[brocknroller]

In light of $2, 300 8.5x SV ELs “selling like hotcakes” and the 10x50 and 12x50 SV ELs priced at $2,600, the “line in the sand” seems to have been moved for some consumers. So it’s time for us at OCPI to take a new Optics Consumer Price Index Poll.

Please chose from the following two responses about the price of alpha bins (by “alpha,” we are referring to high end roof prism binoculars made by Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, and Nikon). If you answer YES, skip questions 1-3.

YES, the “sky’s the limit,” I will keep buying alphas no matter how much they cost.

NO, I will draw the line when alphas hit a certain price point.

1. If your response was “NO,” where is the "price ceiling" for you?

$2,000 $2,500? $3,000? $3,500? Less? More?

2. When alpha prices exceed your price ceiling, will you hold on to your old alphas or buy other binoculars ?

3. If you responded “buy other binoculars,” please choose from the following:

(a) I will buy “old stock” or "demo" alphas.
(b) I will buy “pre-owned” alphas.
(c) I will buy second-tier roofs.
(d) I will buy premium porros.
(e) Other - write in your response.

Thank you for participating in our poll.

Brock, senior statistician, Optics Consumer Price Index (OCPI)

[looksharp65]

NO.
1) $1500.
2) Hold on to my old alphas AND buy other binoculars
3) Most probably second-tier (ZR ED3, Meostar) OR demo alpha OR pre-owned alpha.

My FL 10x32 was roughly $1500 and pre-owned near mint condition. Can't see the need for anything better.
I consider a ZR ED3 7x43 and/or a Meostar 8x32, possibly a FL 8x32 if I find one with a very good price-performance ratio.

[brocknroller]

Thanks for your responses. I think we are beginning to see a trend here, but I will wait until all the surveys are in before tabulating the results on my statistical calculator.

Brock, OCPI

[Sancho]

NO.
a) 1,500 euro. Or whatever that is in real money nowadays. And even that largely depends on the exchange rate with Sterling, because I bought most of my binos from Sterling-landia.

b) I wouldn't bother "upgrading" to new alphas now, even if the price dropped.

c) I've done all of these in the past, but have sold most of the purchases (always at a loss, I'm not a trader). I'd sell the last of my small collection now, keeping the alphas, a high-mag IS-model and a compact, except that I reckon the binoculars will hold their value better than the Euros I'd get for them. (When I go to the bread-queues, I'll push a wheelbarrow full of binos, not monopoly money).

Sancho the Enlightened

[vop]

1. NO!

Also ≈€1500. That's really max, €1200 seems a more reasonable bar (that's about what I paid for my used Kowa scope, and it's worth it).

2. Don't have any alpha binoculars to hold on to, just good ones! :) I wouldn't buy if I didn't really feel the need for it; and then: 3. a, b, c or d.

Probably a or b, since what I need is a good 7x42 that will work well even in sub zero temperature (°c).

[jaymoynihan]

NO, I will draw the line when alphas hit a certain price point.

1. If your response was “NO,” where is the "price ceiling" for you?
For me (work for my income and in the U.S. education sector/public university) that is a figure that is dynamic, i.e., going down.

2. When alpha prices exceed your price ceiling, will you hold on to your old alphas or buy other binoculars ?
I am holding onto my old alphas, and non-alphas. I do not anticipate significant binocular purchases in the future, due to the impact on me of the economic and political simplification underway in the U.S..

[Roadbike]

The answer is no to buying if they exceed a certatin threshold. That threshold is right now $500.00 because no binocular above that amount delivers an improvement in performance that is anywhere close to the increase in price. Why that cutoff? It seems about right given the many binoculars that deliver very nice images priced below that. And because I found a 1990 NOS Swarovski Habicht for $350 not all that long ago. Alpha bins are great fun at the right price but at current prices well north of $1k they are way overpriced given their small increase in performance.

[edwincjones]

no
1-unknown, but will only buy if/when money is available
2-hold on to old

I have pledged to myself, enough, no more, BUT
rumors of the coming SW8x32SV sound good,
but is it good enough to replace my Zeiss 8x32 FL?

edj

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by edwincjones

no
1-unknown, but will only buy if/when money is available
2-hold on to old

I have pledged to myself, enough, no more, BUT
rumors of the coming SW8x32SV sound good,
but is it good enough to replace my Zeiss 8x32 FL?

edj

Edwin:

Sorry to break-in. But I am thinking the answer to your last question is
yes, it will.

