Hermann
Well-known member
I don't know. It will all depend on how good the Zeiss really is, and as there are as yet no production models around, we'll have to wait.
Hermann
-
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.
Swaro's answer to the Victory SF? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter St. Elmo
- Start date
I don't know. It will all depend on how good the Zeiss really is, and as there are as yet no production models around, we'll have to wait.
Hermann
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Ron,
The SF is IMO not so much better that owners of the SV will trade theirs in.
But the new customer having now the choice between SV and SF, that's a different story. For the first time the SV has more than serious competition.
On the other hand, Hermann is right. Let's wait for the production models.
Jan
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
True enough, but since my wages haven't kept pace by a long shot, $2300 seems almost as much more than $1300 to me today as it would have in 1999. Also, at $1300 in 1999, the EL was crazy expensive--the competing models from Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, and B&L were all available for $750-$950 back then!
--AP
Out of sincere interest what 8x range binocular do you judge sharper than a 8.5x42 Swarovision?
Thanks
Allbinos rated the 8.5x Swarovision 1st against a field of 8x binoculars.
Why they placed them in the 8x category is unknown because they also have an 8.5x category where they rated 7 other 8.5x binoculars.
One can argue that their sharpness rating, at least, can be thrown out the window because of this.
Bob
Why they placed them in the 8x category is unknown because they also have an 8.5x category where they rated 7 other 8.5x binoculars.
One can argue that their sharpness rating, at least, can be thrown out the window because of this.
Bob
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bob:
Allbinos has a category for 8.5x45 binoculars, and if you had looked,
that is those binoculars at 8.5x44-45.
That is a different category, and so they place the 8.5x42mm's in the 8X.
Allbinos does not score for sharpness, and I don't know of any source
that does. I also watch the Allbinos tests, and I agree with their findings
on placement.
The Swarovision 8.5x42 is very sharp, you can now rest your worries.
Jerry
Jerry,
I know it is very sharp. Everybody says so and no one is supposed to question that. So what difference does a couple more millimeters on the objective end make to them? They are Swarovski but 8.5x is still 8.5x and it should be sharper at the same distance than 8x no matter how you look at it.
And I did look and I saw that Albinos also placed four 8x binoculars in the 8.5 category and ranked them with the 8.5s and two of them were 8x43s. 2nd and 3rd ranked were 8x44 and 8x43.
Bob
I know it is very sharp. Everybody says so and no one is supposed to question that. So what difference does a couple more millimeters on the objective end make to them? They are Swarovski but 8.5x is still 8.5x and it should be sharper at the same distance than 8x no matter how you look at it.
And I did look and I saw that Albinos also placed four 8x binoculars in the 8.5 category and ranked them with the 8.5s and two of them were 8x43s. 2nd and 3rd ranked were 8x44 and 8x43.
Bob
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Yes, I would certainly agree that inflation metrics don't always have valid implications with regard to affordability. In that respect, Swaro and other high-end optics have more and more priced themselves out of reach.
Ed
Mac308
Well-known member
I'm 53, was at the optomotrist last month and have 20/20 vision... and I have a degree in visual arts.
I'll put my eyes against yours every day, all day.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I'm 53 too, was at the eye doctor 6 months ago, got some new glasses, have a PhD in Literature, and mostly think you're a bag of hot air, which is probably mostly what you think of me.
The 8.5 SV is sharp as anything. Used it for 4 years now. I'll check out the SF soon as I can, but it's got something to prove before I sell the SV to buy it.
With love,
Mark
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
I'm 53 too, was at the eye doctor 6 months ago, got some new glasses, have a PhD in Literature, and mostly think you're a bag of hot air, which is probably mostly what you think of me.
The 8.5 SV is sharp as anything. Used it for 4 years now. I'll check out the SF soon as I can, but it's got something to prove before I sell the SV to buy it.
With love,
Mark
Thank you Mark. : )
Bryce...
Mac308
Well-known member
I'm 53 too, was at the eye doctor 6 months ago, got some new glasses, have a PhD in Literature, and mostly think you're a bag of hot air, which is probably mostly what you think of me.
