• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

When a new Leica binocular? (1 Viewer)

Brock:

I want to offer another opinion that seems to agree with yours.
Leica should also think about offering another price-point just as Swaro.
and Zeiss do.
I like choices, and many here, have optics of all kinds from top to
mid and lower levels.
How about a nice econo. Trinovid BL, with slim body, and with great
optics. It would be a big seller, offered in 2 sizes, 8x32, and 8x42.
And another thought is the 7x35, as many here do mention as a great all around.
This would be a temptation for many, if priced right. ;)

I am not a big Leica fan, but they do need to hear from those who would buy one.


Jerry

Jerry,

Despite the protestations by the president and vice president of the Alpha Defense League in the posts below yours and the bogus notion that only alpha owners are calling out correct IDs in the field, I'm with you on the updated Trinnies. In fact, I made this suggestion earlier here or on another thread.

Even Dennis who likes to own "the best" admitted that his tour guide had an older bin and didn't have any trouble IDing the birds since having the "best" optics is less important than the experience, dedication, and talent of the birder. I also saw this first hand at the last bird count I attended where the birder making the most IDs had a $200 Pentax 8x36 NV! The two birders who had alphas (EL and SLC) were way behind him.

People who believe that owning bins that give them a few percentage points or fraction of percentage points better performance is going to make them a better birder have bought into the alpha mystique myth, and that's the "clientele" that was talked about earlier who will chase the "latest and greatest" at any price, rationalizing their purchases by citing people spending thousands in TV subscriptions and double non-fat lattes.

It's not necessary to rationalize one's purchases. If they got the dough and they want to spend $2,500 or more on roofs with what they deem to be "significant improvements" that's their prerogative. They earned the money, they should spend it anyway they wish.

Unfortunately, it's this willingness to pay whatever it cost to eek out a bit better performance at the top that will probably cause Leica go in that direction rather than making a "Volksbinokel" like Zeiss and Swaro.

Making an updated Trinny, which if done well and priced right, I think would be enormously popular; however, the ADL would see it as a step backwards even if Leica updated them with the latest coatings, because they would rationalize that an updated Trinny would not help them make that critical ID that the "latest and greatest" could. Or they would not have the satisfaction of owning "the best".

Fine, let them have their cake and eat it too, but let's also make an effort to tell the top optics companies that the rest of the bozons on the bus would like to have a slice too and at a price that doesn't put a hole in our pockets.

Until which time I find an "unofficial" alpha that fits my needs and budget, I'll stick with my premium porros and un double au lait demi écrémé. :)

Brock
 
Last edited:
I will argue for significant upgrades. I can’t wait for significant improvement!

There is no shortage of customers at all levels. The global market is enormous and growing. There is a market for binoculars are all levels. According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study, birdwatchers contributed with 36 billion USD to the US economy 2006, and one fifth (20%) of all Americans are identified as birdwatchers! Guided bird tours have become a major business with at least 127 companies offering tours worldwide. An average trip to a less-developed country costs $4000 per person. A Consumer who wastes thousands a year on TV subscriptions and $5 coffee should not be underestimated.

The big three binos come out on top of the vast majority of credible reviews and comparisons over and over. Despite some postings to the contrary – they are better. There is no shortage of those who willing to pay for the best based on my current birding activities.

I completely dismiss the geeky notion that a meaningful or measurable number of buyers of the trendy open bridge fad, red spots, and blue squares are “binocular fashionistas”. These are birders calling out the correct bird IDs. Speculation the binocular manufacturers are depending on socially insecure and weak minded buyers to throw the current model in the garbage and run out and purchase the latest and greatest sounds like an idea fueled by antidepressant overuse or a bad case of “you spot it, you got it”. Aspirational marketing and life style pitches are more the stuff of TV ads for autos. You dont go to Hawk Mtn or Cape May to impress the babes with your bins.

