Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I think the difference here once again is the difference between "best binoculars for the least money" and "the best binoculars".
I wouldn't argue with anyone that the Big Four make (or made e.g. Nikon SE) "the best" binoculars (collectively) in the world. By that people seem to mean they optimize on all binocular parameters (optical and ergonomic) except price i.e. they are "the best" optically.
The problem for the Big Four is are they than much better than "best for the least money" Chinese EDs? These seem to be the optimum across all binocular parameters (optical and ergonomic) including price. But what that optimum is varies with the user: your "best for the least money" might not correspond to my "best for the least money".
What about the people who when you give them a Zeiss FL go "Wow" when they look through them. Then go "Wow!" when you tell them it's $2K to buy one.
In the automotive world this is the difference between Ferrari/Aston Martin/Koenigsegg and a Toyota. Even in the sports cars if you optimize on one set of parameters (sportyness and cost versus ergonomics) you end up with the Caterham Seven (think Lotus Seven in The Prisoner titles) that goes around the BBC Top Gear test track faster than all of the other tested cars. And only cost £38,000 not £250,000 and up. But it has manual everything (not even ABS) but in the hands of a excellent driver can put in an excellent time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterham_Seven
And that's true for pretty much all binoculars: ALL binoculars are compromises.
Perhaps a more important question (and one where the Chinese at least haven't solved all their problems though the Big Four have some problems too) is consistency from unit to unit with a given product. How much sample variation is there?
I wouldn't argue with anyone that the Big Four make (or made e.g. Nikon SE) "the best" binoculars (collectively) in the world. By that people seem to mean they optimize on all binocular parameters (optical and ergonomic) except price i.e. they are "the best" optically.
The problem for the Big Four is are they than much better than "best for the least money" Chinese EDs? These seem to be the optimum across all binocular parameters (optical and ergonomic) including price. But what that optimum is varies with the user: your "best for the least money" might not correspond to my "best for the least money".
What about the people who when you give them a Zeiss FL go "Wow" when they look through them. Then go "Wow!" when you tell them it's $2K to buy one.
In the automotive world this is the difference between Ferrari/Aston Martin/Koenigsegg and a Toyota. Even in the sports cars if you optimize on one set of parameters (sportyness and cost versus ergonomics) you end up with the Caterham Seven (think Lotus Seven in The Prisoner titles) that goes around the BBC Top Gear test track faster than all of the other tested cars. And only cost £38,000 not £250,000 and up. But it has manual everything (not even ABS) but in the hands of a excellent driver can put in an excellent time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterham_Seven
And that's true for pretty much all binoculars: ALL binoculars are compromises.
Perhaps a more important question (and one where the Chinese at least haven't solved all their problems though the Big Four have some problems too) is consistency from unit to unit with a given product. How much sample variation is there?
Last edited:
