• 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.

New Ultravids coming (1 Viewer)

Paul,

Thank you for the kind comment. I do try to be logical, so if you've seen that quality it's very pleasing.

If you go back to my post you'll see that 'ridiculous' was addressed, specifically, to not sending your Ultravids back for accommodation, correction, or repair; call it what you will. It seems that you'd rather have them sit in a closet as a poster child for what you believe is bad design, a cover up, or international corporate fraud. That's what I've made of it, so if you would address that observation it might seem more logical. As John said, if you do send them back we'd be most interested to know what happens.

Blue skies,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Paul Godolphin said:
(cf. the Lockheed Starfighter aircraft. Same situation. Known as the "Widow Maker", this plane had known handling deficiencies, but continued to be sold to unsuspecting consumers in other countries long after it's shortcomings were revealed).
Click to expand...
The F-104's flight characteristics were known from the mid-1950s (first flight in 1954). Its shortcomings were intrinsic with the overall design of the aircraft. I doubt that foreign customers, which included the Federal Republic of Germany (the Germans know a thing or two about aircraft design), were "unsuspecting." They simply accepted that a high degree of pilot training and vigilance were necessary.
 
Curtis Croulet said:
The F-104's flight characteristics were known from the mid-1950s (first flight in 1954). Its shortcomings were intrinsic with the overall design of the aircraft. I doubt that foreign customers, which included the Federal Republic of Germany (the Germans know a thing or two about aircraft design), were "unsuspecting." They simply accepted that a high degree of pilot training and vigilance were necessary.
Click to expand...

I guess it was some higher ranks who accepted that. But the fighter was also dubbed the widow-maker. If I remember correctly, they lost more than 50 of those aircraft. So it seems that they were not very successful implementing that increased vigilance. The Italians seem to have fared better with their same basic model. I wonder why.

OK, we are digressing. But the comparison is not fully valid, as the pilots hardly had a chance to select another aircraft. Unlike us who have a fair choice of excellent binoculars.
 
Will the new 8x42 ultravids be as good as the golden rings as the pair of ultravids that i looked at today had a real bad sticky focus that appeared to be messed up or dry / or needing lubed.

thanks and this place has alot of good info
 
Swissboy said:
I guess it was some higher ranks who accepted that. But the fighter was also dubbed the widow-maker. If I remember correctly, they lost more than 50 of those aircraft. So it seems that they were not very successful implementing that increased vigilance. The Italians seem to have fared better with their same basic model. I wonder why.
Click to expand...

This relates to the binocular topic, because some people here seem to have this idea that only greed or incompetence has prevented this aircraft or certain brands of binoculars from being built to meet some peoples' expectations, and that people (and governments) buy these things only because they've been duped. It's this attitude that I find annoying.

The one time I tried an Ultravid, I didn't like the focus. "Notchy" was a good term for it. I played with the binocular for half an hour, trying to convince myself that it was really OK. But I just couldn't accept it. However, many people actually like it, and it gets great reviews, and Leica almost surely gets stacks of letters from ordinary birders and big-time ornithologists telling them how wonderful this binocular is. Maybe they'll change the focus in their next-generation binocular, but I can't see that they'd bother now. Some people, believe it or not, don't consider the notchy focus to be a "fault." The knowledge that it'll work in both Antarctica and Death Valley without modification seems to be sufficient reason to put up it.

As for the five-cent teflon washer to "fix" the Leica's focus: I have to say that I can't argue the point I'm about to make. If someone here makes expensive products for a living, then I'd like to read their opinion. But I read in another forum, about another type of product, that a seemingly trivial change can snowball downstream, resulting in greatly increased costs, and even increased price to the consumer. Oh, yes, now I remember: it was a comment from a famous designer and manufacturer of high-end astronomical telescopes. Anyway, that was his explanation as to why small annoyances never get "fixed." For Leica, most people are happy. Those who aren't can have the washer installed at a repair station.
 
truecolors said:
Will the new 8x42 ultravids be as good as the golden rings as the pair of ultravids that i looked at today had a real bad sticky focus that appeared to be messed up or dry / or needing lubed.

thanks and this place has alot of good info
Click to expand...

