A penny saved is a quality binocular earned (1 Viewer)

Nixterdemus said:

Your examples are used bins from which I refrained. As well you compounded that mistake from the get-go by choosing an arbitrary sum, that back in your day was a princely sum no doubt, of 100 USD.

I still agree for the most part the logic of spending more up to a point as the quality benchmark/curve rises faster until stalling/overtaken by the rule of diminishing returns. So, you go from junk blister pack, Simmons comes to mind, to something w/bak-4, decent armour, FMC and possibly waterproof.

My one example being a discontinued model is an exception. "I will stand by the statement as written"

Sweet weepin' Hey-Zeus on the cross Cookie you have to stand by the statement.

You printed it in the book ...

Click to expand...

Printing in the book, er magazine, is what killed my magazine. It's much easier to pontificate on the net—wherein you don’t have to stand by what you say. I freely admitted that production was getting better, which could lower costs on better instruments. Will you not admit that people—in general, and not on most binocular forums—are getting more accommodating of poor quality optics or more unreasonable ad verbiage concerning them? If not, then let us just agree to disagree, agreeably. We are all products of our experiences and back in “[my] day” I lived with plenty of examples that shaped mine. By the way, "my day" in optics retail and repair was in the 80s, 90s, and most of the 0s. So, unless someone is speaking from a very youthful perspective, that was not THAT long ago.:cat:

Cheers,

Bill

Gilmore Girl said:

I just got the book in...

"Nevermind"

Click to expand...

Please share any problems you see with the graphics. My two hard copy proofs were fine. But, I received a copy from a fellow in the south of England that looked like it was done on a web press with too much ink affecting about 1/3rd of the graphics.

By the way, read it well; the test is at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. :-O

Bill

WJC said:

Please share any problems you see with the graphics. My two hard copy proofs were fine. But, I received a copy from a fellow in the south of England that looked like it was done on a web press with too much ink affecting about 1/3rd of the graphics.

By the way, read it well; the test is at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. :-O

Bill

Click to expand...

The graphics look fine in my copy. I read the forward a bit ago.
I get home from work after 8pm each night and that's about all the
effort I could put in after looking at 2 monitors all day.
So, I'm gonna fail that test tomorrow :-C

I need to skip immediately to the section in your book which validates my favorite brand and model ... jk :-O

By far the most common form of binocular snobbery I come across on these forums is the continual lambasting of virtually any optic which is over 20-30yrs of age. If a binocular isn't shiny and new with accompanying nice sparkling packaging, water tight warranty and with the latest and greatest coatings and squashed flat fields, then most anxiety riddled experts declare it to be a massively compromised instrument.
As Americans say - hogwash!...the Poms might say - Codswallop! :-O

Gilmore Girl said:

The graphics look fine in my copy. I read the forward a bit ago.
I get home from work after 8pm each night and that's about all the
effort I could put in after looking at 2 monitors all day.
So, I'm gonna fail that test tomorrow :-C

I need to skip immediately to the section in your book which validates my favorite brand and model ... jk :-O

Click to expand...

I'm so glad the graphics were not overdone! And I understand the tired part. All things considered, my wife gave up $36K switching from teaching in Western Washington to teaching in beautiful downtown Southern Idaho. However, they made it up to her by giving her twice the workload. As I type this, she is creating a high school Spanish curriculum because the system can’t afford one of their own. Carol King, Chad Stewart (Stewart Chadwick), Bruce Willis, Demi Moore, Dawn Wells, and other celebrities call it, or HAVE called it, home and love it here, as I do. If you’re a teacher ... run for your life. :cat:

Maljunulo said:

I have been looking through various assemblies of glass and metal tubes all of my adult life.

Last year I had a chance to look at an exotic goose through a $4.000 Swarovsky spotting scope.

There was not one iota of snobbery involved.

The image was truly breath taking, and it was as if I was looking at the goose, not an image. The optics were undetectable.

Click to expand...

I've been using a sub-$200 8x32 binocular ($165 Cabela Guide) for the past several weeks, and I was very pleased with it. Today I went out with a $1,000 9x45 binocular (Maven B2), and I was once again startled at just how good the views were. This though I've been using the Maven B2 since April. In particular, the clarity and vibrance of the colors where amazing when viewing birds within 100 meters.

I believe that both of these binoculars are very good performers in their price class. For $200 you get a clear sharp view with little or no distraction from optical flaws or mechanical problems. At the $1,000 you get the sense of being transported into the scene rather than looking at it through an optical instrument.

