Binoculars are only a tool, not my identity.
-
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.
Death Of The Alpha? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Binoculars are only a tool, not my identity.
Steve C
Well-known member
I dunno about that Chuck
. I had a Swarovski 10x42 SLC-HD, the SV in 8.5 and 10x42 and the SV in 10x50. I had those all in my ownership solely to determine what binocular was the best one for me and to determine if my initial impressions of the Maven were correct. I still have the Maven B2 and none of the Swarovski glass. There is a reason, for me, for that choice. Rolling ball in the SV was the prime deterrent for me. I think the SLC-HD is the best Swarovski, but it was for me no better than the Maven. Money, at that point, was not particularly a consideration. Realizing full well that users perceptions are predominate satisfaction determiners in binocular preferences, my take is just the opposite of yours...the Swarovski is no Maven B2. Now I would say that the Swarovski is superior in some ways to the Maven and will not ever fully argue the Swarovski is not a legitimate contender for the title "Best Binocular Made". However the statement that they are no Swarovision or SF, remember that is a personal and highly objective stance.So alpha (love or hate the term) ultimately comes down to the holistic balance of cost, optical performance, and ergonomics, which boils down to a purely subjective user choice.
B
Last edited:
JerryLogan
Well-known member
Lee,
No, very much to the contrary!!! I agree almost entirely with you. I believe that there are "alpha" objects and experiences and that they may well be worth the price for those who can genuinely use or experience the difference.
We may differ in this - the extent to which most people would actually experience/use the difference and their real ability to perceive the quality of the difference in actual use.
The pleasure of your Skoda is real!!! If somehow we could blind people to what they were driving so they only experienced the sensation of the drive, how many would feel the sensation of a 911 as "better" as opposed to "different"? Particularly on the NJ Turnpike? Of those who say "better", how many will say $100K better?
So I think I'm very close to your thinking on this. What's the real experience I'm going to have and how often will I have it? But the cynic(?) in me thinks that's a very hard question to answer. I've lived in California wine country now for a long time. Most people can distinguish a genuine $10 from a genuine $50 wine. Maybe one or two people in a hundred can distinguish between a $50 and $250 bottle. Unless you show the labels first. Then everybody's an expert! But I wonder what the label experts are really buying when they pay the extra $200.
Very best
Jerry
Last edited:
OK Jerry and I know just what you mean about wine 'experts'.
But going back to the 911 you draw a distinction between 'better' and 'different' . Now, everyone is entitled to their own definition of 'better' and for some people it might be what you would call merely 'different'.
Some folks love the view through Leicas and for many it is the warmth of the view they love. Objectively it is arguable that isn't better at all, merely different, but why shouldn't folks like it?
I have some sympathy for your definition of pride of ownership relating to maintaining stuff yourself and I guess if you had to save hard for years to buy whatever it is then that whole situation adds up to a hard-won pride. I can relate to that, thinking back to my youth when I eventually was able to afford a BMW motorcycle that would cruise comfortably for hundreds of miles and take me and Troubadoris to places like the Shetland Isles and yes I did the maintainance myself and was proud of it.
From that viewpoint I can see how just having the cash to buy anything you want would seem like cheating and not a genuine way to get pleasure of ownership. But the democrat (not a political party) in me is reluctant to label all wealthy people as folks who have 'all the gear and no idea'.
Lee
They aren't the same business models either. I assume you're well aware that Tract and Maven glass is not offered by retailers, but direct to consumer. This is nothing like Bushnell or Zen Ray, who use retailers and direct sales.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
I didn't read all the thread.
But I don't need to.
I've been seriously burned by here today, gone tomorrow stuff.
No interest.
But I don't need to.
I've been seriously burned by here today, gone tomorrow stuff.
No interest.
What difference does that make? None of the above made their own binoculars. Otherwise the binoculars were made to their own specifications by the Japanese manufacturer from whom they were purchased. From what we have heard from the people who use them they are excellent binoculars with top grade optics and reliable, utilitarian construction.
The only difference between Bushnell and Swift and Maven and Tract is that the latter two market binoculars direct to the consumer. It is almost a cottage industry compared to the way every one else markets binoculars. They probably can make a profit doing it this way but I don't think they will put any of the big 4 out of the binocular business with the current lines of binoculars they are selling now or in the numbers that they are selling them.
Grape juice.
David Swain
Well-known member
Yup, this is another of Dennis' periodic market adjustments, changing his investment strategy. He used to argue that only alpha bins held resale value, but now is arguing that they lose more value proportional to mid-level bins.
David
perterra
Well-known member
Everyone would buy alphas if they could just afford it, why with out a alpha, you just dont have that pride to stick your chest out. Also your binocular choice denotes your social status. :-O I seem to recall those comments at some point in the past.
This one brought me out of my self imposed exile. :-O
"Though many of the above listed binoculars are FINE binoculars....many lack refinement, heritage, reputation, state of the art specs, superior fit/finish, company support, on-going r&d, proper accessories, and state of the art optics/coatings/innovations....to name a few."
Outside of heritage and reputation I think the Maven's and the Tract's have all those other things you mention. They are both too young of companies to have heritage and reputation yet. But let me ask you this. Does heritage and reputation make for a better view when you look through the binoculars. Is everybody willing to pay twice as much to get heritage and reputation when I can get the same binocular for 1/2 the price? Not me.
Right on Paddy7. You know where I am coming from!
I agree. A LOT of people ar just not going to pay $3000.00 for a pair of Swarovski's when they can get a Maven for $1000.00 with comparable performance and quality.
I totally agree with you. That is my point. The Maven's and Tract's are catching up with the alpha's for WAY less money.
Good insight. That really explains some people's thinking.
Can you REALLY see much difference between a Maven and a Swarovski? How many %? 1,2,or 3%? Is it really worth it out in the real world?
The Swaro's are long gone. There are none on Ebay.And promote them on Ebay as the best of the best everB
Jan
With the Maven's and Tract's I am just as proud as if I owned an alpha. In fact more so. I am proud that I own a binocular that performs , as well as, one costing 2x as much.
But as long as Tract and Maven keep up with the alpha level technology what is the advantage in buying an alpha?
