For those of us that were schooled to read left to right it may well be universally true. Try it and see.
Best wishes,
-
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.
Why do midrange binoculars exist? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tenex
- Start date
For those of us that were schooled to read left to right it may well be universally true. Try it and see.
Best wishes,
WJC
Well-known member
Lee:
We don’t use “druthers” over here, either. But, since optics has dried up of me, I have had to fall back on writing for my burger money. And, knowing the rules, I am at liberty to break them as I choose for the sake of “voice.” With “druthers” being such a colloquialism, I thought to add a little more flavor to what I was saying . . . U C I R eh writur!
Bill
Why do midrange binoculars exist.
Quite true bill, added to this I like a bit of Nostalgia as well which My 8x30s give me deep down they will hold more memories than any other Pair I would wish to use thats why I,m so tied into them I think, I have a pair of 8x21s rubber armoured they have a nice little pouch to go in, and they were a Free gift haveing bought something before from the company that sent them Me totally unrelated to optical wear I had them around 2002 but have only this last few years used them, they easily fit into your pocket and are nice little Binoculars but need showing respect I can see that but Otherwise I think you would be lucky to pick up a pair like that today If you Can keep costs down thats the way to do it..
WJC's offhand comment that most binoculars these days are actually chimeras, assembled from parts produced by a handful of nameless suppliers and a plethora of even more nameless shops, is very important.
It suggests that the name brand means nothing in most cases, as the sellers are responsible only for the marketing copy and distribution.
That transforms the reviewer's role, because absent detailed insight into the production schedules, there is no reason to believe that any one unit is more than superficially related to the next.
Imho, this vagueness of product sourcing and quality will bifurcate the market between the Swaro type suppliers, who charge exorbitant prices in exchange for their lifetime product support and the Nikons, who sell mostly inexpensive commodity binoculars with limited recourse. I don't see much room in between, partly because these in between suppliers are not sufficiently long standing to be credible long term guarantors and partly because they have failed to document the quality of their offerings.
It suggests that the name brand means nothing in most cases, as the sellers are responsible only for the marketing copy and distribution.
That transforms the reviewer's role, because absent detailed insight into the production schedules, there is no reason to believe that any one unit is more than superficially related to the next.
Imho, this vagueness of product sourcing and quality will bifurcate the market between the Swaro type suppliers, who charge exorbitant prices in exchange for their lifetime product support and the Nikons, who sell mostly inexpensive commodity binoculars with limited recourse. I don't see much room in between, partly because these in between suppliers are not sufficiently long standing to be credible long term guarantors and partly because they have failed to document the quality of their offerings.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
You have raised some important points, but have left out a very important
part in your comparison of Swarovski and Nikon.
Swarovski is well known for excellent service, and Nikon has revived
their No-fault repair/replacement policy on all sports optics.
That means these 2 companies are indeed covering problems that occur
during the life of the products.
You mention some other sellers, and yes they are in a lower class as
far as long term support, and not with original purchaser.
Jerry
I just read your post. I also ordered a Maven B3 except in the 8x30 configuration and I had to laugh at all your remarks because it mirrored my experience exactly. I experienced glare problems and I had a similar problem with the diopter. I didn't like the focus or the feel of the focus wheel either. When I first started using the Maven the focus wheel was fairly responsive then after using it for about an hour it suddenly developed this "dead spot' in it where it wouldn't change the focus for about an 1/8 of an inch and then it would start responding. Not good for birding. Almost every midrange binocular I have had either had some problems when I tried them or they developed problems later. Maybe I am just unlucky. At the same time I had the Maven B3 I also had the Leica Trinovid BA 8x32 and I am in total agreement with you in that it beat the Maven in most areas except a few and it is 15 years old. You have to remember that the Trinovid WAS an alpha in it's day and sold for alpha level prices so chances are even though there have been advances in optics it had build quality and optics that are hard to match with a midrange modern binocular even though the modern binocular may be better at say controlling CA because of ED glass for example. I have given up on midrange binoculars myself and now I only own two alpha's. I think it because I have owned alpha binoculars and as I said in an old thread "Once you have Alpha it is hard to go Backa." In other words once you use a top tier binocular and you try to go to a midlevel or less expensive binocular you are constantly comparing it to that Swaro or Zeiss that you had before and it comes up a little short. A $500 or even $1000 binocular is not going to match a $2000 binocular in all respects. There is no way. That is not to say that a midlevel binocular is not perfectly usable for most people and it is all a lot of people need but I do understand your frustrations with them. On the other hand I don't consider a person a snob if they buy an alpha binocular to use for birding and they keep it a long time and get a lot of use out of it and they can afford it with out sacrificing too much. You do know Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski will probably still be around in 20 years to honor your warranty. There has been a lot of cases where Swarovski rebuilt somebodies old 20 year pair of binoculars for no charge. Will Maven be around in twenty years? Would they rebuild your old binocular? Is the manufacturer being there when you need them worth $2000? I don't know. You have to decide that for yourself.