For the serious bino junkie. Leica, Swarovski, Nikon and Zeiss are a bargain if purchased first. The serious user will end up at this level anyway because they are the best. Add up your total spend on optics and let me know if it is close to or exceeds $2200! If it does and you still don’t own the best… you may want to jump off baby step merry-go-round.

Other than that we agree!

On the whole, I agree w/all these points, and I don't think they are misplaced. I do wish, relating to james' comment, that there were more serious birders though.

--AP
 
Frank, like so many of us, we can only go to the detox clinic every so often before the lure of good optics calls us back. When someone enjoys optics as much as you do it’s a blessing not a curse. I like your recommendations They match the comfort level of the people seeking help.

Those resistant to change can take comfort knowing it is possible to get a Swaro product that won’t be upgraded http://www.amazon.com/Swarovski-Crystal-Bald-Eagle-Limited/dp/B005EDAMTM

I have not seen enough flat field to offer an opinion. I enjoy reading the nuances of the best bins and learning what to look for.

Bring on the new and let’s see who the best picks are (if anyone is still confused who the best brands are at this level). A Leica 10X25 HD would bring me running to the store in record time for a look. An ID can be made with almost any bin. For me a really great bin adds a huge level of enjoyment. My alphas never stop making me say wow every time I use them! Few items I own have delivered so much enjoyment. It was money well spent.

As Alexis has pointed out, when you spend $4000 to go to Belize to search for a Harpy Eagle. Do you really want to put a plastic bag over your head for waterproofness and hope they don’t fog up when the Harpy Eagle appears? Or would you rather just buy a modern waterproof model. This is not a decision most of us spend much time on. Remember the joy you felt when you discovered your first piece of lint on the prism of your unsealed bins? It’s not too late to relive that experience by avoiding sealed bins.

I don’t mind challenging a blowhard who splashes around half baked. ideas.

Sir Rantsalot himself has spent considerable time and money on his endless failed search for satisfaction on incremental half steps which has led to malcontent giving the impression (from what I have read) that all binoculars are bad and a total disrespect and bad treatment for optics companies with a hundred year old history of making the best! At least that is the way it appears to me.

no such problem here. I have been loving my Leica HDs daily. No complaints here! I am happy to recommend then for consideration. Sadly Leica and other top makers can’t please everyone.

Serious binocular upgraders might want to be aware saving up more money and starting at the top of what you can afford may be less expensive than the half steps recommended by critics. Why go through delta and beta when it costs less to go straight for the alpha

Some ideas I find odd (putting it gently) are

1) Chinese makers are crushing the top glass makers with cheap good quality bins and will drive them out of business. Nonsense!
2) The apex was reached there and nothing more can be done. It’s over. Save your money. Vintage poros and foggy unsealed bins with dusty prisms will rise up and smite down the uber bins if enough posts are generated.
3) The public has been hoodwinked by coatings, ED glass, reduced CA, reduced flare, reduced ghosting, better color, better contrast, better back lighting performance, improved material, improved manufacturing, submersible, titanium, magnesium, no grease focus and other “gimmicks”.
4) The uber bins should reduce the quality and dive into lower priced ”here today gone tomorrow” China slug fest. (Total lack of understanding the marketplace).

I could go on but I lack the wind capacity of Sir Rantsalot.

Buy what you like after comparing and dont be fearful of buying the best first if you are the type who will end up there anyway.

Other than that we are in agreement.
 
Last edited:
Jerry,

Despite the protestations by the president and vice president of the Alpha Defense League in the posts below yours and the bogus notion that only alpha owners are calling out correct IDs in the field, I'm with you on the updated Trinnies. In fact, I made this suggestion earlier here or on another thread.

Even Dennis who likes to own "the best" admitted that his tour guide had an older bin and didn't have any trouble IDing the birds since having the "best" optics is less important than the experience, dedication, and talent of the birder. I also saw this first hand at the last bird count I attended where the birder making the most IDs had a $200 Pentax 8x36 NV! The two birders who had alphas (EL and SLC) were way behind him.

People who believe that owning bins that give them a few percentage points or fraction of percentage points better performance is going to make them a better birder have bought into the alpha mystique myth, and that's the "clientele" that was talked about earlier who will chase the "latest and greatest" at any price, rationalizing their purchases by citing people spending thousands in TV subscriptions and double non-fat lattes.

It's not necessary to rationalize one's purchases. If they got the dough and they want to spend $2,500 or more on roofs with what they deem to be "significant improvements" that's their prerogative. They earned the money, they should spend it anyway they wish.

Unfortunately, it's this willingness to pay whatever it cost to eek out a bit better performance at the top that will probably cause Leica go in that direction rather than making a "Volksbinokel" like Zeiss and Swaro.

Making an updated Trinny, which if done well and priced right, I think would be enormously popular; however, the ADL would see it as a step backwards even if Leica updated them with the latest coatings, because they would rationalize that an updated Trinny would not help them make that critical ID that the "latest and greatest" could. Or they would not have the satisfaction of owning "the best".

Fine, let them have their cake and eat it too, but let's also make an effort to tell the top optics companies that the rest of the bozons on the bus would like to have a slice too and at a price that doesn't put a hole in our pockets.

Until which time I find an "unofficial" alpha that fits my needs and budget, I'll stick with my premium porros and un double au lait demi écrémé. :)

Brock

If the lower-priced stuff is so good, then why complain about the price of alphas? Just get a Chinese bin, or an SE, and be done with it.

No argument from me. I've tried 'em all and I agree!

And if the alphas price themselves into oblivion, what's it to you? Why the heck do you CARE so much?

I'm no "alpha snob," buying into the "alpha mystique myth," etc. "Clientele"? Don't make me laugh. Couldn't care less.

I'm not an "alpha snob." "Alpha slob" maybe. The whole debate is tiresome, and as near as I can tell nearly pointless.

Carry on if you must, and it seems you really must, but count me out.

Ah yes, why have I settled on the SV? I like them the best. Pretty simple really.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Oh Come on Mark,

Be honest you must have purchased this bin so you could flash the logo around pubs. You just want to be part of the binocular glitterati right?

No chance you scrimped and saved to purchase the bin because the view takes your breath away and adds the most enjoyment you could get.

Enjoy your choice. I would expect Swarovski’s latest offering would outperform the retro recommendations and the “not quite alphas” (which are not quite alphas) by a substantial margin.

Try and cope with all that guilt you feel very time you pick it up and have a view that blows away the competition.

Try not to be giddy when the people you bird with can’t tell what color the back lit bird is.
Just tell them gently with no grin.

Enjoy
T
 
Last edited:
...As Alexis has pointed out, when you spend $4000 to go to Belize to search for a Harpy Eagle. Do you really want to put a plastic bag over your head for waterproofness and hope they don’t fog up when the Harpy Eagle appears?..

Just for the record, that wasn't me. Might have been Dennis. I like waterproofing, probably take it too much for granted, but I've never thought it was all that essential for most birding.

Brock, am I the vice president of the Alpha Defense League? I hope so. Don't want to miss this chance to add an impressive sounding line to my CV. :)

--AP
 
My apologies for inaccurately tagging Alexis with a quote he did not make and the original poster who deserves the credit.

Ok Sir Rantsalot. We both had some fun now let’s get to the meat on the bone.

I am pretty certain based on the information in your 990 lengthy posts, you have wasted more than the $2200 on unsatisfying binoculars. I am having some difficulty understanding your decision process. For all the time and money you have invested I would expect you to have a greater return on your investment. Meaning by now you should have a spectacular view in your hands. But your posts are nonstop complaining about every binocular in production.

My read is your almost happy with the almost alphas when you almost bird. Which makes no sense to me.
In contrast I am happy, with my alphas, when I bird. I hit my goal and it did not take very long zero in on the right hardware.
Why Is your own advice not working for you?