Jerry

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

Edwin:

Sorry to break-in. But I am thinking the answer to your last question is
yes, it will.

Jerry

Yup, it'll kick bino butt methinks. The full-size SV already does. Only question is weight--it could be a bit big/heavy for a state of the art mid-size.

Mark

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by Roadbike

The answer is no to buying if they exceed a certatin threshold. That threshold is right now $500.00 because no binocular above that amount delivers an improvement in performance that is anywhere close to the increase in price. Why that cutoff? It seems about right given the many binoculars that deliver very nice images priced below that. And because I found a 1990 NOS Swarovski Habicht for $350 not all that long ago. Alpha bins are great fun at the right price but at current prices well north of $1k they are way overpriced given their small increase in performance.

I'd toss in a big ole +1 on that there above post.



I have never owned an "alpha", much in the same way that I have never owned a BMW or a mercedes or a porsche. There was a time I could have, but still didnt.

I drive a used camry, and thats about the Binos I'll purchase. I dont see any big income increases in the foreseeable future, and with little kids I dont see my disposable income changing much to the positive either.

$300 has been my personal limit for binos, and most have been for far less. I am thrilled with my sub-$200 purchases (proptic 10x42, sightron 8x32, yosemite 6x30) and if this is 90% alpha, I dont see the final 10% as being worth the $1000 it'll cost me.

[Roadbike]

Originally Posted by BrightIdea

I'd toss in a big ole +1 on that there above post.



I have never owned an "alpha", much in the same way that I have never owned a BMW or a mercedes or a porsche. There was a time I could have, but still didnt.

I drive a used camry, and thats about the Binos I'll purchase. I dont see any big income increases in the foreseeable future, and with little kids I dont see my disposable income changing much to the positive either.

$300 has been my personal limit for binos, and most have been for far less. I am thrilled with my sub-$200 purchases (proptic 10x42, sightron 8x32, yosemite 6x30) and if this is 90% alpha, I dont see the final 10% as being worth the $1000 it'll cost me.

I'm simply amazed at the money thrown at so-called Alpha Bins when it is clear from numerous posts that they really do not deliver significant improvement in bird viewing over their lesser priced brothers. Are we seeing birds or feathers where there were none before? This thread is focused on the pain level or how high the price must go before some of us stop buying at the high end. I'm stunned at the amount of money some of us are purportedly willing to trade for binoculars. Although Alpha Bins are fine optical instruments they sell mostly as badges of conspicuous consumption.

[edwincjones]

"badges of conspicuous consumption"

maybe, but

life is short
time birding is shorter
a little better optic "may" allow one to see more
especially as our eyes get older

edj

[jaymoynihan]

Originally Posted by Roadbike

I'm simply amazed at the money thrown at so-called Alpha Bins when it is clear from numerous posts that they really do not deliver significant improvement in bird viewing over their lesser priced brothers. ....

A personal view, your experience may vary.

I do not own a current "Alpha" assuming for sake of conversation that means Leica/Zeiss/Swarovski/Nikon-EDG roofs). But i do own a few "Alphas" (zeiss and Leica) of previous generation, but phase coated.

As far as sheer optical quality, they are matched or exceeded by some of my non-alpha glass. BUT, all three Alphas exhibit a characteristic i have not found often. That is utterly forgiving eye placement, and complete comfort while using them for my eye muscles. I wear eye glasses when using binos.
I assume that "comfort" is due to the quality of correction along the entire optical train, and placement/tolerances during assembly. Both of those characteristics involve skilled labor. I therefore assume that a small portion of the higher cost is attributable to that. The majority of the cost premium though is probably just margin, as would be the case in the rest of the luxury product market.
But due too our current pecuniary system of advanced reciprocal altruism, often a product exhibiting optimum total function for purpose is now a "luxury".

[Kammerdiner]

"badges of conspicuous consumption"?

Nah, not for me. Not for most I think. Besides what percentage of the world's population even cares about binoculars? 0.025% maybe? Who could you possibly be trying to impress? You'd be better off blowing your money on something dumb like a blood-red Camaro or an iPhone. People notice those things. They are conspicuous.

I wind up with the binoculars I like best, that work best for me. That's about it. One happens to be an 8.5 SV; another is an Olympus 8x25 that cost me $27 on eBay.

And I am often surprised by the amount of money some folks throw at every two-bit binocular that comes down the pike. Seriously, there are folks who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on one thing after another. Talk about conspicuous consumption! Optics is a fine hobby, and the reviews are certainly invaluable, but ultimately I'm in it for the birds not the bins.