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Hi Etudiant:
I will go even further than that. Many people believe Japan and China are supplying parts that are assembled here in the States. A FEW American based companies, which are part of Asian organizations, do that. However, for the most part, they are not even assembled here. Think about it; they have ready access to engineers and the components they need, cheaper labor, collimators and other test equipment. Why, then, would they need the expense of having techs on staff, here, as opposed to just sending boxes to a warehouse? Of course, as long as merchants can convince consumers they have the wherewithal to do “this and that” to the product, so much the better for establishing optical credibility. That’s their “tale”; I sit on mine.
As far as those nameless shops and cottage industries . . . . Well, when you do just one or two things REPEATEDLY, you can get VERY good at them. During the Second World War—when Americans pulled together, instead of apart—many optical components were made in basements, garages, and back rooms . . . by a limited number of high schoolers and housewives. They were dedicated, and their work was often exquisite.
When David Bushnell showed up in Japan in 1947, he would sit in a hotel room and give each potential OEM 15 minutes to show off his wares. Much has changed since then. Likewise, much has remained the same. But now, we’re not invited to see the “man behind the curtain,” as we once could.
I am glad Nikon has a “no fault warranty.” For years I only got accurate, friendly, and fast turnaround service. I won’t say all I know about the situation. However, in the early to mid-nineties, the quality of repairs I was getting left a great deal to be desired and the formerly open and friendly service became shrouded in secrecy and “shuck and jive.” I believe the cause of the problem has since gone away. But, being out of the Industry so long, I can’t lay claim to knowing how things are being handled, today. I lay that at feet other that Nikon as a company: my birding glass, marine glass, and astronomy glass are ALL Nikons.
I rush on to say that I don’t buy optics to keep up with the Jones’s; I look at DOLLARS in vs QUALITY out.
Being interviewed for a magazine article in 1964, Paul McCartney was asked what kind of bass guitar strings he used. After all, the Beatles’ bass player MUST use the very best!
His answer:
“Long shiny ones.”
He was into making music, not sitting up at all hours worrying about which brand was the “best.” Many birders could take a lesson. Buy the way, I was once manager of the AMRO North music store in Raleigh Springs (northeast Memphis) Tennessee. I would often sell SLINGERLAND drum sticks to people who wouldn’t touch the cheaper PRO MARK drumstick. I couldn’t get many to believe the Slingerland product was just a re-branded . . . Pro Mark! But then, some people have more money than . . . . :cat:
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
Tenex, thanks for the binocular review. Reviews from diverse users are important because everyone reacts differently to binoculars, and so it's always healthy to have more viewpoints available. More data points, that's all. The wobbly diopter is likely either a QC issue or maybe just plain wear-and-tear. These are, after all, demo models that may have been used by others before you. Either way, this unit ought to go back to the company asap. As far as the glare, some users have reported the issue with the Kite and Nikon variants, so it's interesting to hear it mentioned in regard to this version too.
I can also appreciate your frustration with these problems especially in light of the marketing employed by the company. However, frustrating as it is, that's no reason to dismiss the entire sub-alpha binocular world. There's plenty of excellent binoculars at all price points. But you won't find any "perfect" binoculars here. So it's just a matter of finding the right binocular within your budget whose faults don't bug you too much. I suppose one lesson you learned here is how important glare control is for you.
Etudiant, if you want to create a special category for Swaro, go right ahead. But I don't see why you've chosen to nominate Nikon as the poster-boy for "these in between suppliers" who "are not sufficiently long standing to be credible long term guarantors." Nikon has been selling binoculars for decades, and I've got decades old Nippon Kogaku binoculars that I'm happy to use today. Are these still under warranty? Of course not. That was never part of the deal. But I for one am quite confident that Nikon will be around for a long time to come, and that they will honor the terms of any warranty that they give today.
I can also appreciate your frustration with these problems especially in light of the marketing employed by the company. However, frustrating as it is, that's no reason to dismiss the entire sub-alpha binocular world. There's plenty of excellent binoculars at all price points. But you won't find any "perfect" binoculars here. So it's just a matter of finding the right binocular within your budget whose faults don't bug you too much. I suppose one lesson you learned here is how important glare control is for you.
