That's an irrelevant question and not even pertaining to the thread.
It's your analogy. Why did you use it?
Bob
That's an irrelevant question and not even pertaining to the thread.
Seems relevant enough to me.That's an irrelevant question and not even pertaining to the thread.
Sorry, dennis, that's not true. Perform a few basic optical tests and you'll find plenty of defects in alpha level binoculars. Binomania apparently didn't do any technical tests for sample defects so they and we can't know whether some of their test binoculars were cherries and some lemons.
The idea that the Alpha level binoculars vary that much in quality is a bunch of baloney.
Sorry but I have to agree with the others as well. In my relatively small sampling of Alphas that I have owned they can, and do, suffer from quality control issues...be it optical or mechanical. Granted, it does seem more well controlled than some less expensive models that I have handled but the QC issues are still there. A Leica Trinovid 7x42 comes to mind as does a Zeiss FL and one or two others.
I have only owned 4 Swarovskis and, dare I say it?....I didn't notice any QC issues with any of them in regular use.
I know someone who claims he's seen new Zeiss bins with internal fingerprints, and that he owns one with a dust particle or hair visible when looking through it.
FWIW, I have seen a new and never opened Omega wristwatch with a tiny hair between the glass and the face.
We had 3 sample of Leica, one with some minor problem at focus and dioptrix, we chosen the best for the test.
For us the Leica HD is obviously a good binocular, but is not as sharp as the Swarovision.
The Leica HD has more chromatic aberration than a Kowa Prominar that is significantly cheaper. For these reasons Leica's score is lower.
I know someone who claims he's seen new Zeiss bins with internal fingerprints, and that he owns one with a dust particle or hair visible when looking through it.
FWIW, I have seen a new and never opened Omega wristwatch with a tiny hair between the glass and the face.
Give me some documented cases where you have tested a Swarovski binocular and found optical defects and what were they. I would be very interested in hearing what kind of optical defects you have observed on them because Swarovski prides themselves on quality control and 100% testing of all binoculars being shipped to assure no problems. This would be very interesting because it could alert us to defects that we should look for when we buy binoculars that perhaps the normal consumer would not notice. Or anybody else reading this thread let's hear the defects you have had with Swarovski or perhaps any other alpha level binocular so we can find out if this really is a common problem.
Returning to the Binomania tests, there are numerous examples of binoculars judged to be more or less sharp than others. What causes that? A defective specimen is the first possibility that needs to be eliminated. I know it's impractical to test many samples, but it's not so tough to bench test the single specimens before they are submitted to the group.
I also agree with Ivan that the Canon doesn't belong in this test group.
Hi folks!They must have gotten a bunch of lemons, then? You seem to suggest that all these bins should be equal in terms of sharpness. They should be darn close of course (that's an impressive selection) but differences do exist and the results aren't really surprising are they? Well, maybe the Leica, but apparently they had multiple samples of that one. I have to think there was some serious splitting of hairs involved as well. Overall, though, the results aren't too surprising.
A question: what is "corrected field"?
A comment: The Edg is clearly priced way too high over there. How does Nikon expect to sell ANY at that price?
Mark
They must have gotten a bunch of lemons, then? You seem to suggest that all these bins should be equal in terms of sharpness.
A comment: The Edg is clearly priced way too high over there. How does Nikon expect to sell ANY at that price?