An Open Letter To Stephen Ingraham (1 Viewer)

elkcub said:

Henry et al:
In fact, I do not intend to spend another dime (farthing?) on such optics until test results are provided.

Ed

Click to expand...

Steve C said:

Hello to all. I'm pretty new around here. I joined the forum seeking input on binocular upgrades. I certainly found that and more. I must say it has been both an educational and entertaining experience. After I read through the pages of this thread, I went looking for similar subject matter for other top binoculars, Zeiss in this case, Leica and Swarovski in others. It seems that no matter what the top end binocular is, people who own them seem to be incensed to greater or lesser degrees, in one aspect or another, about how their binocular needs to be improved.
To read these threads, you'd think all of the discussed binoculars, regardless of brand, were purchased off of the discount counter at the Cheap-Mart. There is too much flare, CA is noticeable, sweet spots are too small, center field resolution stinks, there is too much edge distortion, the focus adjustment is horrible, the diopter is rotten, the rubber armor armor comes off with practically no reason, the eye cups were designed by a moron, there is too much plastic, customer service stinks, etc. The same things (sometimes more sometimes less) regardless of the brand being discussed. Not to make light of the desires stated here and in other forums/threads, but this level of expressed dissatisfaction makes me wonder about ever getting an expensive glass. Yes, for what has to be paid to secure one of these things, it should darned well be perfect. Evidently, even for all of the money you spend, they aren't. Maybe the reason the $300-500 binoculars are so popular is that no expects perfection at that price point, so flaws tend to be ignored. My Swift Eaglet and Vortex Viper will remain in place until I get some things sorted out.
Seems to me that Steve Ingraham and Zeiss have a very uphill battle ahead. Or Swarovski or Leica for that matter. This level of expectation will be hard to satisfy. At their price level, the expectations don't seem unreasonable.
On a final note to Angelo (no criticism intended here OK), while you are in the process of trading the next several hundred binoculars in your quest for your holy grail (which I truly hope you find and I admit to being somewhat envious of your ability to do that), I would humbly, yet meekly suggest that you cycle a new Leupold Gold Ring HD model past your eyes. Yes, they do look like the illegitimate offspring of a sordid affair between the binocular you thought you ordered and the UPS truck that brought them to your door. Beauty is however in the eye of the beholder. Yes the binocular is almost 34 oz., but it feels far less than that (unaware of the weight I'd guess 28 oz). I found one of these at a dealer just yesterday, and ALL desire for a European binocular VANISHED (poof, gone!) from my mind the INSTANT I got the properly focused binocular to my eye. The last “wow” level of that magnitude I experienced was with the newly phase corrected Leicas in the mid 80's. As of yesterday, if I were to upgrade today, that's where I'd go. Yes, I've looked at all of the various Euro big three glasses. That is due to what my eyes tell me, and my eyes aren't yours, but if I were anybody looking for good optics, I'd put these on the very short list. Now here's hoping I survive the mention of the L word in a Zeiss thread.

Cheers,
Steve

Click to expand...

angelo225544 said:

Hi, Ed. I know that, at one time, Leica provided a hand-signed card with the Trinovid binoculars, certifying that they were tested and found to meet or exceed Leica's standards for performance. While I cannot say for certain that Leica still includes this card, I would be very surprised to learn that they have relaxed their optical standards. Now if only they have fixed the Ultravid's focusing problem with their new HD model!!!...but I'll save that for another thread.

Click to expand...

Steve C said:

... I would humbly, yet meekly suggest that you cycle a new Leupold Gold Ring HD model past your eyes. Yes, they do look like the illegitimate offspring of a sordid affair between the binocular you thought you ordered and the UPS truck that brought them to your door. Beauty is however in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

angelo225544 said:

... I know that, at one time, Leica provided a hand-signed card with the Trinovid binoculars, certifying that they were tested and found to meet or exceed Leica's standards for performance.

Click to expand...

Steve C said:

To read these threads, you'd think all of the discussed binoculars, regardless of brand, were purchased off of the discount counter at the Cheap-Mart. There is too much flare, CA is noticeable, sweet spots are too small, center field resolution stinks, there is too much edge distortion, the focus adjustment is horrible, the diopter is rotten, the rubber armor armor comes off with practically no reason, the eye cups were designed by a moron, there is too much plastic, customer service stinks, etc. The same things (sometimes more sometimes less) regardless of the brand being discussed. Not to make light of the desires stated here and in other forums/threads, but this level of expressed dissatisfaction makes me wonder about ever getting an expensive glass. Yes, for what has to be paid to secure one of these things, it should darned well be perfect. Evidently, even for all of the money you spend, they aren't. Maybe the reason the $300-500 binoculars are so popular is that no expects perfection at that price point, so flaws tend to be ignored. Steve

Click to expand...

