Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Experience the Great Outdoors. New Zeiss Terra ED Binoculars. Visit our online shop to find out more!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Monday 27th February 2017, 19:50   #51
Julie50
Registered User
 
Julie50's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 303
For me.....

£4.99 Lidl - what's not to love????
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	185.9 KB
ID:	616791  
Julie50 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th February 2017, 20:00   #52
Robert Wallace
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax West Yorkshire
Posts: 499
Fun colour Julie! I must admit to preferring a more drab colour in the field. However at less than fiver a watch you can afford a "palette" of coloured watches.
Robert Wallace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th February 2017, 20:14   #53
Julie50
Registered User
 
Julie50's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 303
Exactly - the strap and case are flexible plastic so no water damage!
Julie50 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 10:50   #54
andyadcock
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nottingham UK and St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 5,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Wallace View Post
Mechanical watches are less accurate than quartz and are now mainly used as "Bling", to demonstrate how wealthy the wearer is.
I don't do much birdwatching at a depth of 3000M (see above) mainly because my Citizen watch is only water resistant to 300M,so unsure why that feature contributes to the ultimate birdwatching watch.
Many naturalists especially botanists but including birdwatchers can see the advantage of a watch with GPS when compiling their field notes. But in our technological world smartphones are probably more useful.
Many of your points are not really applicable Robert.

1. A watch in the field doesn't need to be accurate down to the nano second.

2. The more water resistant a watch is, ensures that in hot, tropical or monsoon conditions, it has more chance of surviving. I once wore a cheapo to bird the forests in Malaysia and it filled with condensation within 3 days and then stopped.

3. Smart phones are big and take up space, are easily broken and if you're in the field with no way to recharge, totally useless.

My watch (Raymond Weil) cost me £200 over twenty years ago, it's been all over the World and is still unscratched and going strong, I call that a bargain.


A

Last edited by andyadcock : Tuesday 28th February 2017 at 10:55.
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 10:51   #55
katastrofa
Registered User
 
katastrofa's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 410
A nice mechanical Swiss watch makes a great bribe for a policeman / official in "tropical conditions".

Or marks you as a robbery target :)
katastrofa is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 11:24   #56
andyadcock
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nottingham UK and St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 5,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by katastrofa View Post
A nice mechanical Swiss watch makes a great bribe for a policeman / official in "tropical conditions".

Or marks you as a robbery target :)
I don't think that many people would recognise it as such, especially in Malaysia where it would probably be assumed to be fake.


A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 11:35   #57
Robert Wallace
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax West Yorkshire
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
Many of your points are not really applicable Robert.

1. A watch in the field doesn't need to be accurate down to the nano second.

2. The more water resistant a watch is, ensures that in hot, tropical or monsoon conditions, it has more chance of surviving. I once wore a cheapo to bird the forests in Malaysia and it filled with condensation within 3 days and then stopped.

3. Smart phones are big and take up space, are easily broken and if you're in the field with no way to recharge, totally useless.

My watch (Raymond Weil) cost me £200 over twenty years ago, it's been all over the World and is still unscratched and going strong, I call that a bargain.


A
Point 1 The time keeping device does if you are using a GPS facility in the watch, which was my point.The watch as on hand held GPS devices simple displays the radio signal from the satellite.
Point 2 My Citizen "Royal Marine Commando" has a titanium case with no back plate, water resistant to 300M. Probably good enough for rain forests, I know Ray Mears (survival expert) uses a similar watch to mine
The glass is made from a highly scratch proof material and after 6 months constant wear shows no sign of scratches unlike my Omega with plexiglass. The glass on both my Seiko's are both highly scratched.
All battery powered devices are useless if the battery runs out - my watch uses ambient light to power it. When using my camera I always have a spare fully charged battery naturally.
I am not against mechanical watches but they are now traditional/craft technology.My Citizen watch has had its time adjusted since we changed the clocks in October and is now 16 seconds fast which I can live with, by contrast my Omega may have been about 18 minutes fast, therefore needing several adjustments.
Hope that answers your points.
Robert Wallace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 12:06   #58
andyadcock
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nottingham UK and St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 5,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Wallace View Post
All battery powered devices are useless if the battery runs out - my watch uses ambient light to power it. When using my camera I always have a spare fully charged battery naturally.
I
I doubt that there's a single, mechanical watch whose battery runs out daily?

