flossiepip
Well-known member
In WW2 the Tiger tank was better than the T34 but the Russians could get three T34's for one Tiger, who won the war?
Regardless of what you say show me any other binocular over $1500.00 that are selling that well on E-bay.
Dennis
In the same time period Leica has sold the following, not including 10x25 & 8x20 compacts
8 - Geovid/Douvid
6 - Trinovid - pre BA/BN
8- Trinovid BA/BN
8 - Ultravids
I would think that Leica ate Swaro's lunch $$ wise.
But its not about the $$, or who sold what, its about the optics and what they mean to each individual user, and what is important to them. Just as you want people to respect your opinions on your new SV's, you should respect theirs when they tell you they don't need to spend a fortune for great optics, or have an opinion that differs from yours. It always appears like you feel the need to browbeat by reiteration in the hopes that people will side with your latest position.
When you posted this on 5/15 about your SV's "They are made by aliens or something", I PM'd another member and said "Probably from Uranus".
I have always enjoyed your comments and knowledge on many different binos, and hope you will continue to share your insightful observations.
Tom
I just know what you said, and you over exaggerated the facts. That itself is a fact. Don't make asinine statements and you'll be fine.
There are none, because most people, those that haven't been brainwashed yet, or those that quit kidding themselves, have gotten wise to the fact that there are many less expensive, high quality binos out there that deliver the goods within a nats hair of $2000+ glass. Not one.....many. Usually the $2000+ binos have to be discounted for anyone to buy them anyway.
I have just made a profound observation and I wonder if any of you have ever experienced it. Once you have birded and used alpha binoculars for any length of time do you find it hard to use lesser binoculars in the field? I have Swarovision 8.5 x 42's now and I have used them extensively in the field. From time to time I have tried using lesser binoculars and I just don't enjoy birding as much as with the Swarovision's. I don't mean cheap junk binoculars either I mean $1000.00 and up binoculars. My memory retains the view I had with the Swarovision's and when the view is not as good it dissapoints me and actually bores me. You know everybody says the alpha's give small incremental improvements in your view but when it comes down to it that small difference makes a big difference in your birding enjoyment. Just an observation and I wondered if any of you have experienced it.
That didn't work for me. I tried the Swarovision expecting to part with my hard-earned $2K. But the rolling ball effect was too pronounced for me. Maybe I read too much on this board and caem to look for that defect when I was in store. When in store, I compared the SV with a pair of Leupold Mojave. SV is absolutely better. But I balked at the idea of spending extra $1600 for that slight amount of betterness.
What can $2000 do? Just for fun
A 60 inch LCD TV from Sharp
or
A whirpool 25.6cu ft refrigerator
or
Nikon D7000 DSLR Camera with 18-200mm VR II lens
Yes when you believe something will be there it is often times self fulfilling.
Rolling ball is not imaginary. I really hope you are fortunate enough to find something that shows it. Never in my life had I experienced RB, and believe me I was NOT expecting to see it from the SV. What I expected to see was a superb optical instrument that represented the pinnacle of optical design. What I got was my first experience with rolling ball. It only took a $2400 glass to do it . I happen to wonder if the sales on the bay are from people selling because of that. I know a dealer who maintains that about half of the people in his store that look at Swarovskis are affected by RB in the SV, not surprisingly those folks tend to gravitate to the SLC-HD.
But you are correct on part of your self fulfilling prophecy. When one spends that much on a binocular they see what they expect to see oftentimes.
If the rolling ball is there isn't doesn't bother me much. I prefer the sharp edges of the Swarovision over the SLC-HD althought the SLC-HD is very, very good also. It's a tossup and depends on what you want in your binocular.
That isn't fair you included all models of Leica's and stretched the price range as well. If those are the new parameters Swarovski sold 42 binoculars not including compacts. Talk about browbeating! I feel you are working for Olympus you push those 8x20 Tracker's so much! I enjoy your comments also but it would been helpful if you would have informed us about the chance of having the melting glue problem with the Trackers before I bought them and had to send them back.
Dennis
You really crack me up, and I see those Aliens from Uranus making the SV's must have finally landed in Colorado.
When I recommended the 8x25 Trackers all I said was that they were the best bino around for a cheap compact and that they were only 75-80% of the alphas. Since you fell that I am working for Olympus, why don't you go back and count how many times you recommended them. But, if owning one pair of $60 binos from Olympus makes me guilty of working for them, then I guess I should be looking for my advertsing and consulting check in the mail.
In fact, YOU are the one who touted over and over that they were as good as and even better than many of the alphas (to which I disagreed). You even went so far as to compare them to your new 8.5x42 SV's and announced to all on BF they they were nearly as good in many areas (Want me to go back and post your words for you?).
Since I have never had a problem with them, and to my knowledge you were the first to have this melting problem with them, pray tell how you would feel that I would alert people to a problem that in my experience never existed??
Get a grip!
Tom
The rolling ball is there, maybe for up to half of the people who view the SV. Some people will be able to adapt to it, but I for one do not seem to be able to do that. Whether or not you see it depends largely on how much distortion is present in your own vision.
I really wonder if anybody would have ever noticed "Rolling Balls", if not a compatriot of mine had once discovered this topic in a German astro-forum and did choose it as his pet subject to make it big in the internet. I think actually it was some kind of luck for his ambitions, when Swarovski came out with the Swarovisions. In real life I know about 50 users, birders and stargazers, who did try Swarovision binoculars. Only one did say he sees the rolling ball effect but it does not bother him. Odd thing that among internet aficionados of optics the situation seems to be quite different from real life. :h?:
Steve
There are none, because most people, those that haven't been brainwashed yet, or those that quit kidding themselves, have gotten wise to the fact that there are many less expensive, high quality binos out there that deliver the goods within a nats hair of $2000+ glass. Not one.....many. Usually the $2000+ binos have to be discounted for anyone to buy them anyway.
That is not to detract from the high quality of alpha bins, but rather to say that many of the technologies developed at the top have now trickled down to more affordable priced bins made in countries where the cost of labor and materials are less expensive.
In WW2 the Tiger tank was better than the T34 but the Russians could get three T34's for one Tiger, who won the war?
All in all, isn't it much ado about nothing?....really?