John Cantelo said:

...Having had to save up for some time and then persuade my wife that its a reasonable expenditure before I bought my first ever brand new premium bins (8x42Fls) last year I'm also somewhat in awe of those characters (other than dealers) who can blithely purchase two three or four £800+ binoculars. Have these people no mortgage, no kids to feed, no domestic bills to pay (more pertinently in my case, no damn water heater to replace at £1200), no partner to cajole and so on? Am I jealous? Of course I am! Do I value their unique ability to make real field comparisons over the long term? Absolutely!
John

Click to expand...

I'm also somewhat in awe of those characters (other than dealers) who can blithely purchase two three or four £800+ binoculars. Have these people no mortgage, no kids to feed, no domestic bills to pay (more pertinently in my case, no damn water heater to replace at £1200),

Click to expand...

Swissboy said:

OK John, take it easy! Quality of life has got a lot to do with being happy with the things we have. Most of my life so far (and I am 65), I was in the position you seem to be. The last few years, I got a bit closer to the ones you describe (I'd say I'm in between). So I can afford a lot more than I used to. And I like it. But am I happier? No! Every time I fulfill another one of those dreams, there are new ones creeping up. So THAT type of hunger is never satisfied, at least not for any length of time. Fortunately, I still realize how things were in the past. And I know, if they ever change back I'll be able to remain happy as long as I am in decent health and enjoy fine family relationships. To me, at least, it's those things that count much more.

I hope you truly enjoy your 8x42 FL. I have the same model and I am VERY happy with it! Yet, as a sort of last commitment to the school I had been teaching at for the last 28 years, I searched for decent binoculars to be used on field trips. Leupold Yosemites were suggested here on BF. And when I bought them for the school, I thought they were so terribly good that I bought a pair for me as well. And the difference in quality between these 6x30 porros and the 8x42 FL is certainly very much smaller than the difference in price. So, overall, we pay dearly for that little bit of extra quality. I do strive for it, but it's obvious that all those who can't still get excellent views.

Click to expand...

elkcub said:

Well, Leica may have had the right idea but clearly didn't take it far enough. Apparently, they and others are still banking on old reputations. My feeling is that when one professes to sell the very finest binoculars there can be no excuse for manufacturing errors not isolated well before sale. It should certainly not be up to the buyer to find subtle problems, using sophisticated testing procedures, no less, which the company is much better equipped to do. At these prices, "Trust us, we're XYZ optical company..." doesn't work for me.

Some years ago I was into 10 meter air pistol shooting. I only bought the finest Feinwerkbau equipment and each registered gun arrived with a bench-rest target group. That way I knew the capabilities of the instrument and could verify them if I wished. In this case, I suggest star-test images and hand-signed certifications that mechanical aspects like the focus bearings, diopter mechanism, and eyecups work perfectly. Absent that I wouldn't say "... a pox on all their houses," but I'm close.

I need a beer,
Ed B

Click to expand...

henry link said:

...
My solution is to forget trying to extract certification from the manufacturers. I wouldn't place any trust in a piece of paper in the box anyway. Do your own testing and keep only the binoculars that you certify.

Henry

Click to expand...

henry link said:

Ed,

Welcome to the real world of binocular optics. ;-)

Promoting the image of a fine and precise instrument sells expensive binoculars but the unvarnished truth is that, in order to make them small enough to be manageable, binoculars cheap and expensive have always used very fast optics with copious amounts of aberrations. Most people would be dismayed to see what the star test of an expensive binocular looks like. The idea has been that these aberrations don't need any better correction because they won't be visually objectionable at low magnification. The same loose standards have been applied to defects like astigmatism, misalignment and pinching. Levels of these defects that couldn't be tolerated in a telescope at higher magnification are considered harmless in binoculars, but sometimes the combination of aberrations and defects added together turns out to be bad enough to degrade the image even at low magnification. If you are lucky enough to have one completely defect free barrel (as determined by a magnified star test) then you can use it as a reference to determine whether a defective barrel is bad enough to be degrading the image in normal use. If both barrels are defective, then I think it's impossible to know for sure whether some subtle damage is being done.

My solution is to forget trying to extract certification from the manufacturers. I wouldn't place any trust in a piece of paper in the box anyway. Do your own testing and keep only the binoculars that you certify.

Henry

Click to expand...

Leif said:

..... But most of us are happy to buy a scope sight unseen from a mail order shop. So much for consumer power.

Click to expand...

Swissboy said:

Most stores can't stock more than one sample of each model. Or if they do, they are not very eager to open all the boxes. Thus, the potential for sample comparisons is about equally poor. The only possible comparison is between different models or brands, depending on which ones they stock. But if you already know what you want, you can't usually pick that cherry out of several samples.

Click to expand...