Now, if someone doesn't want to spend the money on an alpha that's fine. I've said it before but it bears repeating: I could bird happily ever after with a Zen ED2. Why don't I do it? Because I like the SV better. Heck, it IS better. If it weren't I wouldn't have bought it.

And I figure the SV is a lifer: I'll keep it 20 years or more. Amortize that (even assuming I paid full price, which I didn't) and I'm looking at 32 cents per day. What else gives so much enjoyment for the price? Heck my mortgage is costing me a hundred times that much--and I don't even LIKE my house very much.

Mark

[eitanaltman]

purchasing a luxury good isn't a rational decision in the sense of getting full % return on the incremental % in cost. The same is true for any other specialty hobby -- speakers and stereo gear, cars, etc. You can almost always get 90%+ of the quality for less than half the price, and the marginal returns curve always flattens out severely as you enter the upper 1/2 of the cost zone.

Yes, some people buy them reflexively because they can afford it and they have been "duped" by the brand appeal, but that doesn't mean that everyone who owns alphas is a fool or a snob.

Some people buy them because they can afford them and they enjoy having "the best". Just like the guy who simply loves getting into their BMW because it makes them feel something that they never felt in their Camry. That's fully rational and nothing wrong with that.

Some people can easily afford them and still don't buy them because they are "practical" and don't like to throw money away chasing incremental improvements. That's also fully rational, and totally fine, just like choosing to drive the Camry. If I could afford it, that's the group I would be in....

The important thing is that for those who can't afford them, they no longer have to feel inadequate about carrying $200-400 bins. And that's an awesome thing.

[Roadbike]

I think the key word is luxury good which is essentially a euphemism for conspicuous consumption. It is great to be seen enjoying the finer things of life but lets not kid ourselves that a $2.5k binocular delivers a significant let alone a linear increase in performance over binoculars at $.5k or below. It does not.

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by Roadbike

I think the key word is luxury good which is essentially a euphemism for conspicuous consumption. It is great to be seen enjoying the finer things of life....

I mostly bird alone, middle of nowhere. Pity I can't "be seen" by anybody but the birds. Such a waste of a "luxury good." The birds don't care at all. And every time I try to make myself more "conspicuous" it backfires and they all fly off.

I guess I just don't buy the conspicuous consumption argument. Maybe it applies to some. Not to me. I've spent most of my life trying to be INconspicuous. I like it that way.

Oh, and for my money the SV is in fact a "significant" improvement over the Zen. For your money maybe not. Save your money, then.

Mark

[jaymoynihan]

I would think that any "luxury" goods product can be; assuming its appearance or logo conveys a brand message the communicates it is expensive to a small group or large group of people:
1. Conspicious consumption, properly so called, (Veblen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption )
or
2. A tool necessary to its user

An example from outside the optics world, that is a product that actually performs a function, and often in private. Writers are nortorious for being picky about their writing tools. Many well known and unknown writers still do drafts or notes on paper. Some of them insist on using a particular fountain pen, of a particular brand, due to the balance in the hand and the feel of the nib on paper. They will tell you it is instrumental (pardon the pun) to their thought process and construction of words.
Let us say it is a Pelikan 800 with green & black stripped barrell and a 14 ct gold broad nib, going for $400 -700 USD.
That same object peeking over the top of the pocket of a business person may be conspicious consumption.

[Roadbike]

No question that Conspicuous Consumption abounds and is an established part of marketing. Lets recognize it as such and not hide it under a cloak of largely imaginary performance improvements.

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by Roadbike

No question that Conspicuous Consumption abounds and is an established part of marketing. Lets recognize it as such and not hide it under a cloak of largely imaginary performance improvements.

Actually, if you read Veblen his formulation sounds pretty foreign to us moderns. We've appropriated it a bit, and out of context. Integral to his notion of "consumption" was waste. If something served a useful purpose it wasn't as good as something purely wasteful. The idea was that you had to prove to others that you, almost literally, had money to burn. Think of lighting cigars with $100 bills, that sort of thing. "Using" something expensive counts for less than actually "consuming" something expensive. We use binoculars; we consume expensive wine. In Veblen's formulation the wine confers more status.

The performance improvements are not "imaginery." Why don't you look through a pair. Or not.

[looksharp65]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

"badges of conspicuous consumption"?

