Why do peoply buy $2500 binoculars ? (1 Viewer)

If, as a lot of people apparently very fervently believe, virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less, why do so many people buy them ? I'm not going to argue my opinion here, it just seems to be such a polarizing topic. Are people really that eager to throw their money away.

Did you start early?

Happy New Year!

Jerry

bh46118 said:

If, as a lot of people apparently very fervently believe, virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less, why do so many people buy them ? I'm not going to argue my opinion here, it just seems to be such a polarizing topic. Are people really that eager to throw their money away.

Click to expand...

There are MANY more aspects of a quality binocular than those bandied about on such forums.

Do I NEED to spend the money? NO. For those who want a trouble-free binocular with a world-class image and a company providing a great repair policy--that is RARELY needed--the price you speak of may be inconsequential.

Bill

Tax write-off? Too late now; beats the hell out of me!

Happy New year to you.

NDhunter said:

Did you start early?

Happy New Year!

Jerry

Click to expand...

bh46118 said:

If, as a lot of people apparently very fervently believe, virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less, why do so many people buy them ? I'm not going to argue my opinion here, it just seems to be such a polarizing topic. Are people really that eager to throw their money away.

Click to expand...

Apparently you are talking about two different sub-populations. Those who believe that "virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less" would be foolish to spend more than they have to. For those who don't believe "virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less," they would be foolish not to spend more. However, it's incorrect to assume or assert they are "eager to throw their money away."

Ed

Which sub-population are you a member of ?

elkcub said:

Apparently you are talking about two different sub-populations. Those who believe that "virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less" would be foolish to spend more than they have to. For those who don't believe "virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less," they would be foolish not to spend more. However, it's incorrect to assume or assert they are "eager to throw their money away."

Ed

Click to expand...

I did a cursory review of the prices of the 4 Alphas from the Camera Land website.

There haven't been many $2500.00 binoculars until very recently and inflation seems to be a big factor. In the case of Nikon and the EDG it could also be the dollar exchange factor. These higher prices also seem to be affecting the larger binoculars in the 42mm and above class more than the 32mm versions which are still well under $2500.00.

A quick review of Camera Land prices shows that the three Leica 42mm Ultravid HD Plus binoculars sell for $2499.00 or less as do Nikon's two 42mm EDGs and Nikon/Japan might be having exchange problems with the American Dollar.

However you can also get a dual power 8/12x42 Leica Duovid for $2499.00 which might be a bargain for that unique binocular. Leica's 42mm Ultravid HD versions are still comfortably under $2500.00 and their 50mm HD versions are right around that mark. Nikon doesn't make any 50mm EDGs.

Swarovski's Swarovision 42mm and 50mm versions are all over $2500.00 and some of the big 50s are well over but they are really specialty items. Their 8/10 x 42 SLCs are still comfortably under $2000.00 and even the 15x56mm SLC version sells for under $2300.00.

Zeiss sells the new SFs for $2599.00 and $2649.00. The 42mm HTs are comfortably under $2500.00 and the 54mm versions are just over $2500.00.

So basically what we are talking about here is the popular 42mm binocular. Which boils down to the few 8x42s and 10x42s and one 8.5x42 sold by the big 4 which cost $2500.00 or more; the great majority of which are sold by Swarovski and Zeiss. I don't have any idea what percentage of the binocular buying public buys and uses them them but I suspect it is rather small.

Bob

bh46118 said:

Which sub-population are you a member of ?

Click to expand...

The latter.

Ed

IMO its a mistake to assume the extra $1500 goes on the performance of said Alpha.

A good chunk goes on paying the wages to the German or Austrian workers, who I like to believe are much more skilled than their Chinese equivalents.

A good chunk goes on quality control, how many are rejected before going to market ?, this costs money.

And a large chunk pays up front for the cast iron warranty on offer., the packaging, accessories and advertising.

So purely in optical terms a "cherry" chinbin may well be very close to the Alpha`s performance, surely something to rejoice in ?

would you believe the more expensive ones work out cheaper in the long run?
e.g. I bought a used pair of good quality bins in 1994, and traded them in 20 years later for £200 pounds less. expect my current model to go a similar route.

bh46118 said:

If, as a lot of people apparently very fervently believe, virtually the same level of performance can be had for $1500 less, why do so many people buy them ? I'm not going to argue my opinion here, it just seems to be such a polarizing topic. Are people really that eager to throw their money away.

Click to expand...

I actually think it's partly because it feels good to have a very expensive binocular. It's a status symbol. But no, I don't mean all of them only get it for owning a binocular with a high status.
But there seems to be a general difference between birders and astronomers. Many amateur astronomers are satisfied with cheaper chinese binoculars(who indeed have an impressive optical quality for the price) and don't care about wearing fashion clothes. Birders are more into getting the more expensive binoculars and wearing the fashion.
Anyway that's the impression I have got...

