I think you´re right about light transmission, only a little improvement can be done. The same in contrast (Swarovision has a little better contrast than Zeiss and Leica).
But Leica must improve so much about CA, at least like Zeiss and Swarovski.
And Leica and Zeiss must greatly improve their edges sharpness.
This is at least what Leica and Zeiss need to achieve the same level as Swarovski.
For Alberto it seems the improvements that Leica and Zeiss should make are to catch up with Swaro. I like good edge sharpness myself, not necessarily sharp to the edges where the image shrinks and appears to roll off edge of a sphere, but certainly sharp to 70% and gradual fall off after that so that the image is still clear enough to be useable.
There are two schools of thought about edge performance in birding binoculars. The first is "my dear, boy, you simply center the bird" (imagine that spoken in Lawrence Olivier accent).
This comes from a story circulated for a long time that Dustin Hoffman (being a "method actor") stayed up all night to play a character in "Marathon Man" who has stayed up all night. Arriving on the set, Laurence Olivier asked Hoffman why he looked the way he did. Hoffman told him, to which Olivier replied in jest, "Why not try acting? It's much easier."
The second school's mantra is "sharper is better". If your only intention is to ID a bird, edge sharpness may not be that important. But if you want to study the behavior of birds interacting, having an ample sweet spot and gradual fall off at the edges is very helpful. If you can only focus the edge or centerfield, but not both, you have to keep toggling back and forth to get the whole picture.
Good edges also provide an easier view. I find sharp fall off at the edges distracting while panning when my eyes automatically dart ahead into the fuzzy edges.
A wide sweet spot and gradual fall off also mimic eyesight. I can still see objects in my peripheral vision even though they are not perfectly sharp.
Whether or not Leica and Zeiss will sharpen the edges on their next gen. alphas remains to be seen.
The other feature that's been different about Swaro is that they offer two lines of alphas. As we've seen from some posts, not everybody likes the SV EL. Some prefer the SLC-HD. When you have only one product, either you like it or you don't. If you don't, you go elsewhere. If you have two products to chose from that look different and have different optical features, it doubles your chances of making a sale.
Leica could use this approach because it doesn't have a lower priced line of products like Zeiss or Swaro. Leica can either go two tier like Zeiss or offer a second line of bins on the top shelf.
I know they have the Silverline and the BL, but that's cosmetic. It gives some variety, but it's not a substantive difference like the SV EL and SLC-HD or the FL and Conquest.
After taking a major hit in 2009, I'm not sure if the company is ready to venture in new directions. But it's clear that there are those who prefer the old Trinnies to the Ubervids. Resurrecting the Trinny would be the least expensive way of offering an alternative product, but it could also be a line of binoculars with a "Trinny view" but with a more modern body style.
But would that be sending the wrong signal to buyers? We have nothing new to offer.
With Swaro making changes at the top and offering a new "lighter and more compact" line at the second tier, and Zeiss now either doing the same or upgrading its Conquest line, the pressure is going to be on Leica to come up with something significantly different too.
Perhaps that can be satisfied by making a new/old configuration such as 7x35. The great popularity of the ZR 7x36 ED2 shows the interest in this configuration.
Overall, buyers seem pretty happy with the Ultravids, in particular the Leica's color saturation, contrast, and good handling of back light, so perhaps "what's new" could be just improving the Ultravid.
Sharpening the edges, improving the CA, and perhaps finding a way to make the focuser smoother (already smoother on the HD, but not as smooth as Nikon's Premier or EDG or the FL).
Continuing to improve its customer and repair service are other areas they need to catch up with Swaro, and those don't require a lot of extra expense, just a change in priorities.
But the question remains, at what cost? How much are
most buyers willing to pay for these improvements?
And what about those buyers who aren't willing to pay the premium for them? Are they lost forever or can they be recaptured with a different product line?
No doubt there's some head scratching going on at Leica about these issues.
Brock
