I had a Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 B GA T* (but no phase coating) from 1986 to 2003 and thoroughly enjoyed using it. Can't say it ever occured to me that I was the victim of a conspiracy for not having been offered a free upgrade to phase-coated prisms. Should owners of uncoated binos have been offered coated optics when anti-reflection coatings were invented? And what about B, high eye relief eyepieces for spectacle wearers? Both of these could be considered 'serious defects'.
Applying this principal to other products would have seen auto manufacturers offering electronic ignition and fuel injection systems to owners of older models to solve the serious defect of low gas mileage.
I think this is an unrealistic expectation in most cases but not all, for example when human safety is involved.
Lee
Fully agree with you, Lee. Apart from safety concerns, it would actually be detrimental to the manufacturers' interests. They would hardly get customers to replace their outdated models. So why be inventive, then. In the end, we benefit from efforts to improve products.
I have a Leitz Trinovid 10x40B that used to be my prime binocular model for quite some time. When I bought it, I had done thorough comparing with the corresponding Zeiss. At the time (around 1974) they were pretty much equal, except that the Zeiss irritated me a bit with a kind of rollerball effect. Nobody seemed to have known anything about the roof models' main deficiency, I guess except for the manufacturers who kept quiet. I had only wondered why my wife's porro 8x40 that was in a much cheaper price class offered such a much clearer view.
It was not until 1996 that I finally replaced the old Leitz Trinovid. That Leitz model has now been relegated to an attic window. Better to have that model there than no binoculars at all. But I'll probably try to sell it in the future.
Last edited: