Cornell Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (9 Viewers)

[perterra]

Well, not that birders are poor or rich...but, I would think that people in poverty don't have the inclination to bird while even the super rich, have no time to bird as they are out their working overtime to gouge the rest of us!

I wouldnt say poverty, but working class folks with 3 kids making $25 an hour dont have a lot of throw around money. I guess it really does validate that if you dont have a certain brand or style, you wont be taken seriously.

It appears that birding much like fly fishing or golf is the realm of the well to do.

 

[FrankD]

|| No terras here.

I can't quite make it out in the pic. Swift Audubon?

 

[John Dracon]

Well, my comments got a few folks stirred up. Perterra, you are my kind of guy!

Lee, of course my comments are strong, but hardly "epic" or "verging on biblical." I'm engaging in a bit of satire. Your Jonathan Swift was a master of that.

You are aware that the alpha makers have issued limited editions of binoculars covered with exotic skins. I guess to display at the opera. I love the opera, but when I go to the opera, it is to listen to beautiiful singing.

Your rhetorical question, "...if something is ugly does it work better?" is answered by asking another rhetorical question, "if something is beautiful does it work better?" We both know the answers. No, because the innards, not the exterior of binoculars, are showing us the birds.

My condemnation is directed to the designers exploiting human vanity. No, vanity is not a crime, nor is it a sin (not to me anyway), but it is a character defect. I wonder if the alpha makers are directing any of their profits to combat the problem in Europe where hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are being illegally slaughtered, many to feed hungry people.

We in America are not without fault judging from the past where we managed to make extinct the passenger pigeon which numbered in the billions, and brought the bison to near extinction out of over 40 million in a fifteen year period during the late 1800s.

John

 

[james holdsworth]

Same old rehash - people only buy alpha's to show off - either how much they know or how much they make.

I call BS again. When I was just a poor kid starting out on my own [but not at all new to birding, as I started when I was 7] I saved my meager earnings and blew it all on a pair of Bausch and Lomb 10x42's. Why? I loved the look, the view and I thought if I'm going to use something everyday, it might as well be the best. One of the best purchases I ever made - never for a second regretted it.

Decades on, my profession is what I love - biology, mostly bird/butterfly/dragonfly/herptile surveys, and my thinking hasn't changed. If I am going to use a tool for up to 10 hours a day, in some horrible conditions, I want the best tool for the job. Expensive? You bet, but I save in some areas [kept a small house without endless up-sizing] to spend in others, like optics.

Most of my friends and colleague's are not wealthy, but almost all [that are in the business of birding or take it seriously] own very expensive binoculars / scopes / cameras - but likely not Mercedes Benz or BMW. In my estimation, none of those people bought them for cachet. We know who is a good birder and who is not - if they flounder in the field, no hawk emblem or blue badge will save their reputation.

 

[perterra]

I can't quite make it out in the pic. Swift Audubon?

A 15 year old Bushnell natureview 8X42. They work, not crisp and sharp like a Zeiss, heck not even close to a Leupold yosemite. But they got me by as well as I wished and allowed me to start learning a few things about wildlife.

 

[Mac308]

Back to objective covers, while many birders do not use them, perhaps even the majority, the Big 3 make an enormous amount of their living on the backs of hunters.

Many of us are hunters and birders/wildlife observers. Those of us that hunt beyond sitting on a stand really prefer fully functional objective covers that can stand up to hard use (backpack/mountain hunting).

The current Swaro EL/SV covers are not functional in the application I describe, and I'm told neither are the new Zeiss HT objective covers. Zeiss and Swaro have certainly ignored those of us that require fully functional objective covers.

I can certainly verify the Leica Ultravid tethered objective covers are as good as it gets. They're 100% positive and surround the outside of the barrels, not clipping-in to the inside of the barrel ala Swaro and Zeiss.

A binocular is the sum of its parts, not just its view. One reason I'll stick with Leica's for my birding/hunting/wildlife viewing bins...

 

[FrankD]

perterra,

I never had the chance to handle the porro version of this binocullar series but I was introduced to the roof version up at Hawk Mountain a year or two ago. Very good optical performance for the $100 or so price tag attached. I have a hard time believing the porro version would be worse.

Now that we have the formalities out of the way you need to tell me about something truly important....how is that Saint Arnold's Octoberfest? Never heard of it.

 

[perterra]

Well, my comments got a few folks stirred up. Perterra, you are my kind of guy!

Lee, of course my comments are strong, but hardly "epic" or "verging on biblical." I'm engaging in a bit of satire. Your Jonathan Swift was a master of that.

You are aware that the alpha makers have issued limited editions of binoculars covered with exotic skins. I guess to display at the opera. I love the opera, but when I go to the opera, it is to listen to beautiiful singing.

Your rhetorical question, "...if something is ugly does it work better?" is answered by asking another rhetorical question, "if something is beautiful does it work better?" We both know the answers. No, because the innards, not the exterior of binoculars, are showing us the birds.

My condemnation is directed to the designers exploiting human vanity. No, vanity is not a crime, nor is it a sin (not to me anyway), but it is a character defect. I wonder if the alpha makers are directing any of their profits to combat the problem in Europe where hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are being illegally slaughtered, many to feed hungry people.

We in America are not without fault judging from the past where we managed to make extinct the passenger pigeon which numbered in the billions, and brought the bison to near extinction out of over 40 million in a fifteen year period during the late 1800s.

John

You see it in every sport and every where, I would guess it's a sign of affluence. I involved myself in a conversation at the pistol range back in to 90's between two young men. One was shooting a Ruger P-89 he was very proud of it and it was his first centerfire, the other was shooting a Glock I believe. Between sessions during conversation the Glock shooter mentioned to the Ruger shooter that he was shooting pretty good (he was) and that the Ruger was a great beginners pistol.

I had to ask, whats a beginners pistol?

His answer was a gun you could start out with until you could afford a pro's gun.

I asked, whats a pro's gun?

He said, ya know, a gun like swat teams carry.

Seems similar to some of the optics/knives/motorcycle conversations I have heard.

 

[perterra]

perterra,

I never had the chance to handle the porro version of this binocullar series but I was introduced to the roof version up at Hawk Mountain a year or two ago. Very good optical performance for the $100 or so price tag attached. I have a hard time believing the porro version would be worse.

Now that we have the formalities out of the way you need to tell me about something truly important....how is that Saint Arnold's Octoberfest? Never heard of it.

It's an okay binocular, not real crisp but a decent sweet spot, flare control is kind of poor and it seems eye glasses magnify it's faults on flare. It was pretty cheap, but it was pretty solid.

St Arnolds is a Houston brewey. Pretty good swill, not a micro by any means but very drinkable. They have several that are pretty good, the Santo (black lager) and the Lawnmower (thirst quencher) are favorites

 

[perterra]

Same old rehash - people only buy alpha's to show off - either how much they know or how much they make.

I call BS again. When I was just a poor kid starting out on my own [but not at all new to birding, as I started when I was 7] I saved my meager earnings and blew it all on a pair of Bausch and Lomb 10x42's. Why? I loved the look, the view and I thought if I'm going to use something everyday, it might as well be the best. One of the best purchases I ever made - never for a second regretted it.

Decades on, my profession is what I love - biology, mostly bird/butterfly/dragonfly/herptile surveys, and my thinking hasn't changed. If I am going to use a tool for up to 10 hours a day, in some horrible conditions, I want the best tool for the job. Expensive? You bet, but I save in some areas [kept a small house without endless up-sizing] to spend in others, like optics.

Most of my friends and colleague's are not wealthy, but almost all [that are in the business of birding or take it seriously] own very expensive binoculars / scopes / cameras - but likely not Mercedes Benz or BMW. In my estimation, none of those people bought them for cachet. We know who is a good birder and who is not - if they flounder in the field, no hawk emblem or blue badge will save their reputation.

Wouldnt argue with you James, I dont think all that do buy high end do so just to show off. But it seems that there are some in this particular forum look down on anything not high end (not saying you do).

I look at it somewhat like I look at people buying survival gear who will never leave the house passing judgement on what gear a bushpilot may carry in his plane.

Viva la Walter Mitty

 

[lmans66]

Same old rehash - people only buy alpha's to show off - either how much they know or how much they make.

.

I know by reading your post that this was just a leadin n not yr overall thinking.

I birded fr 25 years using a 99$ pair of Bushnell Audubons...... But my kids were young and i was living off a teachers salary....

So later on with kids out of college n grandkids... I hv more dollars to dpend and can at last afford something better. It has nothing to do with buying an alpha to show off, just that a better bino was more affordable. As i age i want to hv a better bino, i think many find themselves in that situation.

I enjoyed birding with my Bushnells n now enjoy birding more-so with my Zeiss...., jim

 

[perterra]

I know by reading your post that this was just a leadin n not yr overall thinking.

I birded fr 25 years using a 99$ pair of Bushnell Audubons...... But my kids were young and i was living off a teachers salary....

So later on with kids out of college n grandkids... I hv more dollars to dpend and can at last afford something better. It has nothing to do with buying an alpha to show off, just that a better bino was more affordable. As i age i want to hv a better bino, i think many find themselves in that situation.

I enjoyed birding with my Bushnells n now enjoy birding more-so with my Zeiss...., jim

By the way, dont take my reply as me thinking you judge folks on what they own. I dont, just more directed at a general conversation to make folks think before they judge. When you see someone in the field, what they carry means little, and that goes for the most expensive and for the cheapest. I shouldnt judge people who carry the best, and others shouldnt judge people who carry Tascos

It's why I think Zeiss should be applauded for bringing a less expensive line to market (I threw that little bit in there for Jan) 3

 

[ceasar]

perhaps....I live in South Jersey where there are lots of 'good birders'....good ones..... When I run across one of the 'big ones'.... Either the Big Year front runner or an author of bird guides and the like, guess what? One had a Zeiss HT while the other had a Swaro SLC.... And those were just 'two' great birders and their gear.