I'm not 'techy' at all but don't many of the functions on a smartphone depend on internet connectivity?


A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 14:01   #59
CalvinFold
Registered User
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,195
Watching/reading all this banter (some quite vehement) about "mechanical vs. digital/tech" is entertaining, and has made me appreciate how much of a minor miracle it must have been to divorce myself from watching the time so much outside of work. I wish I could be away from the anchor of time more often, but kinda glad I've managed what I have; it's calming.

Y'all should try it.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2017
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 14:19   #60
andyadcock
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nottingham UK and St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 5,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Watching/reading all this banter (some quite vehement) about "mechanical vs. digital/tech" is entertaining, and has made me appreciate how much of a minor miracle it must have been to divorce myself from watching the time so much outside of work. I wish I could be away from the anchor of time more often, but kinda glad I've managed what I have; it's calming.

Y'all should try it.
Good luck making your next flight then,,

A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th February 2017, 18:44   #61
Robert Wallace
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax West Yorkshire
Posts: 499
Kevin, pleased you enjoyed the banter and I hope my posts were not agressive.
Andy the problem with my Omega is that it stops if I forget to wind it. I am not against mechanical watches I just think quartz watches are better value for money and do a better job by and large. I do wear my Omega when I want to impress and my model has two largish buttons which nicely display the Omega character.
I also bought my Omega (back in 1970) as a present to myself for passing my professional exams. I bought my first quartz watch in 1978 a Seiko SQ Sports 100 which is going strong after nearly 40 years, if not a little battered. I now only use it as my "gardening" watch.
I don't own or use a smartphone but some of my naturalist friends use them regularly in the field to photograph plants and fungi and to record their location (battery permitting).
I will finish with an amusing anecdote by Lord Finklestein (a Tory/Conservative Peer in the House of Lords, London) writing in "The Times" newspaper.His father was a Professor of Measurement at a top London University. When his father died, Lord Finklestein inherited his watch which he claims still keeps perfect time - it was a basic Casio quartz.
Robert Wallace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 1st March 2017, 19:05   #62
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,527
I must say that I'm surprised that a discussion of watches on Birdforum would turn to snobbery rather than stay anchored to practical considerations. When it comes to outdoor gear, I'm all for art, craftmanship, and elegance, but the only basis for final judgment of what is a valid choice (i.e. an option) in that venue is performance, in this case as a timekeeping and time display tool (i.e. its utility, practical significance). Sure, one can argue that a cheap digital is not useful for climbing Everest because accidentally contemplating its lack of art and status might make the wearer feel déclassé and evoke such feelings of revulsion for the humble tool that the wearer or a companion might vomit at an inopportune time during the climb...but I think that argument would be a stretch, as much as are some of the assertions in this thread. I mostly agree w/Robert Wallace and I identify w/his approach to this discussion. It seems to me, he clearly has a bit of interest in watches (as do I) but he is honest w/himself and others as to the practical merits of different models and technologies. Being a snob about mechanical watches and futilely trying to defend their technological or practical superiority by ignoring objective performance measures should not be a prerequisite for acceptance into the tiny community (as a percentage of the human population) of people who discuss and appreciate watches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocSarvis View Post
...I haven't said a word about those Casio electronic time devices because they certainly are not watches and don't deserve to be considered such...
Oh come on. Why be dismissive of such a functional marvel? Maybe it isn't very arty, and no craftmanship (in the original sense) is involved, but such watches (e.g. a basic waterproof digital) are viciously accurate and beautifully simple in their own way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Wallace View Post
...Mechanical watches are less accurate than quartz and are now mainly used as "Bling", to demonstrate how wealthy the wearer is...
I agree when it comes to the motivations of most people who wear fine mechanical watches. Most are interested in status and style, not the art or engineering and execution of intricate movements. But don't forget that a few wearers do choose mechanical watches for aesthetic reasons. Unfortunately, others purchase them (especially cheap but functional automatics, e.g. Seiko 5 sometimes available for ~$50!) out of a mistaken notion that they are more practical or reliable since they don't use batteries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocSarvis View Post
The latest Swarovision FieldPro is really nothing but "Birding Bling" when you think about it since it really does nothing a Zeiss FL doesn't. But it's performance figures give an indication of it's potential and its construction...
Objectively wrong. Among other differences, the Swarovision has far superior off-axis optical performance, which is important for some users and uses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocSarvis View Post
...Fine timepieces have always represented milestones in human achievements in engineering and science....and, yes.. art...
Sure they have. But I submit that the invention of the quartz digital does likewise. Those heroic watchmakers of the past were motivated by concern for precision in time keeping as much or more so than making cases, faces, and movements aesthetically pleasing, so I think they would have much respect for the quartz digital based on its performance. Were I a time traveler, given a choice for figuring longitude at sea in 1761, I'd choose a Casio digital over Harrison's H4 every time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-W View Post
...Nonsense.They are slightly less accurate, but represent craftsmanship in engineering.
And you don't have to replace batteries...
If you read online discussions, you'll see that many people buy cheap mechanical automatic watches out of a mistaken belief that they are more reliable and inexpensive in the long run because they don't use batteries. Which is less convenient and costly, having to replace the battery every 3-12 years, or having to have the watch lubricated/cleaned/overhauled every few years? For every 1000 people who know that quartz and digital watches require batteries, only 1 knows that mechanical watches need costly regular maintenance and that quartz watches don't [O.K. I admit that I just made up that "statistic", but I hope you take my point].