Etudiant, if you want to create a special category for Swaro, go right ahead. But I don't see why you've chosen to nominate Nikon as the poster-boy for "these in between suppliers" who "are not sufficiently long standing to be credible long term guarantors." Nikon has been selling binoculars for decades, and I've got decades old Nippon Kogaku binoculars that I'm happy to use today. Are these still under warranty? Of course not. That was never part of the deal. But I for one am quite confident that Nikon will be around for a long time to come, and that they will honor the terms of any warranty that they give today.
Nikon celebrate their 100th anniversary in 2017 and have recently opened a specialist, free admission, Centenary Museum in Tokyo :
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=315724
Best wishes,
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=315724
Best wishes,
Last edited:
I need to apologize to Nikon for casting them as an 'In between supplier'.
What I was trying to highlight was that Nikon has a solid global presence and a supporting infrastructure, so they will be preferred by buyers, especially at the low end, because their record provides tangible reassurance none of the others in that space can match.
At the high end, Swaro stands out for consistent good support, with Zeiss also excellent, at least in my limited experience. Others over the years have been good and not so good, which has to be a factor when making a long term purchase decision.
kkokkolis
Περίεργο&#
I can assure you that Swiss Army Knives' users/collectors are among the most agreeable in the world and their forum is the most gentle and civilized, with minimal moderation. I've seen arguments and escalations when threads derail to politics, hunting, the right to carry guns etc (really rarely) but never about Victorinox vs Wenger or Swiss vs American etc. On the other hand I see such arguments in optics forums, regardless of their target (sky objects, birds, hunted animals, whatever).
Other than that I understand what you said Gijs and you are right. We people invest a lot in the material world. If you judge what I bought, you judge my intelligence. If you judge how I observe, you judge my behavior. I might get ungry in both occasions and react.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Kostas,
Don't get ungry, nobody's going to judge you because you bought a pet rock.
Those things are just so damned cute, who could blame you?
Brock
tenex
reality-based
Argument needs to be kept civil. Don't call me a snob unless you want to find out what I'd think of you! I stated an opinion which you can disagree with if you like, but doesn't need to be attacked, since it's perfectly valid. I'll try one more time to make it clear: if I'm going to put something in front of my eyes it had better be really good. But it's very difficult to build an excellent binocular, and naturally expensive. People might like to think there's some way around that, and marketing can try to exploit such wishful thinking, but there's not. Someday the situation may be different, but it isn't yet.
To buy a house or car you need to start with a price point, since some would exceed most people's means by an order of magnitude. But there are no such stratospheric objects in the (hand-held) binocular world. That's actually surprising, since there are with cameras, for example: $26k for a Leica S2? In contrast, alpha makers aren't producing exotic luxury items, as some like to imagine, just building to as high a level as a reasonable number of people will actually buy; and in this $2k range, which really isn't so much compared to many other things, the result is still (to me) barely good enough. Given that context, I can't be very curious what can be bought for half as much: a range of quite similar binos coming mainly from the same few OEMs, which are far from cheap themselves yet still unsatisfying in various respects, optically and/or mechanically. An alpha binocular will last longer than many keep a car or house, and the amortized cost isn't prohibitive for most people, so I'm curious why some act as though it was.
And I was not questioning the value of "entry level" glass as someone said, but of midrange models. I thought I made that clear.
The unpleasant reactions seem to confirm that something psychologically interesting is going on here, as I suggested.
To buy a house or car you need to start with a price point, since some would exceed most people's means by an order of magnitude. But there are no such stratospheric objects in the (hand-held) binocular world. That's actually surprising, since there are with cameras, for example: $26k for a Leica S2? In contrast, alpha makers aren't producing exotic luxury items, as some like to imagine, just building to as high a level as a reasonable number of people will actually buy; and in this $2k range, which really isn't so much compared to many other things, the result is still (to me) barely good enough. Given that context, I can't be very curious what can be bought for half as much: a range of quite similar binos coming mainly from the same few OEMs, which are far from cheap themselves yet still unsatisfying in various respects, optically and/or mechanically. An alpha binocular will last longer than many keep a car or house, and the amortized cost isn't prohibitive for most people, so I'm curious why some act as though it was.
And I was not questioning the value of "entry level" glass as someone said, but of midrange models. I thought I made that clear.
The unpleasant reactions seem to confirm that something psychologically interesting is going on here, as I suggested.
perterra
Well-known member
You looked at one mid-range, therefore all mid-range are wasted money?