The benefit of owning a binocular that provides a superb view is the enjoyment of the superb view. No one buys any binocular because it l imparts birding skills or substantial advantage in all conditions. In some conditions Leica HDs and the other top bins will provide a substantial advantage. As you get more experience and open up to alphas (which is taking you longer than I ever anticipated) you will learn this first hand. I understand your confusion when you most recent discovery was bird calls are important for birding. You are on the right track. Now if I could just get the train moving.

So, what is the binocular that will make you happy and how come you don’t own it?
 
ADL prez wrote:

"I don’t mind challenging a blowhard who splashes around half baked. ideas. Sir Rantsalot himself has spent considerable time and money on his endless failed search for satisfaction on incremental half steps which has led to malcontent giving the impression (from what I have read) that all binoculars are bad and a total disrespect and bad treatment for optics companies with a hundred year old history of making the best! At least that is the way it appears to me."

I never said that "all binoculars are bad". I have said that "all binoculars are a set of compromises," and anyone who has read Henry's reviews and other expert reviews will back me up on that statement.

"and a total disrespect and bad treatment for optics companies with a hundred year old history of making the best!"

How long have p-coatings been around? 20 years? So for 80 years birders have been looking through "the best" roofs with fuzzy, dim images? Egads!

During my "Frank Period" I tried a number of bins, mostly porros, almost all were bought used at rock bottom prices. My aim was to find out if what reviewers were saying matched my own experience. As one who values first hand experience with bins, I'm sure the prez could appreciate that.

And I have continued to try new bins whenever the opportunity presents itself, whether that has been borrowing friend's bins or trying new bins at stores.

But for the past 5 to 7 years, my personal stable of binoculars have consisted mainly of the same series of bins: SEs, EIIs, and 804 Audubons. I have bought samples with different coatings and years of manufacture, and for the most part, "newer is better" because of advances in coatings technology, but not in all cases since I sold the ED and FMC 804s and kept the oldest MC pair, which has the least distortion and best edges.

Relative to what alphas cost these days, I have not spent a lot of money at all, from $250 to $550 per bin. And almost always when I buy a bin, I sell a bin, so there's nothing to very little lost.

Are SEs and EIIs "alphas"? It's a matter of semantics. Certainly not what is usually called "alphas" but I have challenged that definition, and those who hold fast to alphas = Big Three + Nikon EDG are perturbed by the notion that "old technology" porros could be "alphas," as per the discussions on the "Unofficial Alphas" thread.

I do prefer porros, not only for their "better bang for the buck" but for their better 3-D views and apparent depth perception. And also because I find them easier to hold.

So if we were living in Bizarro World where everything was the opposite as it was here, and premium porros cost $2K, I'd be in trouble.

As far as the VP's statement earlier about why "some folks are so obsessed with cost and "incremental improvements." And then on to the rationale that even a 10 year old Buick clunker costs more than an SV EL.

People looking for the best bang for their buck don't drive Buicks! Besides most 10-year-old Buicks' engines were melted down in the cash for clunkers program and their remains were probably crushed into scrap metal.

Plus that's apples and kumquats. One is transportation, a necessity unless you live in a city, the other, binoculars, is for a hobby, something purchased purely for pleasure.

Here we are in agreement. You can't place a price on pleasure (well, except on 11th Ave. in NYC and Vegas :) or personal satisfaction. So if $2,300 binoculars pleases you, I have no problem with that, particularly in the case of the SV EL, which by most accounts actually is a "significant improvement" (or at least significant change) over the previous model.

So the prez's call for "significant improvements" is one I would agree with. No more sticking consumers with $500-$700 for incremental improvements that only show up at 56x or as a very slight bump on a light transmission test.

That's my beef! Where's the beef? No beef, just pork.

I'm wondering why the VP is not upset about buyers paying more for incremental improvements! I know the discontent has risen among other BF members about this issue since I first brought it up several years ago. They're getting wise to such marketing ploys.

"Significant improvements" -- well, that's a horse of a different color, and one that I think many birders from both sides of the tracks can agree on though they might not agree on what those improvements are worth monetarily. We may also not agree on what constitutes a "significant improvement".