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadcock View Post
...A watch in the field doesn't need to be accurate down to the nano second...
...I once wore a cheapo to bird the forests in Malaysia and it filled with condensation within 3 days and then stopped...
...My watch (Raymond Weil) cost me £200 over twenty years ago, it's been all over the World and is still unscratched and going strong, I call that a bargain...
Ah, all true, but it is also true that a watch can be very accurate, reliably waterproof, _and_ super inexpensive (i.e. "cheapo"). I try not to buy watches, for a long time had only two (a digital and a utilitarian Swiss made automatic) but now have two automatic, four quartz analog, and one digital. When it comes to convenience, practicality, accuracy etc, my best watch has to be my Casio digital that I got when I was about ~10 years old for under $20. I wore it for 15 years absolutely everywhere (never took it off) so it is a little scatched up, but it has never leaked in the shower, swimming pool, or while snorkeling in the sea, and I've only had to replace the band once (for under $10) and the battery three times (every 12 years--it is a big lithium) at a cost of $3 each time. I still use it while camping, traveling etc, or any time I need a watch with an alarm (One of my quartz analog watches has an alarm but it isn't as precise or as easy to use).

So I've had my digital Casio now 36 years, it has cost me under $40 total plus a few minutes every decade to maintain, it is super-precise, and besides telling time has many other abilities. Frankly, I think such performance is a stunning display of technology well-executed, is therefore a tremendous human achievement, and so deserves respect.

--AP

Last edited by Alexis Powell : Wednesday 1st March 2017 at 19:13.
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 1st March 2017, 19:52   #63
Robert Wallace
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax West Yorkshire
Posts: 499
Alexis, I enjoyed reading your post especially your mention of Harrison's H4Chronometer. Dava Sobel wrote a book "Longitude" which tells the story of John Harrison. I have seen some of the chronometers in the National Maritime museum in Greenwich London.
Robert Wallace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 2nd March 2017, 12:54   #64
Robert Wallace
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax West Yorkshire
Posts: 499
Post script
Following the reference by Alexis of the Harrison H4 chronometer, I remembered that I have a Royal Observatory Greenwich publication " A Guide to the Royal Observatory Greenwich"(62pp) by Kristen Lippincott. It includes a concise history of timekeeping up to the atomic clocks.There are some nice photographs of Harrison's H1,2,3 and 4. H4 is described as "probably the most important timekeeper ever made"
It also discusses briefly the problem of the fluctuation in the rates of rotation of the Earth, the new clocks are more accurate than the Earth. This may not seem important but has huge implications for GPS/SatNav systems and if I remember correctly a minute adjustment was made on New Years eve. Bring this back to birdwatching or more accurately ornithology, the latest research on migrating birds involves the use of "satellite tagging" which enables ornithologists to map migration routes on their computers giving them new and exciting information. Species tagged include Cuckoo and Osprey.
I accept that for most of us any old watch Aldi or Rolex (mechanical or quartz) will be good enough for when we venture out birdwatching!
Robert Wallace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th March 2017, 08:39   #65
Anthon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 50
Yawn.
Nobody recognizes my Rolex Explorer, other than fellow watch enthousiasts. I wear it for myself and nobody else. So far for the 'bling' aspect.

