Binoculars for Heretics (1 Viewer)

John Cantelo · Sep 18, 2016

Troubador said:
Jerry

John was using the word heretic in a broad sense and not in a religious one. He can speak for himself but my understanding is that he was taking the notion that top-priced alpha bins are the ultimate in binoculars and setting it up as a target and for the sake of the discussion, considering it to be a sort of 'gospel that many folks believe'.

He was challenging this and likening himself to an unbeliever, a 'heretic' to use his word, since he finds himself satisfied with more modestly priced bins.

Lee

Thanks, Lee, for your accurate explanation of what I was about. I thought my wording made my point clear but I apologise if I was being more obtuse than I appreciated.

It's my view that many people set too much store by what are increasingly very fine distinctions that, even by their own account, can often only be discerned by intensive side-by-side comparison. I doubt that the subtle distinctions described make any substantial or significant difference in real-world birding. Hence it's my view is that our desire to own certain binocular brands is as more to do with 'status' than 'functionality' which is what we all like to pretend. Before I get angrily shot down by offended alpha owners, I claim no immunity from this inclination since when I had the opportunity and funds I went out and got what was then the top Zeiss model.

I'd also add what has become something of a mantra for me - that the small handy lightweight binoculars you actually have with you will always out-perform those weighty neck strainers you left behind .....

Piskeddu · Sep 19, 2016

Troubador said:
Ciao Giorgio
This sounds like good advice.

Ciao bello
Lee

Thanks Lee, I'll tell you another thing, people who use binoculars to work, I can think of friends who over the Straits of Messina are making transit counts of birds of prey, they use binoculars that have taken long ago and still are good, some memory of Leica BA.
This is to say that you do not need to have the latest even if released would be happy, you have to feel the binoculars in hand, must be yours.
Good day .... Beautiful

Troubador · Sep 19, 2016

John Cantelo said:
Thanks, Lee, for your accurate explanation of what I was about. I thought my wording made my point clear but I apologise if I was being more obtuse than I appreciated.

It's my view that many people set too much store by what are increasingly very fine distinctions that, even by their own account, can often only be discerned by intensive side-by-side comparison. I doubt that the subtle distinctions described make any substantial or significant difference in real-world birding. Hence it's my view is that our desire to own certain binocular brands is as more to do with 'status' than 'functionality' which is what we all like to pretend. Before I get angrily shot down by offended alpha owners, I claim no immunity from this inclination since when I had the opportunity and funds I went out and got what was then the top Zeiss model.

I'd also add what has become something of a mantra for me - that the small handy lightweight binoculars you actually have with you will always out-perform those weighty neck strainers you left behind .....

I can agree with almost all of what you say John and when I am watching Otters through my cheapest pair of bins they are definitely my favourite bins.

The status theory is something that puzzles me though. I don't go to reserves much and don't hang out with any birders so there is nobody that I can display for example my SFs to in order to boost my ego. And when you bought top Zeiss models did you really find it boosted your own feelings of self-estimation or ego? Since Swaros have been (with excellent reasons) the bins to have for several years now, if one is seeking an image booster you would have to have Swaros. Maybe things are changing with SF and Noctivid but does anyone really believe that the bins you carry can give your self-esteem a shot in the arm?

Maybe what you are saying is that since the top alphas hardly bring a sufficient increase in bird spotting efficiency in relation to their cost, the only possible reason to buy them is for reasons of status.

Well, I will beg to differ on this one. There are sufficient complexities to the concept of 'pleasure of ownership and usage' that one doesn't need to include self-esteem or status in reasons for purchase, although since nature observers are probably as prone to all human vices as other groups no doubt some folks are prone to self-image concerns too.

And there are some technical aspects of some alpha models that go beyond the subtle differences that you rightly point to as barely significant. For example Swaro's flat field approach has given some folks the opportunity of letting there eyes roam around a sharply presented landscape, while Zeiss's SF has significant handling and wide field of view characteristics that are not subtle in the least. We may find that Noctivid brings something new to the table too. And while none of these things may increase your rate of identifying birds, there is more to nature observation than this.

You posed an interesting question in an interesting way John.

Lee

Pileatus · Sep 19, 2016

Heresy? Try birding with a dinky little stubby nosed porro like an 8X32 SE. Even the guy with the 16X50 Bushnell Powerview will not take you seriously or believe many of your ID's!

paddy7 · Sep 19, 2016

It is an interesting question, and it depends how deeply you want to dig....
With nearly all specialist forums there will be discussion of the relative merits of the tools of the trade. As these discussions mature, they can become almost a pastime in their own right. The detail becomes ever-more surgical, with tempers fraying and arguments only calmed by scientific bench-testing, to be followed by questions regarding methodology - and off it goes again!
But ain't that great?
What happens out there in the great outdoors is a different matter altogether. Whether what suits the individual birder in the huge set of criteria that amounts to 'usability' may have a connection to monetary value, but the evidence to me suggests it doesn't.