"... a hundred dollars isn't going to buy a new instrument of superior performance and lasting value from any reputable manufacturer."

Should price point and longevity be dismissed we are left to quantify, 'superior performance'.

What might those parameters entail?

Well, as a certain book says, "you can't save some people from themselves".

I do think some folks need to use a poor binocular for a while in order to decide for themselves that a higher level of optical quality, usability and build quality is in fact worth paying for. The likes of Greenkat, Hanimex, Miranda and various others would seem to suggest that's been the case for a long time. It also wouldn't surprise me that a good many more casual observers would be perfectly satisfied with the best of the $100 or less bunch (eg. Nikon Aculon which seems like a decent product).

Nixterdemus said:

"... a hundred dollars isn't going to buy a new instrument of superior performance and lasting value from any reputable manufacturer."

Should price point and longevity be dismissed we are left to quantify, 'superior performance'.

What might those parameters entail?

Click to expand...

With most people you are not going to arbitrarily “dismiss” price point, with others longevity. Tell me, have you ever had to walk a binocular to the dumpster because its owner was so angered by it’s continual development of problems in focus travel, collimation, and screw-up eyecups he refused to do so? I have.

If you must defend that breed of instruments, I will support you—the Aristotle quote applies. But please don’t lump me in with those who wouldn’t be seen with anything less than a bino costing as much as a used car. That is NOT me. Regardless of model, brand, or country of origin opto-mechanical quality becomes apparent to observant and rational people, although longevity takes a little longer. I thought I made this amply clear, especially in vignette 26: 26 “The Japanese Just Make Junk.”

Sadly, I get the impression your opinion of what you consider my misspeak is so strong, you want to fight about or argue the point. Please count me out. Just take solace in knowing many observers would stand behind your opinion and that I would welcome them, too. I’m just sorry you don’t care for the book. :cat:

Bill

Patudo said:

Well, as a certain book says, "you can't save some people from themselves".

I do think some folks need to use a poor binocular for a while in order to decide for themselves that a higher level of optical quality, usability and build quality is in fact worth paying for. The likes of Greenkat, Hanimex, Miranda and various others would seem to suggest that's been the case for a long time. It also wouldn't surprise me that a good many more casual observers would be perfectly satisfied with the best of the $100 or less bunch (eg. Nikon Aculon which seems like a decent product).

Click to expand...

And from the vignette #6:

An observer might grab his binocular to see who just drove slowly past his house. He doesn’t notice the burgundy car looks black with a yellow/green fringe on one side, that the image starts getting soft 1/3rd of the way from the center of the field, or that the binocular is so poorly collimated he has to use the limits of his spatial accommodation to achieve even a barely tolerable image.

That poor quality binocular told him what he wanted to know; thus, his needs were met. Would he have noticed the difference had he been using a Swarovski or Leica? Probably not. Physics never takes a back seat to opinion. But it’s opinion, not physics, that makes cash registers ring.
:cat:

'superior performance'

You appear to miss the point. I'm saying I find that description vague.
Do porro bins need to be FMC to provide superior performance or will MC suffice? As well are roofs required to have phase coating or will FMC be enough for superior performance?

Do the bins need to be the popular 8x42, is a certain size EP needed, what about special high denisty glass? Is transmission in the lower 80 percentile or 8X w/6.5* tfov enough?

So, in the interest of fairness beyond me opinion I researched a mite, "binoculars that cost $100".

Vortex Vanquish-$99.99 Cabela's 10x26 reverse porro 294'/$94.99 8x26 352'fov nitrogen w/p FMC[found a warehouse for $75.99 shipped]
Nikon Aculon 10x42 $99.99 Cabela's
Nikon NEW Compact $99.95 Optics Planet
Nikon A30 10x25 $69.95 Optics Planet
Nikon compact 8x25 Trailblazer $79.99 Cabela's
Nikon Trailblazer ATB 8218 10x25 $86.08 Jet
Bushnell Legacy WP 10x50 $84.99 Jet
Nikon Aculon 10x42 A211 $89.93 B&H/$85 Tristatecamera
Nikon Aculon A211 8x42 $89.95 B&H
Bushnell Trophy 8x32 Roof Prism Binoculars, Green, FMC, PC3, Box 333208 $89.79 Optics Planet[PC3 is the claim, I'm not so sure]
NIKON - 7x50 Aculon A211 Binoculars
Item# NIK750ACU Mfr# 8247 $95.00 Tristate
NIKON - 12x50 Aculon A211 Binoculars
Item# NIK1250ACU Mfr# 8249 $99.00 Tristate