But "change for change's sake" is a waste of resources, both natural and financial. I think that's probably another point of agreement.

I have no disrespect for the Teutonics. They have pioneered sports optics and other companies who came later owe a debt of gratitude to them for the "trickle down" that came from their R&D.

So as I see it, we agree more than we disagree, though that's probably hard to see through the all ad hominems.

And for the record, my ideas are not half baked, but seasoned and placed in a pan for at least four hours at 350* and basted every half hour. :)

Whatever bin you have, whatever price it cost, enjoy it to the fullest. I think that's more important than bickering over whose bin is the best.

My next door neighbor, whom I've known for 14 years, and who was a few years younger than I, died suddenly two days ago. He left behind lots of gadgets and specialized tools (he had a Ph.D. in Material Science and worked as a university researcher). He also left behind an old two-seater Honda Insight and a Porsche 924.

He only has one living relative, a sister yet to be found. So most of his possessions might be auctioned off by the state.

Lesson learned: Less discussing binoculars and more using them!

Brock
 
After reading this whole thread my eyes hurt.;) I say this without being serious of course. If I had the money I would buy a Swarovski 8.5x Swarovision as soon as possible, not because of cost, not because of the badge, just because I loved it and warranty.
 
Last edited:
After reading this whole thread my eyes hurt.;) I say this without being serious of course. If I had the money I would buy a Swarovski 8.5x Swarovision as soon as possible, not because of cost, not because of the badge, just because I loved it and warranty.

Well, I'm glad you expanded your one liner, because I was beginning to worry.

Inbox is cleared.

Brock
 
Thanks for your patience helping me understand some of this.

Let me peel the onion a bit by leaving out a few things such as the “spending to advertise social status”. The value of what is provided vs the cost. The lack of state of the art poros. The size of our hands, rolling balls and the various nits all bins have, third party opinions. No splicing the together the perfect mythical bin and lets leave out "what if the cow jumps over the moon" scenarios too. I am talking reality binoculars in production today.

What I am trying to get to at is (sorry its taking me so long, the eye drops are on the way) – the top performers from Zeiss FL, Swaro, Leica, Nikon when viewed in a wide range of conditions do in fact outperform the next tier of binoculars in my opinion. Do I have agreement or disagreement on that? I always accepted this as a fact of life and never thought it needed a debate.

Regarding the optical advantage:
From my point of view, the HDs do offer a serious advantage over my other stock by any measure one wants to compare. On a backlit bird I can see color in the HDs that is lost in most of the other bins I have compared them to. Eastern Blue bird looks black in comparison bins while I am making out blue. Subtle tail striping colors others are not seeing and similar anecdotal experiences. This one of several aspects of what I paid for and the bin delivers. Making out the color is lesser quality view than a perfectly lit bird. I sometimes complain about the back lit view I am getting but stop complaining when I compare it to other bins.

There is lots more bird blocking flare on the rest of my bins than HDs. I stick by my comment the HDs provide bird ID advantages over my other stock by a wide margin. I do use the Pentax ED which I have access to ($1000). It does a really good job for the money or above the price. But The HD beats it in back lit color transmission. Not Recommending you run out an buy anything. Just trying to quantifying what I got when I paid for them. It’s worth it to me but may not be worth it to you. Either way it is there for those who want it. My other bins provide lots of birding pleasure but the HDs are orgasmic (well almost). That does not make these bins a requirement for birding. It does provide a path for those who want to take it to the optical limit.

If you are on that path Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon will get you there for less money than you would spend buying your way up the quality totem pole.
 
Last edited:
I agree with TVC15 points regarding spending your money on the best binoculars once and for all instead of spending it gradually on lesser binoculars and moving up the ladder over time. It is a psychological problem that we avoid buying the high-end models first but over time end up trading our binoculars and going after higher priced models. It is quite possible that in this process we spend more money than we would have if we had purchased an alpha model in the first place.

