. Besides to conserve optical performance you have to immerse your E2 into salty water twelve hours a month (but not at full moon).

Walter


Now you're really getting the hang of it! A bit more of this kind of discussion and you will soon be able to post with confidence on a hi-fi forum. Don't forget though, you must cryogenically treat your optics before you use them, whichever finger you chose to use for focus. Of course, some people will find that they see an entirely different species of bird if they look through them from the objective end.