• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon 8x30E11 (1 Viewer)

I would like to add my 2 cents. The question asked in the original post was about a comparison of the EII 8x30 and Habicht 8x30. I had them both but I have kept only the EII. Briefly, from what I recall: the focuser of the Habicht was very stiff, the eyecups were very shallow, and the glare was very strong---too many "very's". I also had the FL 8x32---fine optics, but their ergonomics were not to my liking. I have tried many other 8x32/30 but none seemed to better the EII, even when the price was taken out of the equation (for example, the UV 8x32 gave me lots of blackouts as their eyecups do not extend long enough wrt their (in fact rather small) ER). This was the case until I got an SV 8x32---IMO this is the best 8x32 hands down. Of course some do not share this opinion, as they have different eyes, eye sockets, face shape and taste---and different pockets too. Which are the best binos when one takes the price/performance ratio into account is a more complex problem to which the possible solution, or an approximation to it, might indeed be the EII.

Peter.
 
Last edited:
There is no need for a competition. The SF and the SV are excellent binoculars. Only thing is that their performance has to be related to their price, unless you have unlimited financial resources to fund your investments.

You mentioned that the market has decided. That is a good point: I have bought my Nikon 8x30 EII more than 10 years ago. That time I believed that they offered a good performance for their money, and I was planning to use them temporarily until I would find the right high end glass for me. Since then, I have tried all of them, and though they were somewhat better here and there, I haven't yet felt the need to replace the EII. So I still keep on using them.

Perhaps this is one key point: People as me, who buy in this price class, are often satisfied with what they got. Then, there are others who always want the "best" (or, sometimes, just the newest and most expensive gadget there is on the market), who continuously change from Leica Trino to Zeiss FL to Swaro SV and now to Zeiss SF.

The manufacturers cannot make the big money with customers who are too satisfied with their products and who are using them over many years. The real money is made with those who remain restless and jump onto every bandwagon that passes by. So there exists little drive to produce good, but moderately priced Porros, which would anyway remain unattractive to the high end buyers (regardless of performance), but which find their satisfied group of customers who stay with them. To the manufacturer, it is more beneficial to continue making items with minor improvements that nonetheless keep the prices growing up, which generate thousands of entries on the discussion boards even prior to their introduction :)

Cheers,
Holger
That's how the American economy works. HaHa! If everybody was like you it would stagnate.There have to be people with expendable income to buy stuff they really don't need like a Zeiss SF. My financial resources are like a Black Hole unlimited when it comes to binoculars at least.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

No. But I've seen two Wedge-tailed Eagles kill and eat a dingo! :eek!:

They've developed a taste for puddy tat too over the last 200 odd years since White man decided to come and stuff the joint ...... hey! chalk one up for the natives :t:

Of course you'd see something like that with an EII, but you'd see it a w-h-o-l-e lot better with an SF ..... :smoke:


Chosun :gh:

Ps. Since when did Dennis start writing your material?! ..... I hope you're not paying him too well ........ :scribe:
 
Holger's post at #58 above is the most sense i've heard in a while, and just about sums up what i think.
From 1992 to around 2010, i used an old pair of Viking 8x42 porros, and prized them dearly. They worked (mostly) for almost everything i did. It was only when i became aware of the 'optics yardstick' that i realised they perhaps lacked a little something. I've still got them, and they will never leave, even if now i use a Vanguard Endeavor, as we shared a lot of real good times.....I'm certainly not spending £2000 chasing rainbows.
Paddy
 
That's how the American economy works. HaHa! If everybody was like you it would stagnate.There have to be people with expendable income to buy stuff they really don't need like a Zeiss SF. My financial resources are like a Black Hole unlimited when it comes to binoculars at least.



Dennis,

Holger lives in China where they make the most binoculars in the world. You don't have to tell him how the American economy works. He knows that Americans buy a great portion of those Chinese binoculars. Much more, in fact, than those expensive European ones which you erroneously think control the binocular markets in the west. That is one reason why Zeiss has expanded into China. You don't have to worry about the binocular economy stagnating.
 
Last edited:
Holger's post at #58 above is the most sense i've heard in a while, and just about sums up what i think.
From 1992 to around 2010, i used an old pair of Viking 8x42 porros, and prized them dearly. They worked (mostly) for almost everything i did. It was only when i became aware of the 'optics yardstick' that i realised they perhaps lacked a little something. I've still got them, and they will never leave, even if now i use a Vanguard Endeavor, as we shared a lot of real good times.....I'm certainly not spending £2000 chasing rainbows.
Paddy

You also want to avoid chasing irrelevant or fanciful objective designs or glass types down in the rabbit hole because unless you are very tiny, you won't be able to fit or you will get yourself stuck. (going to keep milking that one for all it's worth ;))

Image-wise, the only advantage the "latest and greatest" uber expensive roofs have over my older Porros such as the Swift 804 MC Audubon or my single coated Nikon 7x35 WF is that the roofs have more advanced FMCs, with higher light transmission, greater contrast and color saturation. If there were an aftermarket company that updated coatings on old Porros for a reasonable price, I'd never even think about buying a roof.