Is this a fake post?
 
elkcub said:
Paul, Thank you for the kind comment. I do try to be logical, so if you've seen that quality it's very pleasing......if you would address that observation it might seem more logical. As John said, if you do send them back we'd be most interested to know what happens. Blue skies,
Ed
Click to expand...

Yes of course, Ed. You're right that I appear to be making a pointless complaint, if I haven't made any effort to send them back for repair, and I agree with you that it may appear that way.
I should explain that the problem worsened over the time when I was packing to leave, and had no time to get them sorted (and fully field-tested over an extended period) before setting-out on my year-long world trip. Too much risk!
However, I promise to post the result of the repair when I go back to the UK in 2009.
But I do have to say again that my complaint is not that I can't get it fixed, it's that I bought them in the first place. I very very much wish that I'd been a Birdforum subscriber earlier, and then I'd have known in advance that no matter how good the Ultravids feel in the shop, they are likely to go stiff LATER. I sincerely want today's readers to know that, because I wish I'd had the opportunity. As my Dad used to say...." If I stuck my hand in the fire, would you?..." And of course, the answer is no! I'm just pointing out that this product contains a potential risk, and that if they wish to own these otherwise EXCELLENT binoculars, then they will first have to be prepared to accept the fault, should their own pair be one of the unlucky ones. I sincerely believe that Leica should have corrected it by now, when they admit full knowledge of it.
Thanks again for dis-agreeing with me in such a polite and patient manner. It's a pleasure discussing it with you.
all the best Paul (back in New Zealand again)

PS: Hinnark....the trip isn't boring, but it's certainly an isolating and although beautiful, a sometimes lonely experience. You guys on birdforum are great company wether we agree or not, and we all value similar things. It's worth going a long way to a dial-up to read what you're all doing while I pick up my emails! Thanks for coming along.
 
Last edited:
F7A said:
Is this a fake post?
Click to expand...

no it's not a fake post. I was at a chain store and was looking to upgrade
my gold rings but after going outside with the leica's ultravid 8x42 brand new out of the box and comparing them I and the sales person both agreed that the focus was goofy and the veiw was equal as in too close to call,both pairs there at the same time same place..the color on both were both real rich and pure as in WYSIWYG I will agree that the ultravids felt better and lighter but the view did not justify 1200 dollars more espicially for the bad focus problem. Maybe both manufactures could share their talents and create a real awsome pair of bins.
thanks
 
John Traynor said:
Much of what we read on BF is nothing more than Post-Purchase Rationalization. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization

It is a common phenomenon after people have invested a lot of time, money, or effort in something to convince themselves that it must have been worth it. Many decisions are made emotionally, and so are often rationalized retrospectively in an attempt to justify the choice.
Click to expand...

Blimey John, you've answered a lot of questions for me there!
I've been bemused by the emotional outbursts and retrospective justifications of guys on these forums when I've pointed out faults I've experienced with expensive binoculars. Some Swarovski owners have exhibited the most extreme examples of this. Two of my mates used to review Ham Radio equipment on other internet forums and both had to quit after pointing out shortcomings on some expensive radios. Owners levelled personal attacks on them like a load of great big spiteful babies, with their eyes all full of tears, lashing out at those who they felt had belittled the objects of their love.
Has humanity become so materialistic that we defend metal objects as if they were some poor defenceless family member whose honor has been violated? These people must be emotionally inadequate if they feel the need to project their personalities into symbols of their perceived 'status' in this way. Quite shocking really.
Thanks for finding this information. Very enlightening, and as you say, explains a lot of the stuff you see on here, where individuals will 'defend' the product they've bought, wether it's good or bad.
Paul
 
Paul Godolphin said:
These people must be emotionally inadequate if they feel the need to project their personalities into symbols of their perceived 'status' in this way. Quite shocking really.
Click to expand...


Or............they are no more emotionally inadequate than people who have to find 'faults' with everything all of the time ! ;)

I, and I am sure some others are, am still uncomfortable by what you define as a 'fault'. I have mentioned this several times. Please remember some of us are very happy with these products and the service they give and others it seems would give their left arm to own them, price perhaps being understandably prohibitive. IME most people owning Swaro and Leica products are genuienely delighted with them because they are very good instruments rather than because the individuals concerned are dellusional. Are they perfect ? Of course not, nothing ever is, but they are considerably more than adequate and IMO go some way in justifying their price tag.


