Incremental Change$: Highway to Bankruptcy Revisited (1 Viewer)

Well, I've been waiting for an expert (who agrees with me, of course to expound on the topic of my original post in this now dated thread (dated in the sense that you can no longer make replies to it - 242 days old, apparently - but still topical):

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=156242&highlight=incremental+improvements

Although the original title of the thread referred to the coatings improvements, the incremental improvements include a host of other items, too, all of which can add up to severe "sticker shock," as anyone who has been following the prices on the latest alphas knows only too well.

My main point was that we (the consumers) are paying dearly for these incremental improvements, which if you stripped most of them away, as Holger did in his comparison btwn the 8x30 EII and 8x32 Meostar, you might be left wondering if they are worth the cost and if they were really necessary to begin with.

If you haven't read his review, I highly recommend it since besides being an excellent review, there are tidbits of interesting information peppered throughout, which are summed up nicely at the end with this "sermon":

"The careful reader of this report may not have overseen my attempts to question some of the recent developments in binocular technology. Not everything that is new and costly is necessarily superior. Do we really need 'flat' transmission curves, i.e. maximum transmission even of the shortest wavelengths, to achieve a fully neutral image tone, and then having to wear sun glasses when observing on bright sunny days? If yes, why not at least adding filter threads to dampen/tune the light whenever necessary? Do we need a super fast and low tension focuser, perhaps at the cost of precision? Do we really want to pay a fortune just to have the circle of maximum image sharpness extended all the way to the edge of field, rather than moving the object of interest a little bit toward the center? Many people are using binoculars in order to observe distant objects. Should these people have to pay extra, or compromise performance, because there are some who would like to watch butterflies at 1.5m distance? And is a binocular incomplete if it is not waterproof? Top binoculars of the 1980s like the Zeiss Dialyt and the Leica Trinovid have not been waterproof either, and did a great job nonetheless. Should not those users who are willing to take good care of their gear have the chance to purchase high-end optics without paying extra for water sealing and shock resistance? Let us hope that the manufacturers will find the right answers to these questions and a proper balance between useful improvements and an overload of features that yield little more than a further increase of costs."

Preach it, brother, preach it!

I have been redeemed. Hallelujah!

All I can add is a hardy "AMEN!"

Thanks for sharing those insights, Holger.

Here's the entire review:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/meopta8x32.html

Brock

Hallelujah to that Brock.

I'm still looking for that 6x30 FMTR of yours :-O

well, I am not an expert, but
my old ELs (8.5x42)
and Duovids (10+15x50)
are good enough
to last me a lifetime

edj

But aren't there a range of companies making a range of binoculars at a range of prices?

So you can just pick what you want?

There will always be a market for the "absolute best" whatever the price tag, as there wil always be a market for "budget" binoculars.

Pick your poison.

I think that is true to an extent. If you take the Bushnell Legends for example. The originals were good for their time but now you can find an ED glass version with a wider field of view for actually less of a price.

I am guessing Brock is referencing some of the high end Alpha bins. The Swaro EL (original and SVs). You now get a flatter field with a wider sweet spot and better color correction but you end up paying several hundred dollars more for those improvements. I believe he is arguing whether or not those changes are worth the increase in price.

Pick your poison is correct.

Ahh for the good old days when I shaved by tearing my beard out with clam shells and flint knapped stone knives which are superior in every way to stainless steel.

Nothing makes me appreciate a 5 cent rubber O ring than flying to a location, climbing a misty mountain to see something spectacular and NOT having my binoculars fog up!

Close focus - in a word - Fantastic!

For the record - I am not looking for somone to pull the ED glass out of my Ultravid HD and pop in some of that Trinovid glass.

Good Birding

Note that Brock emphasized Holger Merlitz's comment about "The careful reader of this report........"

Bob

I look at it a number of ways.

1) I like the idea of owning a very utilitarian bino with great optics that though no longer the absolute state of the art, were one at the top of the class and are still very very good. In my case my 8x42 Ultravid BRs. I bought them at a discount right after the HDs were introduced, so I feel I got a good bang for the buck as I didn't see any difference in looking through the HDs. With the lifetime Passport warranty, great optics and bomb proof Leica build, I feel I am set up for the rest of my life with a go anywhere, anytime optic.

2) I could go crazy, and bankrupt chasing every tiny improvement. I imagine that after a longer period of evolution and incremental improvements, the accumulation will amount to something worth considering, but I don't currently have the budget to go for every new improved Swaro, Leica or Zeiss.

3) Holger makes a good point about the actual utility of some of these high priced improvements. A lot of folks harp on the edge to edge sharpness, but my Ultravids and SEs don't seem to be deficient in that regard, I must just naturally center whatever object I looking at. I really do appreciate the Leica's waterproofness and general industrucibilty, but in actual fact on a day to day usage, I pick my not waterproof 8x32 Nikon SEs 90% of the time. I personally don't need close focusing, but there seems to be many that do. I prefer my Nikons smooth, precise focusing to my Pentax DCF. The Leica though not as smooth seems to snap into focus very well.

4) Like someone said there are many good optics available form $100.00 entry level Yosemites, $400.00 Chinese ED bins, lots mid level bins such as Meopta and Vortex, used but great Alphas and latest state of the art Alphas. The consumer has a lot of good choices, I think this is the golden age for optics. There is something available to satisfy any need, even those guys who don't mind spending several hundred dollars more for that wide Swarovision field.

John

Brock - your comments above hit the nail on the head. Also, I hadn't read Holger Merlitz's comparison between the Meopta 8x32 and the Nikon 8x30 EII. Interesting. I moved my EIIs on because of ergonomic reasons, and suspected (perhaps without really any evidence) fragility.

Perhaps the "incremental" changes, which are really so disproportionate in costs, are a function of how affuent we have become. I'm experiencing a different dilemma, viz., that of one eye deteriorating beyond correction. It has been a slow process, but I have confirmed this with the use of a quality spotting scope. Actually, a quality monocular serves me quite well, and I have found that the Carl Zeiss 8x30 B porro monocular of the 60s vintage fits inside of my hand (wrapped around) with my forefinger pressed tightly against my brow with great steadiness. John