Brock
 
Perhaps this is one key point: People as me, who buy in this price class, are often satisfied with what they got. Then, there are others who always want the "best" (or, sometimes, just the newest and most expensive gadget there is on the market), who continuously change from Leica Trino to Zeiss FL to Swaro SV and now to Zeiss SF.

Cheers,
Holger

Surely this cannot be true.
It seems very unlikely that there is a large group of bino obsessives that flit from alpha to alpha as the new models emerge. The members of this forum are in no way representative of the real world imho.
Rather there is a much larger number of people who are clueless but who need quality optics for some reason, maybe a trip. Some buy whatever the salesman gives them, some just buy the cheapest and some buy the most expensive they can find, because that is 'the best'.
New customers is what drives the market. Most binoculars remain in the cupboard gathering dust subsequent to the occasion of their purchase.
 
Surely this cannot be true.
It seems very unlikely that there is a large group of bino obsessives that flit from alpha to alpha as the new models emerge. The members of this forum are in no way representative of the real world imho.
Rather there is a much larger number of people who are clueless but who need quality optics for some reason, maybe a trip. Some buy whatever the salesman gives them, some just buy the cheapest and some buy the most expensive they can find, because that is 'the best'.
New customers is what drives the market. Most binoculars remain in the cupboard gathering dust subsequent to the occasion of their purchase.

I expect Bill Cook to chime in here to confirm the number of "clueless" customers that buy whatever the salesman hands them. Duck! Here come the "war stories." ;)

If someone dropped in on BF binoculars forum for the first time, I can easily see why he might think that there is a large group of bino obsessives that flit from alpha to alpha as the new models emerge. Certainly seems like that on these forums, but from my experience with local birders and hunters, this behavior is not typical.

Brock
 
Surely this cannot be true.
It seems very unlikely that there is a large group of bino obsessives that flit from alpha to alpha as the new models emerge. The members of this forum are in no way representative of the real world imho.
Rather there is a much larger number of people who are clueless but who need quality optics for some reason, maybe a trip. Some buy whatever the salesman gives them, some just buy the cheapest and some buy the most expensive they can find, because that is 'the best'.
New customers is what drives the market. Most binoculars remain in the cupboard gathering dust subsequent to the occasion of their purchase.

You may be right - I guess it is a topic that must have been analyzed before by the marketing guys of the manufacturers. I would like to know their results. To me it seems almost impossible to believe that a bloody newcomer, with no former experience in this field, steps in and shells out 2000 bucks for something he doesn't understand. But then, what do I know about customer profiles ...

Cheers,
Holger
 
Buying whatever the salesman gives them is short term profit strategy.
Trust is earned.
There is a group of customers who have learned by experience what they (don't) want; others don't have that experience and/or time to educate themselves and go for the best advice from a specialist and for that reason visit a retailer (hopefully he finds a competent one, again trust is earned). This last group is not to be ignored and are the ones who step in en buy >2.000,00 bucks worth on optics. The price is not a issue. Money is only a way to get the right equipment. Fool these people and you've lost them (and their inner circle) for life. Treat them with respect and they stay for life. Again trust is earned.

Jan
 
Last edited:
You may be right - I guess it is a topic that must have been analyzed before by the marketing guys of the manufacturers. I would like to know their results. To me it seems almost impossible to believe that a bloody newcomer, with no former experience in this field, steps in and shells out 2000 bucks for something he doesn't understand. But then, what do I know about customer profiles ...

Cheers,
Holger

Its an interesting question Holger and Jan.

I am guessing much depends on how the newcomer became a birder (or hunter). If most of your friends or just most of the people you see at reserves, are carrying Leicas (20 years ago) or Swarovski (now) or Zeiss (in 3 years time :-O) then if you have the money it would seem to be safe to buy what they have.

Lee
 
Rambling around

Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.
 
Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.

O o, fun police arrived3:)
 
Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.

I so agree with you pesto
 
Jan: Absolutely, we should have fun too, but couldn't we do that via PMs to those (usually few) concerned? Imagine somebody wishing to find some useful info about the EII in this thread---she won't have any fun.....///Peter.
 
Last edited:
It is not about "my thread" or "your thread", as far as I know nobody "owns" a thread on this forum, it's about any thread:
if you have some useful info about the topic of a thread then post it, but if you want to digress (just to have "fun") then I am unsure as to whether you should post----at any rate, this fact seems obvious to me and I have no intention to discuss it any further.
Peter.
 
It is not about "my thread" or "your thread", as far as I know nobody "owns" a thread on this forum, it's about any thread:
if you have some useful info about the topic of a thread then post it, but if you want to digress (just to have "fun") then I am unsure as to whether you should post----at any rate, this fact seems obvious to me and I have no intention to discuss it any further.
Peter.

Peter,

Everybody is entiteld to an opinion:t:

Jan
 
Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.

I hope I never sit around a campfire and try to have a conversation with you.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top