Of course there are both groups among these two groups.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - self esteem. It can also be a status symbol, telling the world what you can afford.

Torview said:

IMO its a mistake to assume the extra $1500 goes on the performance of said Alpha.

A good chunk goes on paying the wages to the German or Austrian workers, who I like to believe are much more skilled than their Chinese equivalents.

A good chunk goes on quality control, how many are rejected before going to market ?, this costs money.

And a large chunk pays up front for the cast iron warranty on offer., the packaging, accessories and advertising.

So purely in optical terms a "cherry" chinbin may well be very close to the Alpha`s performance, surely something to rejoice in ?

Click to expand...

I think you are really correct here. And especially I want to comment about quality control: I know that while you can get very high quality for the price when getting some chinese optics, the number of "lemons" are large.
If you are lucky you can get a good sample. But the risk is pretty big that you get a bad sample with defects that never should have left the factory.
I have also seen examples with significantly worse image in one of the oculars than the other in the same binocular.
Apart from binoculars I have experience of chinese made flashlights (today the most even high quality flashlights are made in China): it's the same problem with lacking quality control. And it's obvious that a careful and adequate quality control costs. I am definitely willing to pay extra for that.

Interesting question as title of this topic. Why does a carpenter buy the best and most expensive hammer for yearslong solid use? Why do we buy a Rolls Royce, while a Volkswagen beetle also could do the job? Why do we buy expensive outdoor gear while we can buy very cheap clothing made with childrens labour in Banladesh?
Why do we buy expensive electronic gear that is made in low wage countries and while we are willing to pay a lot for it?
The reason why customers buy expensive binoculars made by companies that have a many years long solid quality record may be, that the customers can be sure that this equipment performs very good and will do that for many years of use and they will do that for a number of people for the rest of their lives. Moreover these expensive binoculars may be accompanied by a guaranteed service level for the many years of use by the happy and satisfied owners.
An instrument of quality is a joy forever (was that Shakespeare or Gijs van Ginkel??)
Gijs

Gijs,

Well spoken. What you say is well worth considering.

I got my alphas back when they were around $2000,
but to answer your question

-I am 68 y/o
-my vision is fading
-my time to observe is limited
-going from $1500 to $2500 may not make any difference, but
- if I can see a little more detail, make a more accurate ID

it makes sense, to me, to get the best optics
that I can REASONABLY afford

edj

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Interesting question .........................
An instrument of quality is a joy forever (was that Shakespeare or Gijs van Ginkel??)
Gijs

Click to expand...

I do not know who said this,
but it was a very wise person,
very wise indeed

edj

It must have been Lee then.:king:

edwincjones said:

I do not know who said this,
but it was a very wise person,
very wise indeed

edj

Click to expand...

The status thing maybe exists, but for the general public, $50 or $2000 is
all the same to them..
There is local bragging status, like here, but I see competitive claims at
around the same price... I suspect that fits into category #2, below.

The $2500 figure was probably just to heighten the drama,
but there seem to be several patterns in users who spend over $1000 on a pair:


#1---Those who use them a lot....maybe hours a day. If you use them, say,
2000 hours over 5 years, less than a dollar an hour is not such a big deal.
Every little nit comes through...sort of the princess-and-the-pea phenomenon.

I can tell there is a little improvement from the best $200 pair to a good
$900 pair, but I decide it's too fine to be worth it, and the $200 pair
is comfortable even after 5 minutes. My sessions are 5 to 30 minutes, not hours.

#2---Those with slipping eyesight for whom the binoculars see things they can't see
well anymore. When you see two owners claim this $1500 pair is great and the
other is no good, it is often they both don't see like they used to and the quirks
of one fit them better than another. There are also elements like super-fast
focusing that irk me, looking for the tiniest detail, but suit someone using
them close in as an eye 'prosthesis'. Many pricy binoculars are actually not
optimal for really sharp, sensitive vision. Fast focus only achieves best resolution
with extra diddling time, and if your fingers shake....maybe never.
Steadily escalating power goes with aging eyes as as well, to recover acuity.
IS binoculars should sweep the top $ ranks in that case.

There are ironies to consumer demand, from an opthalmic perspective:
having 95% total or 99.5% per interface for visible light necessarily pours
violet light into cloudy corneas and vitreous, making hazey views,
and actually can accelerate aging there. Many would see the obsession with
brightness as marketing. I think it's mostly a consumer pull, and
a matter of "you asked for it, you got it". At the very least, those
"UV" prefilters should make a comeback, if you spend money and time
and you are old. A more extensive IS line for the Alphas seems obvious too.
I think that is inevitable, once consumers catch on to their neighbors' experience.