• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Once you have Alpha you can never Backa? (5 Viewers)

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
 
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

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.
 
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.

The Swarovision's aren't discounted much yet. I don't doubt they will be in about 6 months to a year though. There are plenty of brainwashed people buying them right now. Maybe some of it is marketing brainwashing but there still pretty good binoculars.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Yes when you believe something will be there it is often times self fulfilling.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Dennis,

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. That is the price paid for the flat field and edge sharp image. I think Swarovski is/was perfectly aware of that right up front, hence the appearance of the less expensive and equally good SLC-HD, to give customers a choice. I agree it is largely a tossup and does depend on what any individual wants. If RB does not bother you, be glad for it. Lots of things either do or do not bother lots of people. For one, CA does not bother me, and believe me, I am thankful it does not. Lovers of the SV need to come to grips with the fact that their baby is not for everybody, even in the universe of everybodies that pursue the alpha glass.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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

I am sorry. I got you confused with Kammerdiner in his posts when he reported the problem with the melting seals:
"Here's a photo of that 10 year old Minolta/Tracker's field stop. It's been that way for years so I doubt it will get worse. The sliver of light in the upper left (in the black) is actually a bubble that can be seen clearly through the objective end. The 2-year old Tracker isn't this far along but has a couple slight lumps. I really don't know the cause. Maybe I'll put the Minolta out in the sun and see what happens.

For me, it's a small price to pay for the best view out there. I prefer the Tracker to the 8x25 Prostaff because it's smaller, lighter, and a bit brighter and sharper. The Prostaff is quite nice, but it's getting close to my "why bother, I'll take a mid-size" threshold.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0405.JPG
    IMG_0405.JPG
    2.1 KB · Views: 166
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
 
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

Maybe you do have a representative sample, and only 1 out of 50 Germans have enough pincushion in their eyes not to see "rolling ball". In my more culturally diverse sample group, readers of the BF bin forums, the ratio appears to be higher, but still a relatively low number vs. those who do not see it. A third group see it initially, but then adapt and no longer see it.

However, you seem to be implying that unlike your 50 "real life" birders, readers of this forum have been influenced into seeing this effect by learning about it, and if they had never heard about it, they would never have seen it. As it if were a case of (not so) mass hysteria.

If that is what you're implying, I refute it thus (ouch!).

I saw "rolling ball" in the full sized Nikon HGs before I ever head of the term "rolling ball" or read the explanation of why it exists. In fact, I did a thorough search of the reviews of these bins at the time, and not one reviewer mentioned it.

As far as I recall, I was the first person (or certainly one of the first) to mention seeing the "rolling ball effect" in the HGs on Cloudy Nights and BF, and I erroneously attributed it to excessive pincushion (which does produce a similar effect but with the image moving over a negatively curved surface, rather than positively curved surface). I did know about "barrel distortion" and had seen it in WA camera lenses, but i never expected optics makers to allow that distortion to remain in bins used for terrestrial purposes, and the HGs weren't WA bins.

Not only do "real life" birders see this effect, but one of your "compatriots," Dr. Holger Merlitz, wrote a technical report on the subject (he calls it "the globe effect"), which can be read here:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

He also addressed this issue in the Swarovsions, which is more complex, here:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/globe_faq.html

Brock
 
Last edited:
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.

Thanks for your post! I had been talking about Incremental Change$ for Diminishing Return$ when the Swarovision was just a twinkle in the Wizards of Absam's eyes.

Got a lot of flak for it, initially, but now I see more and more BF members coming to the same conclusions.

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.

Brock
 
Last edited:
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.

Indeed, and for those of us who are lucky enough not to tell the difference, there is a world of binoculars to own and enjoy. ;)

But pity the few ubermensch who not only can tell the difference, but are locked in an eternal, Sisyphean struggle for singular optical excellence. Imagine having to justify that you've reached perfection, over and over. |:S|

Glad no one here is so afflicted!

David
 
Hmmm....profound?.....Dennis?....shouldn't you maybe substitute "personal" for the aforementioned adjective? Don't have a dictionary handy, but would guess the definition for profound would go to, perhaps, deep, difficult to grasp or fathom, or maybe possessing an intellectual insight into something, no....? Do you really surmise that liking one binocular or another, for whatever reason, would back such an assumption, regardless of whatever empirical or logical consequences you may hypothesize from your observations? N' cest pas?

All in all, isn't it much ado about nothing?....really? Unless, of course, your initiation of the thread is just a survey in disguise, meant to get everyone here stirred up and "talking optics", just because......that's maybe your favorite thing to do. That, and talking in superlatives (i.e., "this is the best one....", ad infinitum).
 
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?

True, but if I could only have one Tank, I'd choose the Tiger;)

All in all, isn't it much ado about nothing?....really?

Of course it is! And while we're quoting the Bard: "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top