John Cantelo · Sep 19, 2016

Pileatus said:
Heresy? Try birding with a dinky little stubby nosed porro like an 8X32 SE. Even the guy with the 16X50 Bushnell Powerview will not take you seriously or believe many of your ID's!

Been there done that. My 8x32 SEs are tucked away in a cupboard as my spare, spare pair. Having been heavily used and abused as only a birder can manage, they badly need recollimation, cleaning and general refurbishment. They were the binoculars that set me on a heretical path and I got a good deal of leg-pulling for having such quaint instruments. One sales person telling me essentially that they had to be optically worse than roofs because nobody bought porros anymore. I recall getting a lot of ribbing from someone as we watched an Aquatic Warbler at Stodmarsh. He brandished his brand new Leica 8x32s telling me I ought to get some 'real binoculars' but went very quiet when he compared the optics directly. I really should see if Nikon can refurbish them ... Before I had them I sometimes used to go out with my old 8x32 Zeiss Jena porro bins (rather than my then 10x42 Zeiss roofs) and it was certainly assumed by others that I couldn't know what I was talking about (something that some will still debate!)

Troubador · Sep 19, 2016

Because of the number of times we go to the Western Isles we have got to know the usual bird species rather well, or so we thought.

A couple of years ago there was a guy on the ferry to Lochmaddy with a battered pair of Dialyt 7x42's announcing what species distant specs were while they still looked like particles of dust on our bins' objectives. He was right every time.

I suspect that experience was behind his identification accuracy rather than his old Zeiss bins, but if his bins were the cover and he was the book, it was another case of don't judge the one by the impression given by the other.

Anyone who judges another nature observer's expertise by his/her kit is immature to say the least.

Lee

elkcub · Sep 19, 2016

In following this thread it appears that some "birders" don't even begin to comprehend the joy of actually looking at birds (however heretical that may sound). Contrary to the OP's opinions, those fine little details that he's berating can add up to a huge difference in visual experience. And that's why I enjoy looking at birds — not to count, "ID," or classify them by species, age or gender — but to appreciate and enjoy their beauty. When I go home at the end of a birding day, I don't reminisce on how many species I've seen, but rather how well I've seen them. The binocular makes the difference, and, yes, I can actually see it. Many of us constantly try to improve that experience; those of us who don't, don't.

Ed

Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.

dalat · Sep 19, 2016

elkcub said:
And that's why I enjoy looking at birds — not to count, "ID," or classify them by species, age or gender — but to appreciate and enjoy their beauty. When I go home at the end of a birding day, I don't reminisce on how many species I've seen, but rather how well I've seen them.

I guess everyone has his/her own way of enjoying birding. For me, it's not mainly the "looking at birds" but this plus the other things you mention (ID, count, etc.) plus some more things like being a day out in nature, the exitement of finding something special or interesting, succesfully stalking down a difficult bird, observing special behaviour, managing to get a good photo, a mix of all that.

From my binocular, I don't expect a "wow, what a view" every time I look through it. Rather the opposite: I expect that it gets out of my way, let's me see things without distracting me from that by making me think about the binocular. My Ultravid HD 8x42 does that job remarkably well. Other good bins that I tried for a while (e.g Zeiss FL 10x32, Nikon 8x30 EII) didn't do it that well, for mainly some tiny details...

elkcub · Sep 19, 2016

dalat said:
I guess everyone has his/her own way of enjoying birding. For me, it's not mainly the "looking at birds" but this plus the other things you mention (ID, count, etc.) plus some more things like being a day out in nature, the exitement of finding something special or interesting, succesfully stalking down a difficult bird, observing special behaviour, managing to get a good photo, a mix of all that.

From my binocular, I don't expect a "wow, what a view" every time I look through it. Rather the opposite: I expect that it gets out of my way, let's me see things without distracting me from that by making me think about the binocular. My Ultravid HD 8x42 does that job remarkably well. Other good bins that I tried for a while (e.g Zeiss FL 10x32, Nikon 8x30 EII) didn't do it that well, for mainly some tiny details...

Hi Dalat,

Some of the things you mention certainly provide the context for my own enjoyment too, although the quest for a "Wow!," with a beautiful bird in my sights, is still a primary motivation. Once a really great view is experienced, I can't image accepting anything less, but I do acknowledge that several binoculars now in production can meet the challenge. Fortunately, my Swaro 8x42 SLC HD is a hard act to follow, so I won't have to replace it any time soon.

