Optics Consumer Price Index Poll (1 Viewer)

Roadbike said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Kammerdiner said:

"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

Click to expand...

eitanaltman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Roadbike said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

If Alpha bins are defined by price I own none. I do own one Austrian brand that was acquired at a Gamma price in NOS condition.

These issues have been thrashed out on BF before, but there seem to be three basic approaches:

a) "I have bought expensive binoculars that provide excellent optical and build quality".

b) "I have bought less expensive binoculars that are almost equal to expensive binoculars in optical and build quality".

c) "I have bought far too many pairs of binoculars".

Of course, some of us belong to more than one of the above. But for those in one category to assume to understand and critically assess the motivations of those in another is pointless and dreary. They are, after all, tubes with glass in for seeing faraway stuff, and we all make our choices as we are entitled. So I own a pair of SV's, and love them. What others make of this is irrelevant, as I'm too old to care, and don't know anyone else who does care. Enjoy your binos, all!

Motivations are entirely different from performance.

Owing an alpha also means you own something expected to hold it's value longer term. A good pair of Zeiss 10 x 40 B or 7 X 42 B/GAT's sell for as much or more than new, and that's with 20 years of use in them. So they can be considered a guilty pleasure and an investment. I can't say I enjoy any of my stocks or bonds as much as my FL's.

Personally, my bins give me joy each and everytime I look through them. They have been one of the most satisfying purchases I have ever made and would repeat in a heartbeat.

Anyway, how boring would the world be if we all wore Timex', all drove Ford's and all used Bushnell's!

Could there possibly be anything less scientific or quantifiable than this survey? And at the end of the day, what possible valid conclusions could be drawn to be endlessly quoted in future posts?

Sancho said:

These issues have been thrashed out on BF before, but there seem to be three basic approaches:

a) "I have bought expensive binoculars that provide excellent optical and build quality".

b) "I have bought less expensive binoculars that are almost equal to expensive binoculars in optical and build quality".

c) "I have bought far too many pairs of binoculars"...

Click to expand...

and there is:
D) "I have bought far too many pairs of binoculars, and still have them" :-C

Bargain Hunters Alert

For those in the $1500 or less category, here's an alpha bin at a gamma price:

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=756059

Brock, OPCI

brocknroller said:

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)

Click to expand...

Got to say YES i'm afraid, if i really want it.
I have the 12SV and its the dogs nuts, i wonder if the new 32SV would be a perfect partner for it though

lilcrazy2 said:

And at the end of the day, what possible valid conclusions could be drawn to be endlessly quoted in future posts?

Click to expand...

Digital Immortality. It's the new embalming.

lilcrazy2 said:

Could there possibly be anything less scientific or quantifiable than this survey? And at the end of the day, what possible valid conclusions could be drawn to be endlessly quoted in future posts?

Click to expand...

It, the entire thread, could be of interest to folks who study online behavior, things like expression of antagonism in the absence of body languagefor example, stuff like that.

ingle1970 said:

Got to say YES i'm afraid, if i really want it.
I have the 12SV and its the dogs nuts, i wonder if the new 32SV would be a perfect partner for it though

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You are the first "Big Spender" in our survey. You will follow Swaro past the $3K price barrier and beyond (nearly there with the 12x50s). You could be the Chuck Yeager of alpha bins!

If the 32 SV EL is on par with the rest of the series, it should be the perfect compliment to your 12x50 SV EL.

So far, no "Big Spenders" among Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon EDG owners. But then, the other three companies have only offered incremental changes in recent models, not radical redesigns, so that might at least partly account for their reluctance to shell out more bucks for new alphas by those companies.

The EDG already has field flatterners and a semi-open bridge design, and Nikon had two new models out back to back, so we're not likely to see an EDG III anytime soon.

Leica's Sports Division lost a whopping $12 million in 2008, so we may not see radical redesigns from Leica until it recoups its losses, although the division seem to be doing much better, according to recent reports.

Zeiss has long been a leader in innovation, so I would look to that alpha maker to pick up the gantlet dropped by the SV EL. But what would an FL II look like? Sounds like the subject for another thread!

This new datum skews my preliminary results, which mean I'm going to need to recalculate s² divided by n for my unbiased estimate of the variance of the sampling distribution of means for random samples of size n and the square root of this quantity, i.e., the standard error of the mean. I will then use this index of the error entailed in estimating or sample population mean based on the information in a random sample of size n.

Whew! Another "YES" response, and I might have to completely redo my Bayesian model and employ not only the use of standard deviations, but also cumulative percentages, percentile equivalents, Z-scores, T-scores, standard nines, and percentages in standard nines!

Brock, senior statistician, OCPI

brocknroller said:

Congratulations! You are the first "Big Spender" in our survey. You will follow Swaro past the $3K price barrier and beyond (nearly there with the 12x50s). You could be the Chuck Yeager of alpha bins!

If the 32 SV EL is on par with the rest of the series, it should be the perfect compliment to your 12x50 SV EL.

So far, no "Big Spenders" among Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon EDG owners. But then, the other three companies have only offered incremental changes in recent models, not radical redesigns, so that might at least partly account for their reluctance to shell out more bucks for new alphas by those companies.

The EDG already has field flatterners and a semi-open bridge design, and Nikon had two new models out back to back, so we're not likely to see an EDG III anytime soon.

Leica's Sports Division lost a whopping $12 million in 2008, so we may not see radical redesigns from Leica until it recoups its losses, although the division seem to be doing much better, according to recent reports.

Zeiss has long been a leader in innovation, so I would look to that alpha maker to pick up the gantlet dropped by the SV EL. But what would an FL II look like? Sounds like the subject for another thread!