Nikon Prostaff 3S $119.99 Cabela's [20% over]
Leupold Rogue 10x25 compact $107.79 Optics Planet


Lastly, Oh No! Mr. Bill!
Offering the Best, the Only, and the Unexpected for 169 years Hammacher Schlemmer proudly presents:

The Hands Free Binoculars Lifetime Guarantee

http://digital.hammacher.com/Items/87657/87657_1000x1000.jpg

Only available from Hammacher Schlemmer, these are the easy-to-use wearable binoculars that enable hands-free magnified viewing. Unlike traditional binoculars that require one to constantly keep their head and hands steady, this liberating unit is worn like traditional eyeglasses. The binoculars’ 15mm objective glass and plastic lenses provide optimal light gathering for their size while individual focusing knobs on each telescopic lens grants 4X magnification and provide an 8.2º field-of-view of 467' at 1,093 yards. Their lightweight design makes the binoculars comfortable for extended use, enabling one to enjoy magnified visibility of a sporting event, concert, or live theatre. 6 1/4" L x 2 1/4" W x 2" D. (3 1/4 oz.)
Item 87657 Price $99.95 In Stock. Ships Within 1 Business Day. Add Gift Wrap for $7.95
Lifetime Guarantee-We will replace or refund the cost of any item, at any time.

Of course selecting gift wrapping busts the budget, but baring that splurge you still have the 169 years operational ironclad guarantee. Plus this is an exclusive offer.

Granted, a lot of the 100 clam lot are older bins, 10X, 50mm, compact or porro lacking FMC. Still there are gems to be found at modest price. As a rule these type of bargains are available all the time for the diligent und frugal shopper. Brand/Models change w/various manufacturers/retailers offering older/overstock/discontinued/demo/refurb bins at attractive prices.

So, whilst ye may not always walk into yon local B&M retail shop finding a superior performance bin for a C-note they are nevertheless available online all the time. Most certainly not the particular bin originally sought.

It is hard, if not impossible, to find a roof phase coated at that price point.
At the modest end the porro design can offer more for less, more or less.

I suppose the easy out would be for you to tell me how much over $100 one needs to spend for superior performance.
--------------------------------------------
As always, YMMV ...

170920

As indicated throughout my book, the quality of a binocular’s performance is subjective (especially in cheaper instruments) and is mostly found between the ears of individual observers. But, it still sounds as though you are looking for an argument. Yet, I don’t see the need. I have stated my case—which does not include sales because some company has too many of a certain model in inventory—and you have stated yours. Is it not good enough for others to draw their own conclusions? Was my friendly recommendation to agree to disagree, agreeably somehow short of the conclusion you had in mind?

You seem to base your data on the photos and prices found on an Internet search; I base mine on repeatedly repairing inexpensive binoculars or losing the work because the customer recognized the repair would not be cost effective in a “disposable economy.” As far as I’m concerned, you delight in kicking dead horses. I see no future in it. Directly before the statement you are so spun up about, did I not clearly state that production techniques were getting better, which would indicate to most people that we would see prices on all qualities of instruments drop? Are you not willing to admit that, across the board, consumer expectations are dropping as well? Please read from the middle of page 59 to the end of the vignette.

I don’t want to spend my waning years in court for spilling all I know—firsthand—just to defend a position that really needs no defense. However, if I did, we would be burying a number of sacred cows.

I will liken this to the fellow who is adamant about his binocular being “perfectly collimated,” when a calibrated Fujinon U.B.M.M is saying that it is WAY passed the most lenient tolerances in both the X and Y axes, the fellow who looked through a “1,000 power” binocular on his ship that was really a 20x120, or the fellow who, at 60, swears by his auto focus binocular when statistically (medically/scientifically) he has no more than a 2-diopter accommodation in his eyes.

I am totally happy with you believing whatever you want to believe. But as pointed out in Vignettes #19 and # 27, we don’t always UNDERSTAND what we THINK we SEE.

“There; now can we be friends, again.”—Val Kilmer, Tombstone, 1993

Bill

Gilmore Girl said:

I just got the book in...

"Nevermind"

Click to expand...

And, have you an opinion?

Bill

WJC said:

And, have you an opinion?

Bill

Click to expand...

I only read the Forward so far (which was good). On my lunch at work and every day is busy this week. It will be a while before I finish the book...too tired to read after work at night, so I'll pick through it over the weekends.