The 8.5 SV is sharp as anything. Used it for 4 years now. I'll check out the SF soon as I can, but it's got something to prove before I sell the SV to buy it.
With love,
Mark
While my career has been spent in the visual world, yours has been spent with words... makes sense.
I've spent several years with both the EL and the EL SV, and your opinion is questionable.
Your prices are not in relation to what they sold for.
The original EL sold for more than that.
Not sure how it applies at all in this discussion.
The Swarovski EL binoculars are all very good, and the newer ones are better, and
how you determine the value is up to the purchaser.
This is much the same with any optic a mfr. updates.
CG, tell us more about your experience with the EL's ?
Jerry
Jerry,
I actually paid a little less than that for the 8x32 and a little more for the 10x32, both new and from a retailer. I also debated purchasing the 8.5x which was selling around $1300 way back when at Sportsman's Warehouse.
I have commented some on my experiences with the EL in other posts over the years. I had a long run with them but have parted ways and I am enjoying other binoculars now. I anticipated I would be a SV owner when I let the WB's go, but that never happened.
I have to agree that this strays from the original post, but fully suspect this acceptable as it is the case with many.
CG
I'm 53 too, was at the eye doctor 6 months ago, got some new glasses, have a PhD in Literature, and mostly think you're a bag of hot air, which is probably mostly what you think of me.
The 8.5 SV is sharp as anything. Used it for 4 years now. I'll check out the SF soon as I can, but it's got something to prove before I sell the SV to buy it.
With love,
Mark
I think, more precisely, a bag of differing opinion...
CG
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Ah, but I use words to write about the visual world.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
If you are thinking of competition in terms of sales volume, then I suspect the Swarovision dominates the high-end market. However, considering just the binocular and ruling out regional customer service and distribution issues, then I include the Nikon EDG II as another serious competitor to the Swarovision. I believe the EDG II 10X42 still has the highest test score on the Allbino website. That is not to say it is better, but it is equivalent and should be considered, along with the new Zeiss SF, by someone looking to spend that kind of money.
I also suspect you are correct in your first sentence that many Swarovision owners will not be eager to spend the additional money and switch to the new Zeiss SF. I think that will also be true for us EDG owners.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Bruce,
Yep maybe so, but considering Nikon is an absolute non issue down here, that leaves us SF and SV.
Jan
brocknroller
porromaniac
Got that straight, Ed. The minimum wage is not indexed to inflation:
Inflation and the Real Minimum Wage:A Fact Sheet
There are also other factors, for example, more companies are forcing workers to pay a larger share of their healthcare costs, which means higher out-of-pocket expenses.
As baby boomers grow older, they need more healthcare and therefore are paying out more in out-of-pocket expenses than they had been.
With more baby boomers retiring, that means that more Americans are living on fixed incomes.
So just adjusting bin prices for inflation is an oversimplification.
As my Consumer Optics Price Index Poll showed, as prices creep closer to the $3K mark, more birders plan to drop out of the alpha market and migrate to the growing second tier to buy their optics.
If we know this, you can be sure that optics companies do, too, and that's probably why they are bolstering their second tier offerings, and in the case of Zeiss, also offering a slightly lower priced alpha in the HT and a low-priced model in the Terra ED. Hedging their bets in case not enough customers will follow them into the exosphere.
What matters most to the companies are the profit margins. If the prices are high enough to maintain the profit margins they are accustomed to, they won't be affected by fewer buyers. The tricky part is figuring out how far you can push the prices and maintain those margins.
Will the bean counters at the companies be able to figure that out, or will they have to hire an outside accounting firm to run the numbers?
Anyway, there are plenty of good quality binoculars at the second tier level, and also bargains to be had on the second-hand market. So if $2,600 gives you sticker shock, you've got suitable alternatives that will get you very close to the top but without the bragging rights.
Brock
mooreorless
Well-known member
"There are also other factors, for example, more companies are forcing workers to pay a larger share of their healthcare costs, which means higher out-of-pocket expenses."
Brock you got that right. Different stuff I never had to pay for before and it is not going to get any better.
Brock you got that right. Different stuff I never had to pay for before and it is not going to get any better.
Similar threads
