Steve, the figures on the two sides of the slash don't represent right and left (your "OD" and "OS")! The whole thing repesents the aucity, or sharpness, of vision in *each* eye. If acuity is "normal" in both eyes it is: right 20/20, left 20/20. If the vision in the left eye is less sharp than that then it is: right 20/20, left (say) 15/20, etc.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Kowa Genesis 8x33 ... Why Spend More ??? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gcole
- Start date
perterra
Well-known member
There are some who would take exception at you listing the Nikon as an equal to Swaro.
Steve,
The way Pomp expressed it can be used but guess I most of us are more familiar with the 20 foot scale. 15/20 is the same as 20/26.7.
Pomp,
A good point about individual visual acuity dictating how we judge sharpness. Painting the underlying detail with a pretty broad brush someone with 20/20 vision would struggle to see effective resolution differences. At 20/15 most would be able to tell the good from the average. At 20/12 you could spot sample variation between alpha models, and at 20/10 you might struggle to find any that could match your eyesight.
Of course you expect effective resolution to improve with price but it's certainly not guaranteed. I have a £65 Chinese porro that does better than some alpha samples I've tried. Of course with an alpha you are paying for other stuff besides resolution.
It's worth pointing out that there are national differences in the light levels used for eye tests. The US will tend to generate a better acuity value than many European tests.
David
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Charges that alpha owners are "brainwashed," or fall prey to slick marketing "gimmicks" and "subliminal messages," or crave "status," or are halfwit "consumers"--well, those charges are always out there.
I have (albeit somewhat slowly) learned to ignore them.
Supposedly, Brigham Young said: “He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.”
That quote may be apocryphal, and let's face it, Brigham Young was a little nutty (no offense intended), but still those are words to live by.
Oh, and when someone says, "no offense intended," rest assured a little offense is intended.
Mark
PS: Interestingly enough, over on the scope forum not one single contributor has ever said those who spend $4k on an ATX 95mm are merely pawns in Swaro's nefarious master-marketing plan.
I have (albeit somewhat slowly) learned to ignore them.
Supposedly, Brigham Young said: “He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.”
That quote may be apocryphal, and let's face it, Brigham Young was a little nutty (no offense intended), but still those are words to live by.
Oh, and when someone says, "no offense intended," rest assured a little offense is intended.
Mark
PS: Interestingly enough, over on the scope forum not one single contributor has ever said those who spend $4k on an ATX 95mm are merely pawns in Swaro's nefarious master-marketing plan.
Last edited:
winwinbino
Well-known member
May be those 1000$ bins are just >10% behind the Alphas, but please be franked to yourselves, folks. For those people who's hobby is binoculars would go for Alphas if they really had ENOUGH casual money.
Not necessarily true. I seem to have a particular problem with the rolling ball effect of the Swaros I've tried recently (not just swaros - some other binoculars have the same effect), and I need more eye relief than many "alphas" provide. In this case the best binocular for you may really not be the best binocular for me (or others).
perterra
Well-known member
So Dennis is correct, the only reason we dont all own swaro is because we cant afford it?
If you cant see the difference, why would you spend the money? And I'm not convinced the human eye can see a difference of 10% in most people.
I think for some, the desire to be seen and associated with the brands cachet is the driving factor. Certainly not all of the owners think that way, but I think the ones who say everyone would have one if they werent poor or those who say real birders carry a certain brand are taking notice of who carrys what, a whole lot more than many others do.
There is a reason the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses" has stayed alive all these years.
perterra
Well-known member
Perterra / Samandag, by those who take exception to Nikon being listed as equal to Swaro - you mean Nikon or Swaro fans?
Samandag / Samandag, see above - unfortunately, therefore, your point is lost on me.
/ Samandag, is that two of you? Or are there "Atlantic Rim portals"?
CG, no, don't run, some have already done such comparisons in Bf; and I hope the news in your graphic is greatly exaggerated.
Steve, sorry, I now learn from David (in that last post by him) about the different systems.
David, thanks for the info. - again.
Mark, if you really do mean "rest assured" we have there some cool logic.
Win, actually, it's not that simple ...
Samandag / Samandag, see above - unfortunately, therefore, your point is lost on me.
/ Samandag, is that two of you? Or are there "Atlantic Rim portals"?
CG, no, don't run, some have already done such comparisons in Bf; and I hope the news in your graphic is greatly exaggerated.
Steve, sorry, I now learn from David (in that last post by him) about the different systems.
David, thanks for the info. - again.
Mark, if you really do mean "rest assured" we have there some cool logic.
Win, actually, it's not that simple ...
Given that it´s an optics sub-forum, we´re all a little optics-obsessed on here. Otherwise we´d be doing other stuff like watching football (I understand some folk find that appealing). We all want to push the boundaries and find the best for ourselves (and for me that would probably be a waterproof SE). But we also have a curious self-torturing inclination to look for niggles and faults, and that drives the marketeers to almost, but never quite fully, satisfy our collective demands. I´ve been through most binos, from the sublime, to the damned good mid-tier, to the mediocre and the downright awful. What each of us as individual consumers decides is "worth it" is relevant only to ourselves, and we´re all sensible enough to realise that when one is "in flow" and watching the bird, we forget what optics we´re using.
perterra
Well-known member
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Sancho,
My guess is that for around $300, the optics may not interfere with our bird watching. At some price point, not much above $600, only those who quibble, those with some special need or those who have the highest standards, would find such a binocular interfering with their bird watching.
After years of worshipping at the altars of Z, L or N, I admit that there are lesser gods.
I actually do most of my bird watching, with a glass, a 6.5X32 Meopta MeoPro that cost me less than $300, but I also carry a 10X32 Zeiss, which I rarely need.
Incidentally, I post in the binocular forums and report regularly on my sightings.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Thanks David for explaining this!!
David in NC
Well-known member
Even God hates Porsches:
http://www.hickoryrecord.com/news/article_baf5f9c8-bb69-11e3-aaf3-001a4bcf6878.html