Nah, not for me. Not for most I think. Besides what percentage of the world's population even cares about binoculars? 0.025% maybe? Who could you possibly be trying to impress? You'd be better off blowing your money on something dumb like a blood-red Camaro or an iPhone. People notice those things. They are conspicuous.

I wind up with the binoculars I like best, that work best for me. That's about it. One happens to be an 8.5 SV; another is an Olympus 8x25 that cost me $27 on eBay.

And I am often surprised by the amount of money some folks throw at every two-bit binocular that comes down the pike. Seriously, there are folks who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on one thing after another. Talk about conspicuous consumption! Optics is a fine hobby, and the reviews are certainly invaluable, but ultimately I'm in it for the birds not the bins.

Now, if someone doesn't want to spend the money on an alpha that's fine. I've said it before but it bears repeating: I could bird happily ever after with a Zen ED2. Why don't I do it? Because I like the SV better. Heck, it IS better. If it weren't I wouldn't have bought it.

And I figure the SV is a lifer: I'll keep it 20 years or more. Amortize that (even assuming I paid full price, which I didn't) and I'm looking at 32 cents per day. What else gives so much enjoyment for the price? Heck my mortgage is costing me a hundred times that much--and I don't even LIKE my house very much.

Mark

Originally Posted by eitanaltman

purchasing a luxury good isn't a rational decision in the sense of getting full % return on the incremental % in cost. The same is true for any other specialty hobby -- speakers and stereo gear, cars, etc. You can almost always get 90%+ of the quality for less than half the price, and the marginal returns curve always flattens out severely as you enter the upper 1/2 of the cost zone.

Yes, some people buy them reflexively because they can afford it and they have been "duped" by the brand appeal, but that doesn't mean that everyone who owns alphas is a fool or a snob.

Some people buy them because they can afford them and they enjoy having "the best". Just like the guy who simply loves getting into their BMW because it makes them feel something that they never felt in their Camry. That's fully rational and nothing wrong with that.

Some people can easily afford them and still don't buy them because they are "practical" and don't like to throw money away chasing incremental improvements. That's also fully rational, and totally fine, just like choosing to drive the Camry. If I could afford it, that's the group I would be in....

The important thing is that for those who can't afford them, they no longer have to feel inadequate about carrying $200-400 bins. And that's an awesome thing.

I fully agree with both of you. I wouldn't have bought my Zeiss FL 10x32 at its RRP but it delivers like nothing I have experienced before.
I love the Fury 6.5x32 and needed similar properties in a 10x. It took the Zeiss to make it for me. If the Fury 10x32 had been as good as the 6.5x I gladly would have bought it. The cost for the FL was high above my limit but I can't see it as "conspicuous consumption" considering how it performs.

[Roadbike]

They are not "imaginery" nor are they imaginary in total. I have looked through several Alpha Bins and they are fine optical instruments. They just do not deliver much more for the money. Although modern usage of Conspicuous Consumption differs from how Veblen used the term I think the modern usage is understood. We could substitute Status Symbols or Badges of How Much One Spent if that would help understanding the message.

[looksharp65]

One thing we should keep in mind is that relatively few industrially produced items are built to last "forever", simply because that is a financial suicide to any business.

So the things we use are predestined to a relatively short life cycle, they are given fancy properties that appeal to current fashion rather than timeless values.
If the damn thing does not break soon enough, advertisement campaigns will make you wish for the improvement of your image that the new toy will provide.

However, I imagine most of us here see binoculars as a tool to watch birds. As such it should serve its purpose and deliver at or above our expectations.
If it is self-destructing, we should regard it as a bad purchase, especially considering how its short life cycle impacts the environment.

Luckily, decent binoculars probably will last way longer than the iPhone or whatever you could compare it to. But the alphas should last for at least one more generation of users before they become landfill.

Ergo: Quality, class and enduring performance are values that should be built into every man-made item. If the monetary cost is high, one should remember the environmental aspect.
Binoculars are among the few products that still can provide such enduring quality, and as long as the cost can be paid I see nothing wrong with having an alpha bin.

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by Roadbike

They are not "imaginery" nor are they imaginary in total. I have looked through several Alpha Bins and they are fine optical instruments. They just do not deliver much more for the money. Although modern usage of Conspicuous Consumption differs from how Veblen used the term I think the modern usage is understood. We could substitute Status Symbols or Badges of How Much One Spent if that would help understanding the message.

Yeah, I caught the typo. Just too lazy to fix it.

My recommendation is that you never, ever consider the purchase of an alpha. I don't see how you could live with yourself if you did.

Seriously, some of us just don't play by your rules.