Ed

Malcolm Stewart · Sep 20, 2016

I'm 78 and have been buying good but not top end binoculars for many years, and quite simply can't see the subtleties mentioned frequently in this forum. So, when I had my eyes tested a few years ago, I asked whether I had cataracts. To my surprise, the optician drew up another instrument that he'd never used on me before (slit-lamp microscope), and his answer was "Yes", but not bad enough for it to be worth having them removed - and I'm still legal for a driving licence.
I'm astigmatic, and have worn bifocals since I was 40. I do find the close-distance lens area quite troublesome when using binoculars, and I've recently tried using them without my specs - quite a revelation in ease of use, wider field and much less criticality wrt exit pupil etc. When wearing specs, I was using the twist-up eyepieces in the down position, but perhaps my eye-sockets are deeper than the 15-20mm allowance.

CliveP · Sep 20, 2016

John Cantelo said:
Is there space here for some outright heresy?

I always enjoy reading optics thread here but am frequently left somewhat bemused. In the real world of birding how much does it actually matter whether on direct critical comparison instrument A is (or is not) marginally sharper, brighter etc than instrument B. One pair may have the outer 10% of the field a little fuzzy or show minimal CR but how many of us look anywhere except in the centre of that 'sweet spot'? Certainly, the difference in performance between a quality £500-800 pair and a £1500+ is a matter of nuance only detectable in direct & often repeated comparison. In some situations, a modestly priced 8x32 will 'out perform' those stellar 10x42s simply because they will have a wider field of view and focus that much closer. I've long maintained that if you must spend £1000+ on binoculars then it is at least arguable that two pairs of*mid-price*binoculars (£500- 600) binoculars (say 8x32 & 10x42) will serve you better than a single instrument. I seriously doubt that many (or even any) people have missed that vital ID because they were using a decent £200 pair of bins rather than the latest £2000 bank balance benders.

Last week I had an enjoyable hour or two picking over a friend's collection of binoculars. For me, there were two outstanding instruments; an old pair of West German Zeiss 8x30 porros and a pair of 'WWII naval pattern' 8x40s; the shocking thing was how surprisingly little 50 odd years of technical advances actually made on what you could see on a 'normal' day.

I compared my one-year-old 8x30 Kites to my eight-year-old Zeiss Victory FL 8x42 a few minutes ago (it's dull, overcast & wet here) and found I was aware of the latter's brighter slightly snappier image only when I quickly peered through one and then the other. In terms of what I could actually detect there was no real difference. I'd probably take my 8x42s if I was out looking for Nightjars or Woodcock at dusk in nearby Blean Woods but if hoping for Heath Fritillaries I'd opt for the closer*focusing*Kites.

In everyday birding, I now simply find that any marginal improvement in optical quality (undetectable in good light) is heavily outweighed by convenience and portability so it's the 8x30s I reach for every time. So keep discussing the minutiae of performance but keep in mind that those critical distinctions actually make very little difference, if any, to your birding. By all means, cough up that £2000 for the latest "wunder-bins" if you wish but remember that they make the most difference in the image you project than the one you see through them.

Ah so that's why I seem to be using my Viking Vistron 8x25 (or Carson Scout 8x22) mostly. It's the convenience/effectiveness ratio trade off against the purely wonderful (costlier, heavier, bulkier) luxury view. I'd love if my Vistron had even a little better optics though but it's good enough just and probably very good to what most non-enlightened (and I mean lightened!) folks end up with. Still I am on the look out eventually for a similar upgrade in the Vistron mould and probably the Carson also. My other larger more expensive bins are all fine and dandy.

Pileatus · Sep 21, 2016

elkcub said:
Hi Dalat,

Some of the things you mention certainly provide the context for my own enjoyment too, although the quest for a "Wow!," with a beautiful bird in my sights, is still a primary motivation. Once a really great view is experienced, I can't image accepting anything less, but I do acknowledge that several binoculars now in production can meet the challenge. Fortunately, my Swaro 8x42 SLC HD is a hard act to follow, so I won't have to replace it any time soon.

Ed

Ed,
You summed up this forum in a single, elegant phrase. "Once a really great view is experienced, I can't imagine accepting anything less..."
John

PS
I edited image to imagine.

Binoculars for Heretics (1 Viewer)

More options

John Cantelo

Well-known member

Piskeddu

Well-known member

Troubador

Moderator

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

paddy7

Well-known member

John Cantelo

Well-known member

Troubador

Moderator

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California

dalat

...

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California

Malcolm Stewart

Well-known member

CliveP

Well-known member

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread