Optics are not the long pole in the tent when determining binocular quality. It is mechanical quality that rules.
Good optics won't save the day if the central hinge is loose or the focuser is wonky. We don't pay up for alphas because of some minutely better FoV or light transmission, we pay because we expect them to work well and for a long time. That is only possible if the mechanicals are both well designed and well built.
Yet binocular marketing never even mentions mechanical aspects. The focus is always on the optics and the view, elements which differentiate the least among the various offerings.
This sends a message imho, that the suppliers don't really think mechanicals matter. The various mid range suppliers seem to be assemblers at best, if not purely marketing vehicles. Presumably their marketing reflects their investment priorities. Longevity does not seem to be one of them.
Indeed, innovations trickling down from the top tier to second-tier to mid-priced roofs have enabled manufacturers to increase the quality of optics in the second-tier and mid-priced ranges, but what separates the men from the boys is the robustness of the binoculars in the top tier.
OTOH, not every birder is hard on their binoculars, and with reasonable care, a second-tier or even a good quality mid-priced roof could last decades. I've owned porros from the 1970s and 1980s that were still in great shape in the 21st century.
The robust mechanics of alphas are overkill for many birders and only become critical in extreme conditions or if the user accidentally drops the bins. And no-one is going to let their binoculars fall in the water to six meters and be able to retrieve them unless it's a 19-ft deep pond and they jump in to fish it out in the allotted time. So there's some "hype" in alpha marketing.
Plus, as we saw with the Conquest HD extreme test video, it could take buckshot up close and personal, get dragged on a gravel road from the back of a truck, and then get run over by that truck and still keep working, so robustness is no longer the exclusive domain of the top tier. Those for whom that quality is of great importance now have cheaper alternatives.
And though top o' the line, built-like-a-tank Swaros cost $2,600, they are still hit and miss when it comes to wonky focusers. So while what you've written is still generally true, there are exceptions to the rule, and it's those exceptions that have some birders wondering if they really need to fork over $2,600 for that extra robustness to get a bin that is maybe 5% better optically, if that.
I applaud the expansion of the second-tier because $1K is already a lot for many people to spend on a pair of binoculars, but if those features are important enough to them, they are at least within reach, and if not, they have a plethora of mid-range binoculars to chose from, and though not as mechanically robust as the top-tier or second-tier lines, many still put up a very respectable image, which is good news for birders on a budget.
Brock
