mmmm....this could be interpreted another way - the folks with tons of money to blow on hobbies are more likely to buy & try stuff and are fascinated with the latest advances in bino tech. For me the "alphas" have the opposite effect - they tend to stick in my collection because I fear going over the edge of the looming depreciation cliff.
The alphas are a lot like cars. It is better to buy used, so you don't take such a depreciation hit if you sell them. If you have $3000 tied up in a binocular, people feel they have to use them a lot, or they are wasting their money, but if you only have $500 tied up in a binocular you don't worry about it as much.
What I would like to see is for Nikon to make an MHG 10x42 IS. It would blow everything out of the water!
But in 12x50 MHG IS.
It would be too heavy. A 10x42 IS that is under 25 oz. would be perfect, or even an MHG 8x42 IS or MHG 8x32 IS. With IS, you don't need the as big of an aperture or EP because the IS keeps the EP centered over your eye.
The MHG right now is about 25 oz, with IS it would still be heavier, but a MHG 12X50 would still be light by comparison to any other 50's. And 12X would be amazing. I think Canon should've made the L line in 12X50 or even 2x42.
We hear this a lot.
Excellent!
The L line in a 12x50 or 12x42 would be a brick. That is the big reason I sold my Canon 10x42 IS-L even though the optics were very good. Way too heavy and bulky. Canon should make an 8x32 IS that weighs about 20 oz. and then they would attract some birders to IS.
That's very true. Yes. An increase in price can be numerically quantified (objective value), whereas an increase in quality can't (subjective value).
Totally agree, small for a 42mm and light, felt great to me. The NL may sway you though, ergos are a dream.
20oz 32mm IS is not going to happen. But the 32 now is 27oz and is not bad at all. It’s a very usable as a birding bino, but I’m not very impressed with the image. The two binoculars next to it in the picture absolutely blow it away, so does the lesser priced Vipers (not in this picture).
Until you switch that magic IS button and then the Canon's leave the regular binoculars in the dust for detail with almost a 40% resolution advantage. I can ID a bird at a much greater distance with a Canon 8x20 IS than I can with a NL 10x42! Once I compared my big heavy NL 10x42 with my Canon 8x20 IS and I saw I could ID birds at a much greater distance and I only had to carry less than 1/2 the weight, I sold the NL's the next day. I don't like the newer Canon 10x32, 12x32 or 14x32's. The eye cups just don't work for me. They are too long for the eye relief with my eye sockets and hard. I prefer the older Canon 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III. They are also less expensive. 😁
I think an increase in quality can be objective because it can be measured, and is quantified.
This becomes more difficult because , how much of a difference one notices is predicate on the individuals eyesight and their ability to see the difference. You hand me a MHG and an EL , I’ll notice the qualitative difference in a second , my wife with similar eyesight barely notices any difference, and my son a complete novice is amazed at the difference. Quality can be measured , it’s not always discerned.
So true.
Given my experience with the NLs,' for me lovely "grip" (for lack of a better, more succinct word), I surprise myself by saying its more than just view quality. A bino is a package, we decide on its value to us various ways, as is often described here. AND we each get to put our value on those various attributes. Yes that is the subjective part. An old Econ Professor opined, when we buy something we are casting a dollar vote. We're saying, "Yes I like or need this thing enough that I will pay that for it."
Of course we can id more detail on an object with the IS, it’s just the overall image is not the most pleasing. I believe there is individual physical attributes and limitations of the person that make the difference between the low optical level of the IS 20 and a 42mm NL become less apparent. I think that difference is more about you than these two binoculars. There is no way in million years I’d choose a cheap low level plastic Chinese optic over one of the finest optical tools ever made, regardless if I can see one more piece of feather structure at 100 yards. The overall image quality and feel of the NL is just so much more enjoyable.
The 8x42 and 10x42 and 8x30 MHG's are lighter than most of the expensive binoculars too, they're a great value. Light weight could make them more attractive to some than the expensive ones, if you carry them on long birding sessions the weight difference is huge between something like 24 ounces and 30.