The vast majority of naturalists, hawk counters, etc I see have the top Swaro (Alphas), Leica or Zeiss (HT's or FL's). Sure, an occasional birder I see coming in with a old tanker of sorts to view by, but for the most part, ......quality bino's.

Go to Hawk Mountain during migration season. Most of the counters are interns. Many are there doing post graduate work. Over the years I've observed that most of them use Nikon Monarchs.

http://www.hawkmountain.org/who-we-...conservation-science-interns/page.aspx?id=395

Bob

 

[ceasar]

Well, my comments got a few folks stirred up. Perterra, you are my kind of guy!

Lee, of course my comments are strong, but hardly "epic" or "verging on biblical." I'm engaging in a bit of satire. Your Jonathan Swift was a master of that.

You are aware that the alpha makers have issued limited editions of binoculars covered with exotic skins. I guess to display at the opera. I love the opera, but when I go to the opera, it is to listen to beautiiful singing.

Your rhetorical question, "...if something is ugly does it work better?" is answered by asking another rhetorical question, "if something is beautiful does it work better?" We both know the answers. No, because the innards, not the exterior of binoculars, are showing us the birds.

My condemnation is directed to the designers exploiting human vanity. No, vanity is not a crime, nor is it a sin (not to me anyway), but it is a character defect. I wonder if the alpha makers are directing any of their profits to combat the problem in Europe where hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are being illegally slaughtered, many to feed hungry people.

We in America are not without fault judging from the past where we managed to make extinct the passenger pigeon which numbered in the billions, and brought the bison to near extinction out of over 40 million in a fifteen year period during the late 1800s.

John

One of the major causes of the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon and the near extinction of the Bison was the great increase in the population of the United States and with it the increasing encroachment on their habitat including the timbering of vast tracts of wilderness.

General Grant wrote in his Autobiography about the great herds of Buffalo he saw in South Texas near Beaumont in 1846, extending as far as the eye could see, when he was on his way to Mexico with General Winfield Scott's Army. Texas was lightly populated then.

Bob

 

[perterra]

One of the major causes of the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon and the near extinction of the Bison was the great increase in the population of the United States and with it the increasing encroachment on their habitat including the timbering of vast tracts of wilderness.

General Grant wrote in his Autobiography about the great herds of Buffalo he saw in South Texas near Beaumont in 1846, extending as far as the eye could see, when he was on his way to Mexico with General Winfield Scott's Army. Texas was lightly populated then.

Bob

The Red River war helped push the bison towards it's near extinction. It pretty much emptied the commissary of the Comanche

 

[ceasar]

The Red River war helped push the bison towards it's near extinction. It pretty much emptied the commissary of the Comanche

Grant's autobiography sells well even today. The first part of it about his growing up on the Ohio frontier in the 1820s and 30s and trip to West Point is worth the price of the book. It is a literary gem!

Bob

 

[perterra]

Grant's autobiography sells well even today. The first part of it about his growing up on the Ohio frontier in the 1820s and 30s and trip to West Point is worth the price of the book. It is a literary gem!

Bob

I will definitely look it up, sounds like an interesting read. He lived in inmteresting times for sure.

I just finished re-reading Dragon Hunter about Roy Chapman Andrews. There are so many good ones out there it's hard to keep up with them.

 

[Troubador]

Your rhetorical question, "...if something is ugly does it work better?" is answered by asking another rhetorical question, "if something is beautiful does it work better?" We both know the answers. No, because the innards, not the exterior of binoculars, are showing us the birds.

John

Hhmmmm. That's naughty, John . We both know that my assertion was that providing something fulfills it's functional requirement there is no harm in it looking good while it does it. And I still think that Zeiss HTs and Swaro ELs are beautiful and their functionality doesn't suffer because of it.

So we agree that functionality should come first.

Lee

 

[A2GG]

Hhmmmm. That's naughty, John . We both know that my assertion was that providing something fulfills it's functional requirement there is no harm in it looking good while it does it. And I still think that Zeiss HTs and Swaro ELs are beautiful and their functionality doesn't suffer because of it.

So we agree that functionality should come first.

Lee

I checked out the HT in person yesterday for the very first time.
It is so well done. They did an outstanding job designing the HT.
A lot of thought obviously went into designing this bin for perfect handling/ergonomics , function and attractiveness. And wow what a view.

 

[John Dracon]

We certainly agree on the importance of function in binoculars. And generally we will agree that some designs are more pleasing to the eye than others. Then I'm reminded of the Latin maxium, "De gustabus non est disputandum." Personal taste really can't be debated. Our designers attempt to bring together both form and function. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they don't.

My pique with them is that sometimes they sacrifice function for what appeals to them, what I call the snob appeal. An outstanding example of this is the Nikon LX 10x25. It has superb optics, but function? Try to focus it with your fore finger, the most ergonomically situated appendage we have. With the focus knob located on the end of the bridge, the little finger is more often used. Not convenient.

I have examined the HT very carefully. It is a superb instrument. Have the Terra, Conquest, and HT together and spend some time focusing them. I'll wager there is a subtle difference favoring the Terra and Conquest, and it isn't the cosmetics or optics. John