Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Ed, that was a very emotional poem, I wept for an hour and I am certain I will not sleep tonight.
Gijs
Gijs
-
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 peoply buy $2500 binoculars ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bh46118
- Start date
I apologize about any comment on Leica that may offend anyone in any way, I just had a bad experience with the unit I had for 1 year, I should not have said all Leica's are bad . My 10x32 Ultravid may have been an exception , and maybe I should have sent it in for repair first but I sold them first so I did not bother. The other complaints were on focusers on Leica were on other websites that sell binoculars from other buyers of different Leica such as the 10x25 Br and other models as well. With so many complaints I figured maybe mine were not the only ones. Yes I would spend $2,000 on a binocular for Quality I guess I would have to try another Leica maybe a HD model ? since now I have read Leica fixed the focuser to be smoother unlike the older 10x32 BR I have owned. Again no offense I just had a problem with my Leica , Buy I still wonder about all the poor service repair by Leica buyers from reviews. Has anyone had any good experience with a Leica repair let me know. Thank you.
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
No need to apologize cm, its your experience with the binocular commented on.
Bryce...
Leicas of that vintage catch a lot of flack for rough focusers. It's deserved, in my experience, and for some people can degrade the experience of an otherwise fine instrument. My 10x50 BR is like that, but when I'm "hot" I can flog the knob just right and it lands in the right place. When that knob moves it really moves, so if you can get used to that it is an extremely quick focusing son of a gun. Several forum members sent theirs in for the teflon washer treatment, which they said was successful.
I had a good Leica repair experience, although it cost me, not being the original owner.
Ron
I had a good Leica repair experience, although it cost me, not being the original owner.
Ron
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Because your ID's will be taken more seriously if you have a pair of Swaro's around your neck. That's why. 
Having said that ( and I'm only half-joking above ) - there are a few things to consider...
1) True cost of ownership can actually be pretty low when you consider how long the will last and what they will be worth on the used market in 20 years.
2) If we arbitrarily assign "disposable income" as 1/2 of 1% of a person's income, then that means that in relative terms, someone who makes 125K/year and buys $2500 binoculars is "spending" the same as a person who makes $60K/year and buys $1200 binoculars.
Preposterous you say? Yea, you're probably right. There aren't any birdwatchers who only make $60K/year. LOL!
Having said that ( and I'm only half-joking above ) - there are a few things to consider...
1) True cost of ownership can actually be pretty low when you consider how long the will last and what they will be worth on the used market in 20 years.
2) If we arbitrarily assign "disposable income" as 1/2 of 1% of a person's income, then that means that in relative terms, someone who makes 125K/year and buys $2500 binoculars is "spending" the same as a person who makes $60K/year and buys $1200 binoculars.
Preposterous you say? Yea, you're probably right. There aren't any birdwatchers who only make $60K/year. LOL!
It's often espoused that it's not just the optics quality when talking Alpha - examples are given of the durability, the after-sales, the warranties etc.
However, i used an old set of £150 porros exclusively for 18 years with no probs, other than some wearing of the armouring, and when you look at the warranties offered by many 'mid-range' companies now (particularly in the US), with 'no-fault, lifetime' ranges, even that argument is slipping.
I've seen a few 15 year old Swaros that are in a pretty parlous state too.....
A previous post spoke of labour charges and workshop/office/factory space rentals in mid Europe, plus R and D costs - much of the Alpha price must be paying for that. However, that's not to say a manufacturer elsewhere can't buy a pair, take them apart, find out what makes them great and duplicate it! That can't go on, can it?
However, i used an old set of £150 porros exclusively for 18 years with no probs, other than some wearing of the armouring, and when you look at the warranties offered by many 'mid-range' companies now (particularly in the US), with 'no-fault, lifetime' ranges, even that argument is slipping.
I've seen a few 15 year old Swaros that are in a pretty parlous state too.....
A previous post spoke of labour charges and workshop/office/factory space rentals in mid Europe, plus R and D costs - much of the Alpha price must be paying for that. However, that's not to say a manufacturer elsewhere can't buy a pair, take them apart, find out what makes them great and duplicate it! That can't go on, can it?