But there is also a fundamental issue that myself, Brock and a few others have been bringing up for quite some time. Our point is that there exist a fundamental physical limit on how much you can increase a binoculars performance and we are already very very close to it (actually, we have been since late 90's). The problem is what we call "higher performance" in a binoculars translates to "less aberrations" and more "fidelity". There is a fundamental limit to both of these. Aberrations are limited to zero and fidelity (e.g. light transmission) is limited to 100%. Nothing can be done beyond that. Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon and Leica are limited by this fundamental limit. Second tire binoculars are catching up from below while the alpha guys cannot go higher.

In this case, a few things can be done: creating retro models, special edition models, commemorative models, signature editions, limited editions, etc. (wow! look at that commemorative silver Leica with gold lens caps signed by Paris Hilton!), pretending nothing is happening and spending the R&d money on better advertising campaigns, adding electronics (gps, rangefinder, laser communications, etc), creating a lower-tier product line and going downwards in the market (Leica --> Minox, Sawrovski --> Khales, Zeiss --> Conquest)

These are all marketing solutions to the looming engineering problem. They are all reasonable from a business point of view but not from a binocular lover point of view. I, single handedly, am trying to find a solution to get binocular engineering out of this situation (see my posts in the topic on new Zeiss binoculars). Is there anybody else who feels like me and is ready and willing to push the envelope further?
 
Last edited:
Is there anybody else who feels like me and is ready and willing to push the envelope further?

As long as you don't get Paris Hilton to sign them then I am in. She is too skinny.
 
Brock:

I want to offer another opinion that seems to agree with yours.
Leica should also think about offering another price-point just as Swaro.
and Zeiss do.
I like choices, and many here, have optics of all kinds from top to
mid and lower levels.
How about a nice econo. Trinovid BL, with slim body, and with great
optics. It would be a big seller, offered in 2 sizes, 8x32, and 8x42.
And another thought is the 7x35, as many here do mention as a great all around.
This would be a temptation for many, if priced right. ;)

I am not a big Leica fan, but they do need to hear from those who would buy one.


Jerry

Here is an older Leitz Trinovid 7x35, right now on the auction site. Now
this style has some appeal, I think. ;)
 

Attachments

  • Leitz Trinovid 7x35.jpg
    Leitz Trinovid 7x35.jpg
    4.1 KB · Views: 462
Last edited:
I agree with TVC15 points regarding spending your money on the best binoculars once and for all instead of spending it gradually on lesser binoculars and moving up the ladder over time. It is a psychological problem that we avoid buying the high-end models first but over time end up trading our binoculars and going after higher priced models. It is quite possible that in this process we spend more money than we would have if we had purchased an alpha model in the first place.

But there is also a fundamental issue that myself, Brock and a few others have been bringing up for quite some time. Our point is that there exist a fundamental physical limit on how much you can increase a binoculars performance and we are already very very close to it (actually, we have been since late 90's). The problem is what we call "higher performance" in a binoculars translates to "less aberrations" and more "fidelity". There is a fundamental limit to both of these. Aberrations are limited to zero and fidelity (e.g. light transmission) is limited to 100%. Nothing can be done beyond that. Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon and Leica are limited by this fundamental limit. Second tire binoculars are catching up from below while the alpha guys cannot go higher.

In this case, a few things can be done: creating retro models, special edition models, commemorative models, signature editions, limited editions, etc. (wow! look at that commemorative silver Leica with gold lens caps signed by Paris Hilton!), pretending nothing is happening and spending the R&d money on better advertising campaigns, adding electronics (gps, rangefinder, laser communications, etc), creating a lower-tier product line and going downwards in the market (Leica --> Minox, Sawrovski --> Khales, Zeiss --> Conquest)

These are all marketing solutions to the looming engineering problem. They are all reasonable from a business point of view but not from a binocular lover point of view. I, single handedly, am trying to find a solution to get binocular engineering out of this situation (see my posts in the topic on new Zeiss binoculars). Is there anybody else who feels like me and is ready and willing to push the envelope further?