I dont buy it, I have a Zen Prime that takes a back seat to none in my view. So I again will say, you are trying to pass your subjective judgement call as a fact.
And by the way, stratospheric is relative, tell somebody making $50k a year and raising 2 kids that $2K isnt way out there.
Point a) I'd say marketing actually swings things opposite of what you say; analytical reviews have binoculars costing <50% of a premium binocular offering roughly 90-95% of the performance. For the vast majority of users, this is more than enough.
Point b) You cannot be the judge of what is prohibiting, cost-wise, to another person; furthermore, as mentioned in point a, it may not be that the price is prohibiting, but simply that the price
erformance ratio isn't worth it for some.Point c) Again, I'd suggest everything psychological is happening in your head. People have, consistently, posted reviews on this website indicating that they found minimal difference between their $500-1000 bino. purchase and their "alpha" purchase. If the purpose of this thread was to determine the reason for this class of binos existing, then I think your question was answered long before it was ever put forth and a little research on your part would've been a good idea before posting.
Justin
Last edited:
SuperDuty
Well-known member
kkokkolis
Περίεργο&#
Kostas,
Don't get ungry, nobody's going to judge you because you bought a pet rock.
Those things are just so damned cute, who could blame you?
Brock
I have a whole nursery of pet rocks. And a range of optics to admire them. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Last edited:
This thread is interesting (ignoring the offtopic) as I am in that situation... Prepared to upgrade my glass (looking at the eur800/1000 price point) but also wondering if I should go all the way and buy an alpha about 2.5 times more expensive.
Do I need an alpha? No. I cannot rationally justify the price difference for the noticeable but marginally improvement in performance between both. So if I do get an alpha I know it will be 100% a treat.
I suppose to some extent is like buying a car. Why do people spend +100k plus when you get 90% of the performance and functionality for 25/30k...?
It is a completely personal decision heavily influenced by what each of us value. ...what's right and what's wrong?
Do I need an alpha? No. I cannot rationally justify the price difference for the noticeable but marginally improvement in performance between both. So if I do get an alpha I know it will be 100% a treat.
I suppose to some extent is like buying a car. Why do people spend +100k plus when you get 90% of the performance and functionality for 25/30k...?
It is a completely personal decision heavily influenced by what each of us value. ...what's right and what's wrong?
Last edited:
kkokkolis
Περίεργο&#
There's not right and wrong for what you do with your money/time/mind/hands for your own use/pleasure/satisfaction/knowledge/fulfilment.
I didn't need the Zeiss Conquest, neither most of the other binoculars I have (Pentax Papilio 6,5x21 being the sole exception), since the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 ED does most of the things I need or want to do. But I didn't know that until I tried each of them and now I have them they are "nice to have". All together cost more than an Alpha but I feel better having experienced so different concepts used at so many hobbies (Papilio, Docter, Opticron and Siebert Emoscop monoculars are used on the shown above mineral specimens for example) than one Alpha of a fixed magnification for birdwatching or another for astronomy alone. That's why I am mostly interested on the Duovid, regardless if it's the best or not.
And no, most people on earth can't afford an alpha, or a mid priced, or an entry level binocular. That's why 20€ ruby coated binoculars and 50€ Parkinsonian telescopes sell so much.
I didn't need the Zeiss Conquest, neither most of the other binoculars I have (Pentax Papilio 6,5x21 being the sole exception), since the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 ED does most of the things I need or want to do. But I didn't know that until I tried each of them and now I have them they are "nice to have". All together cost more than an Alpha but I feel better having experienced so different concepts used at so many hobbies (Papilio, Docter, Opticron and Siebert Emoscop monoculars are used on the shown above mineral specimens for example) than one Alpha of a fixed magnification for birdwatching or another for astronomy alone. That's why I am mostly interested on the Duovid, regardless if it's the best or not.
And no, most people on earth can't afford an alpha, or a mid priced, or an entry level binocular. That's why 20€ ruby coated binoculars and 50€ Parkinsonian telescopes sell so much.
edwincjones
Well-known member
I think that it is reasonable for us to
"buy the best optics we can reasonably afford".
-For some that is alphas,
- for some mid level,
-for some cheap optics.
All, or just about all, work better than the naked eye;
and each of us much decide what is reasonable.
edj
"buy the best optics we can reasonably afford".
-For some that is alphas,
- for some mid level,
-for some cheap optics.
All, or just about all, work better than the naked eye;
and each of us much decide what is reasonable.
edj