This new datum skews my preliminary results, which mean I'm going to need to recalculate s² divided by n for my unbiased estimate of the variance of the sampling distribution of means for random samples of size n and the square root of this quantity, i.e., the standard error of the mean. I will then use this index of the error entailed in estimating or sample population mean based on the information in a random sample of size n.

Whew! Another "YES" response, and I might have to completely redo my Bayesian model and employ not only the use of standard deviations, but also cumulative percentages, percentile equivalents, Z-scores, T-scores, standard nines, and percentages in standard nines!

Brock, senior statistician, OCPI

Click to expand...

Sorry about throwing that spanner in your works Brock!..

It would be very easy to have said NO, but it wouldn't of been true would it!, a few years ago if somebody had told me i would be spending £1675 on just ONE pair of bino's i would of said "no way" also.
But i did, and i would do it again.
One thing though, i would not spend that type of cash on Nikon bins, regardless of how good they are, probably not Zeiss either after the crap service i was given from them.

Looking forward to your results and conclusions...B

ingle1970 said:

Sorry about throwing that spanner in your works Brock!..

It would be very easy to have said NO, but it wouldn't of been true would it!, a few years ago if somebody had told me i would be spending £1675 on just ONE pair of bino's i would of said "no way" also.
But i did, and i would do it again.
One thing though, i would not spend that type of cash on Nikon bins, regardless of how good they are, probably not Zeiss either after the crap service i was given from them.

Looking forward to your results and conclusions...B

Click to expand...

Yes, it sure was a "Spaniard in the Works".

Tom and Jay seem puzzled about the purpose and usefulness of this survey, but you have hit it the proverbial nail on the head.

As I explained in my opening paragraph, for some people, the new "norm" seems to have moved upward. I remember when Nikon broke the thousand dollar barrier with the $1,400 HGL, how people were shocked, some outraged.

I guess Nikon must have had a hard time selling them HGLs at that price, because a year later, I started seeing "deals" on demos for $1,000, and I grabbed one.

I never thought I would pay more than about $500 for a pair of binoculars since my EIIs and SEs cost me about $500 or less, and it was hard to imagine getting significantly better performance for multiples more.

But there I was, jumping on the "$1,000 and up" bandwagon chasing the "latest and greatest," only to be disappointed when I found that despite the much appreciated weight reduction, I liked the old HG's optics better. That was a "teachable moment" for me. Newer isn't always better.

But for you the SV ELs were better, and as long as Swaro keeps making the EL or whatever comes next significantly better from the previous model, you will boldly go where no birder's wallet has gone before....

I suspect you are not alone, but some might be embarrassed to admit it, particularly at this point with the Occupy Wall Street Movement afoot where "excesses of the rich" are being publicly frowned upon as well as the FTC for not coming down harder on the bad players.

You may have no connection whatsoever to Wall Street, big brokers or AIG, but there's the fear of "guilt 'buy' association". So I realized that I might be getting less "Yes" answers than actually exist, but I was glad to get at least one. I thank you for your honesty.

Most participants, however, seem to be drawing the "line in the sand". "No bin is worth more than x amount" "Not that much better to warranty an expensive upgrade" etc. These were the kind of responses that led me to make this survey in the first place.

I predicted a few years ago that as alpha prices climb higher and higher, the "dropout" rate of previous alpha buyers will also climb, and that at some price point, more alpha owners or would-be owners will either hold on to what they've got, buy used, demos, or refurb alphas rather than new, or "buy down".

The most important question we can't determine from this side of the fence, but only get an indirect glimpse at is: At what point will alpha makers lose enough customers that they can no longer balance those losses with price increases and will have to reinvent themselves?

That's what I call the omega point (borrowed that from Tipler), which in my definition is the point at which a manufacturer moves from a mass marketer to a "custom shop," catering to a specialized clientele - professionals, serious amateurs, and the "filthy rich".

Leicas appears to have reached that point with their cameras and recently sold shares of their division to another company to inject more capital to "expand into new markets".

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-blog/2011/10/blackstone-buys-a-44-percen-leica-camera/

The other thing that can happen at the omega point is that the alpha maker might have to split itself in two, one division catering to the mass market to provide a "base income" and another to cater to specialty buyers. Zeiss seems to have anticipated this with their Conquest line.

If they can capture the dropouts and the wannabes at the second tier, their balance sheets will always be in the black.

Wonder how the sports optics market did on Black Eye Friday?

Brock, OCPI

brocknroller said:

...Tom and Jay seem puzzled about the purpose and usefulness of this survey,...

Click to expand...

Actually, i am not confused at all (well, at least not about this survey ... ). I think the response of mine, that you may be referring to was the one to the post by Tom (?) about what use it might be to a future researcher.

I was not commenting on the content or structure of your initial survey questions, technically. I am here for fun, and doing that is too close to my day job.

I guess that i was taking a longer range view.

I simply responded as to what i felt the threads ultimate value might be to some future researcher,which I would think would be someone studying online communication and display behavior.

A researcher of that could be totally unfamiliar with the thread's subject matter and special word meanings ("Alpha" for instance) , and still "benefit" from the comments (parts of a response not limited to y/n/# ) as long as they could read our language here.

brock, you say Leica lost $12M in '08. Do you have info on 2009, 2010? Thanks. FWIW, I own the SLC HD 10x42's, but wouldn't and didn't pay over $1500 for them. Great binos for sure, but there are too many viable, competitive alternatives for $1000 and less for me to ever spend more than $!500 for anything.