Some rebuttals on this rainy, dismal afternoon. First, as surprising at it may seem, it's not always "psychological," not everybody has money to spend "on the best binoculars once and for all". Even if they can do it on credit, they might not be willing to go into debt like most Americans. Forget the theoretical "amortizing" over 20 years. You start paying off your debt at the beginning of the next month, and it's about the compounding of interest over the next 3-5 years.

Second, even some of those with deep pockets or ample credit lines they're willing to use, do not share Tvc's and Dennis' "The One" philosophy. For them, "variety is the spice of life". It's not just about buying the "best tool for the job," because it's a hobby not a job. Optics junkies got to have their "fix," and they like to test different binoculars as much as they like to bird. Right, Frank? :)

Third, if the reason people say they buy alphas is that they "last a lifetime," then why are they buying four or five in 10-20 years and selling the old ones?

Fourth and final rebuttal. It might not simply be a "rationalization" that some of us with "unofficial" alphas, be they SEs, or GR HDs or XYZs, feel we are getting 90% to 95% the performance of alphas with our bins, so why spend $1,000-$1,500 more for that last 10%? You certainly don't need it to be the best birder, as I showed earlier.

So why spend that extra $ to eek out that last 5-10% performance (some say less)? That's the question you have to ask yourself?

Perhaps not for those on this thread, but for some people it is about prestige. You know the old "cachet in the field" story too well for me to repeat it. It's not made up, somebody actually said it, and I don't think he's alone.

And some people like to own "the best" the way that I like to own "classics" - be it books, bins or cars. Would I rather read "Moby Dick" again or the latest novel by James Patterson about "Alex Cross"? Would I prefer a 2012 C6 Corvette or a '65 Corvette Sting Ray? Would I rather have a 7x42 FL or a 7x42 Dialyt? Number two would be the correct answer to all of those questions.

But ...how about Moby Dick on Kindle? How about the '65 Vette with ABS brakes and a multistage turbocharger? How about the 7x42 Dialyt with updated coatings?

You don't need to throw away the old to bring on the new. To me, that gets to the heart of what's wrong with consumerism.

Well, stepping aside the issue of environmental impact, which is forbotten, "What's wrong with consumerism?" Nothing, I just run out of money before the end of the month... :)

Brock

P.S. You made some very good points, OMID, in fact, some of the best I've read, but I'm too S.A.D. today to give them serious thought, will revisit them after I find my full spectrum lamp and get some "sun".
 
Last edited:
If they add twist-up eyecups, multicoated prisms, and make it waterproof. And hopefully a closer minimum-focus as well.

Robert:

You are right, this new model would include these things, modern coatings,
waterproof leather, like the UV BL, and add the Leica touch.

I suppose the price point, would be in the $1,300 range, to compete with
the new Zeiss Conquest coming out in the new year.

Jerry
 
Robert:

You are right, this new model would include these things, modern coatings,
waterproof leather, like the UV BL, and add the Leica touch.

I suppose the price point, would be in the $1,300 range, to compete with
the new Zeiss Conquest coming out in the new year.

Jerry

Only the "style" has appeal here. Every thing else inside them, most certainly the type of prisms used, would have to be changed and their costs would still have to be in the range of the Swaro CL if they were going to compete with them in performance.

Bob
 
Only the "style" has appeal here. Every thing else inside them, most certainly the type of prisms used, would have to be changed and their costs would still have to be in the range of the Swaro CL if they were going to compete with them in performance.

Bob

Bob:

I suppose we can all dream about what the uber types will come out with
next. Leica may be watching, and so I would expect them to continue with
the very fine crafted quality, fancy, with leather types, the silverline was over the top, and I think a Trinovid midrange, would be just the thing to help get this brand kickstarted.

Zeiss is very German, just the utilitarian rubber type, no style, they lost
that with the Design Selection series from the 90's. I suppose some may
call it boring.

Swarovski is in the middle, biggest seller of the high end, great optics,
great ergonomics, the pace setter, just take a look at all of the clones.
Who do they copy? It is follow the leader.

I do hope this post will add to the discussion. ;)

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top