Value for money-wise, any Casio will beat a Rolex in the same way as a Polaroid picture will beat a Picasso. Good luck with the discussion :)
Anthon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 16th April 2017, 19:45   #66
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 527
90% of the time, I'm wearing an old Rolex Sub or GMTII. Where I live, no one knows what they are anyway.
__________________
Minolta 6x20, Vortex Fury 6.5x32, Jason 7x50, Nikon SE 8x32, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, Zeiss Terra ED 8x42, Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, Zeiss Victory 10x25, Canon 10x30 IS, Garrett 25x100 IF, Kowa TSN-883 w/25-60x WA, Televue Pronto, Televue TV-85
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 16th April 2017, 21:52   #67
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG View Post
90% of the time, I'm wearing an old Rolex Sub or GMTII. Where I live, no one knows what they are anyway.
My trip watch is an old Casio Data Bank, just a splendid little device.
It is reasonably waterproof, has an alarm, two in fact, multiple time zones and a decent light. That helps a lot when traveling.
My old Rolex Sub is for home use only. It has long lost its shine, there are no alarms and I'd hate to risk losing it. It would be out of place on a trip.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 16th April 2017, 22:16   #68
DocSarvis
Registered User
 
DocSarvis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 81
Interesting that most all contributors to this thread seem to own at least one Rolex (or Omega).
DocSarvis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 17th April 2017, 00:43   #69
CSG
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 527
Kinda goes with the alpha optics so many own, right?
__________________
Minolta 6x20, Vortex Fury 6.5x32, Jason 7x50, Nikon SE 8x32, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, Zeiss Terra ED 8x42, Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, Zeiss Victory 10x25, Canon 10x30 IS, Garrett 25x100 IF, Kowa TSN-883 w/25-60x WA, Televue Pronto, Televue TV-85
CSG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 17th April 2017, 00:54   #70
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocSarvis View Post
Interesting that most all contributors to this thread seem to own at least one Rolex (or Omega).
Think that is because we're old enough to appreciate stuff that lasts, looks good and works.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 29th April 2017, 14:31   #71
wildlifer_5
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Boise
Posts: 13
I'm a watch hoarder wannabe but financially unable to indulge that habit. I do have a few vintage automatics (Seiko Bellmatic, Swiss Titoni), a Citizen Eco-Drive, and a cool Russian Poljot wind up, all of which would be more reliable long term should watch batteries suddenly become extinct. However, my go-to for the field is a basic battery-powered Victorinox Swiss Army that has proven incredibly durable and accurate, getting banged around and rained on pretty frequently. Plus, I keep my other 'gems' (not any Rolexs, mind you) in pristine condition that way.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorinox2.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	257.6 KB
ID:	624711  
wildlifer_5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wondering what this is slm429 Bird Identification Q&A 0 Saturday 24th October 2015 02:44
hi im wondering if you can help me lucieloxley Say Hello 2 Saturday 14th February 2015 14:09
Just wondering Bonniemcdonald Bird Identification Q&A 6 Tuesday 27th November 2012 18:09
Just wondering... MurometsVLD Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 4 Monday 15th January 2007 11:50
Just wondering ??? Stuart Birds & Birding 8 Saturday 9th November 2002 17:20



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.22950101 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43.