It's often espoused that it's not just the optics quality when talking Alpha - examples are given of the durability, the after-sales, the warranties etc.
However, i used an old set of £150 porros exclusively for 18 years with no probs, other than some wearing of the armouring, and when you look at the warranties offered by many 'mid-range' companies now (particularly in the US), with 'no-fault, lifetime' ranges, even that argument is slipping.
I've seen a few 15 year old Swaros that are in a pretty parlous state too.....
A previous post spoke of labour charges and workshop/office/factory space rentals in mid Europe, plus R and D costs - much of the Alpha price must be paying for that. However, that's not to say a manufacturer elsewhere can't buy a pair, take them apart, find out what makes them great and duplicate it! That can't go on, can it?
Just because you can take it apart, doesn't mean you can duplicate it.
Cost of materials, for one thing, is always a big factor.
WJC
Well-known member
So many things that should be carved in stone and a dwindling supply of marble!
brocknroller
porromaniac
Because your ID's will be taken more seriously if you have a pair of Swaro's around your neck. That's why.
Having said that ( and I'm only half-joking above ) - there are a few things to consider...
1) True cost of ownership can actually be pretty low when you consider how long the will last and what they will be worth on the used market in 20 years.
2) If we arbitrarily assign "disposable income" as 1/2 of 1% of a person's income, then that means that in relative terms, someone who makes 125K/year and buys $2500 binoculars is "spending" the same as a person who makes $60K/year and buys $1200 binoculars.
Preposterous you say? Yea, you're probably right. There aren't any birdwatchers who only make $60K/year. LOL!
Preposterous? Why, I'd thrash him from top to bottomus! I'd show him who was king of the forest!
You make a good point. To use the disposable income formula assumes most people live within their means, but the stats show most Americans live on credit and don't save very much money.
Do Americans spend more than people in Western Europe and Asia?
"They definitely do. You can look at consumption levels and control for purchasing power over the last several decades, and America is simply in a league of its own. The only people who come close are people in Britain, but they are about 85 percent of the level of American consumption. Germans, French and others are in the 70 percent range, Japanese even a little lower. So Americans spend like no one else."
why-americans-spend-too-much
Since Americans and Brits are the two main contributors on these forums, I think that explains a lot.
One argument that is always made when this topic comes up, and was made a few posts above, is that when you spend $2,500 on a pair of binoculars, when you amortize the amount over a lifetime, it's pennies a day or some such low number.
Three problems with that argument: (1) it assumes that you are young enough and healthy enough to live another 20/30 years to see that ROI, (2) that you will keep the same bin for the next 20/30 years and not be tempted by the next BIG THING (look at all those chomping at the bit on the SF thread as proof), and (3) that you can afford the upfront cost of $2,500 or are willing to put it on your card and pay interest on top of principal and extend your period of ROI even longer.
From attending birding events and talking to hunters, I have concluded that at least in my neck of the woods, the experience of many of those who post to the alpha forums are not typical of the general population.
This is not to say that if a birder has deep pockets, he shouldn't buy "the best," or what is considered "the best," whatever the cost. But I do find myself annoyed at birders who are always buying and selling, thinking that what's around the corner is so much better than what they have, they that simply must have it. Even more annoying when they feel they must convince others that their bins at the best.
Here are some stats:
Last year, Americans spent an average of $2,586 (around $216 per month) on entertainment, which was a .5 percent increase from 2013. Our largest category of entertainment spending was on our electronics, where we spent nearly 40 percent of our entertainment budget.
Another large chunk of this (around 25 percent of spending) money went to pets (AND VET BILLS -ed), toys, hobbies, and playground equipment. We also spent a significant portion on fees and admissions (about 23 percent of our entertainment budget went to this area.)
What Are Americans Really Spending Their Money On?
Brock
Check out the bold green letters under the EL. That's why people spend $2500 on a binocular.
http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-c210101
brocknroller
porromaniac