As an owner of Leica and Swaro bins you definitely have the right to express your opinion and experience - you have afterall paid your money. However, I ask you again please don't infer that those of us who are happy with these instruments are in some ways emotionally retarded, intelectually deficient or mentally dellusional just because we hold a different opinion and share a different experience from you !

Enjoy your trip

Cheers,

Linz

PS to make this on topic all the Ultravids I have tried have been fine ( two friends have the same 10x42's and various others have the 10x32 and 8x32's ). The focus knob is very different ( only 1.25 rotations ?) from that on my EL's but it functions just fine (eg.smoothly) and is nothing I can't handle. I paid under £1000 for mine, I think over this is a bit steep and would opt for the EL's if I were in the 'market' given Leica's recent price hike. Just my two cents worth......
 
It seems to me that PPR (Post-Purchase Rationalization) also occurs when someone opts to buy a lower cost item at the expense of performance and then insists there wasn't any difference anyway. That's a kind of sour grapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes

Although it's not immediately related, I was very impressed with Wikipedia explanation of bias, which certainly enters into many of the opinions expressed on BF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
 
griffin said:
As an owner of Leica and Swaro bins you definitely have the right to express your opinion and experience - you have afterall paid your money. However, I ask you again please don't infer that those of us who are happy with these instruments are in some ways emotionally retarded, intelectually deficient or mentally dellusional just because we hold a different opinion and share a different experience from you !
Enjoy your trip Cheers,Linz..
Click to expand...

Hi Linz, thanks for the good wishes
No mate, I'd never do that. I'm really really jealous of you lucky owners who are enjoying your binos to the max. That's what I wished for myself when I paid my money. I'm just a sad old sausage because mine all seem to be the 'unlucky ones' with what I perceive to be faults. I'd swap with you any time, you lucky fella.
No, the bit I don't understand is the denial. Some other owners just seem to want to 'defend' the products from objective analysis, because the outcome might be unfavourable. I fully accept that many Ultravids haven't yet developed the juddery focus wheel. But many others have. Thus, I don't call people liars who are lucky enough not to have the fault yet. But I am puzzled why some chaps find it neccesary to keep contradicting those who post reports saying that they've experienced the fault.
Likewise, the other make with the hole. I perceive that to be a fault because I can see inside the binocular through it, and have posted photos looking through the hole. Sancho even put his in a bucket and watched a line of bubbles rising from the hole as the focus bridge filled with water. This then drained back out, leaving the mechanicals inside water-logged. And yet for page-after-page of subsequent postings, other writers continued to deny that a).the hole existed b).the photos existed c).the hole would leak.
This is what I can't understand. In the face of these (very unfortunate) facts, why the denial?
Surely, if we stay constructive and bring any problems to the attention of our favourite manufacturers, they'll be pleased to improve their products for our mutual benefit? I hope so.
In fact it seems that Leica are already doing-so with planned focus wheel changes. A happy day indeed.
Thanks for the comments Linz. Nothing personal intended, I assure you.
all the best Paul
 
Let's not confuse the denial of facts with the denial of what they mean. No one denies that a slot exists in some EL models, based on your pictures, or that water will enter the bridge under some conditions. Water does not, however, enter the sealed, nitrogen filled tubes as you initially asserted ad nauseum. Do you admit to that error, or has that part been completely forgotten (i.e., in denial)? Assuming you do admit to it (which you should), is there a drop of evidence that water entering the bridge has damaged or compromised anyone's binoculars? We all know that Swarovski would graciously repair any such damage, so what exactly is the hobgoblin you are complaining about?

Why is this important? Because you continue to attack without justification a company that can't defend itself openly on this forum, and in the process are attempting to, and probably succeeding in, turning people away from their product line. I'm done with looking the other way, only to be accused of being "in denial" relative to how YOU connect imaginary dots.

The undeniable facts are:

# Swarovski makes world class binoculars.
# Swarovski binoculars are very reliable.
# Swarovski provides world class service.
# All things made by the hand of man can be improved.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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.

Similar threads

dorubird
Leica Ultravid 8x20 dissection (The beauty)
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
12K
dorubird
dorubird
dorubird
Trinovid 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
T
New / Updated Leica Ultravid HD+ coming
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Gijs van Ginkel
G
M
Is new Trinovid coming soon?
Replies
0
Views
850
mhasman
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top