Choosing top-of-the-range scope (1 Viewer)

Sven W · Feb 11, 2004

Nikons photografic products are selling well here and have good reputation. They are also selling binoculars but thats a much larger market with all the hunters and sailors.

My guess is that the scope market is to small with birders as the primary buyers. I did a little math on it. If 10000 birders replace thier scope every five years and and Kowa, Leica, Swarowski and Zeiss takes 95% of the orders, it leaves only 100 units per year for the others to fight about.

Leif · Feb 11, 2004

scampo said:
Goodness knows what Nikon is doing in Sweden with its distribution and marketing - is it the same with their photography products, which most everywhere else are surely the leading choice of pros, especially in the press?

Take a look at the colour of lenses when you see big groups of photographers: most are Canon white and not Nikon black (though you can sometimes get Nikon white). I believe that Canon dominate the consumer market in terms of sales.

Canon are dominant in many areas, due in part to a technological lead over Nikon and others (think DO, IS, USM, 1Ds, etc) and in part because they go out of their way to look after pros at major events in particular.

What puzzles me is why Nikon binoculars are relatively cheap in the US, compared with German/Austrian marques, but here they are priced level with German/Austrian marques. It must be a policy of Nikon UK to make more profit here, or maybe lower sales volumes force higher prices?

dogfish · Feb 11, 2004

iporali said:
Optically Zeiss is sometimes ranked at the very top (eg. Alula), but sometimes surprisinly low - whereas Swaro is always at 1. or 2. end quote]

Alula ranked the 85mm Diascope top out of several top-end scopes before they tested the new Swarovski 80mm. When they tested the new Swarovski 80mm, they concluded that it 'rose to the level' of the Diascope. I think it was a draw.

trealawboy · Feb 11, 2004

iporali said:
I second Sven's opinion about the price. After a few years, even small shortcomings may become increasingly disturbing whereas the price difference is quite soon meaningless. I wonder however, why Nikons are so unpopular in Sweden - especially because to my knowledge Scandinavian Nikons are shipped from Nikon Svenska! Smaller ED-Fieldscopes (not that 78mm) are quite popular here - and without doubt optically excellent.

But being a thread under "Digiscoping"-subject I would emphasize this aspect when choosing the scope. My biggest problem with digiscoping is very narrow usable field-of-view. Zeiss and Swarovski (and Leica) give you slightly wider view than Nikon, and this is often very useful.

Optically Zeiss is sometimes ranked at the very top (eg. Alula), but sometimes surprisinly low - whereas Swaro is always at 1. or 2. Based on earlier discussions I am a little afraid that Zeiss (being a more complex superachromat objective) may be more prone to individual variation than Swaro.

Ilkka

I'm inclined to go along with the view that for high end optical equipment, price is a secondary consideration. If you've made a decision to buy one of the top 'scopes, then you've made a committment to spend a considerable sum of money.

You must therefore, I reckon, satisfy yourself that you have the best availabe to suit your own needs and taste. If I concluded that the Swarovski 'scope was better than the Nikon, then I know I would have to have the Swarovski, despite the extra expenditure. I would be prepared to wait and save some money for the 'scope of choice than settle for something I knew that was second-best.

By the way, I haven't a view on which is best. I've looked through both Nikon and Swarovski 'scopes and both are outstanding. I reckon I'd need to spend about an hour with both 'scopes side by side to determine which best suited my needs. The Nikon has quite high gearing as I recall, but this would be something that would be adapted to in regualr use.

I also compare Nikon HG DCH 8x32 and Swarovski EL 8x32 bins on the weekend. Optically there is almost no noticable difference, though they handle quite differently in the hand. Its a question of personal taste.

I do have a pair of Nikon HG DCF 8x20 bins which it must be said are truly supurb and beat, in my view, the Zeiss Victory compacts optically.

pduxon · Feb 11, 2004

trealawboy said:
I also compare Nikon HG DCH 8x32 and Swarovski EL 8x32 bins on the weekend. Optically there is almost no noticable difference, though they handle quite differently in the hand. Its a question of personal taste.

and if you still can't choose buy the Nikon's and save £300!!

Art Thorn · Feb 11, 2004

And then, for the discerning few, there is the TeleVue 85! Just thought I'd throw that in to get the debate going into an elipse instead of the usual cirlce. Put a 9mm Nagler eyepiece on it and get 67 power with a true field of 1.2+ degrees (82 degree apparent field) and the brightest, sharpest view of the lot. Ask the Norwegians (http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/pdf/testtele.pdf) or the American Cornell Lab of Ornithology (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/programs/AllAboutBirds/GearGuide/Scopes/ScopeReview2002.html). So it weighs a few pounds more and isn't waterproof... We are talking about the best view here aren't we?

Ragna · Feb 11, 2004

Swarovski and Leica optics seem to be a similar price anywhere in the world were as Nikon and Zeiss would appear to be far cheaper in the U.S.A. Dont forget Nikon tried to fleece the British birder when they came out with the 8x42 and 10x42 HGs(£1400).After almost no sales they dropped the price to almost half.Swarovski prices for their scope may be higher than others but they should retain a good secondhand value

scampo · Feb 11, 2004

Hi Graham

They did - but my word, do you remember the reviews it got at the time. Wow.

And... odd what you say but only Leica seem to be playing an equal price game. Swaro is way cheaper in the States according to another thread (I think the writer quoted a dealer called B&H??).

Grousemore · Feb 11, 2004

scampo said:
Hi Graham

They did - but my word, do you remember the reviews it got at the time. Wow.

And... odd what you say but only Leica seem to be playing an equal price game. Swaro is way cheaper in the States according to another thread (I think the writer quoted a dealer called B&H??).

Hi Steve,in fact Leica are significantly cheaper in the USA as well,partly because of the favourable exchange rate presently.
The ultravids in particular seem to offer better deals than the Swaro models at the moment.

ps. can't make out the other half of the new Avatar?

scampo · Feb 11, 2004

No - I'll have to change it again. It's the Moody Blues' "On the Threshold of a Dream" album cover.

I'm pretty sure that the Leica Apo 77 was the same as in the UK on the other thread. The Zeiss 85T* was also a similar price.

Ragna · Feb 11, 2004

Steve .Have often looked with envy at the price of optics on the B&H website.E-mailed them once to find out how much postage and insurance plus any taxes for Nikon 8x42HGs but when i worked it all out not a lot of diference to over here with vat etc.But the swaro's seem the same price as over here.Tried a pair of 8x42 HG's the other day spent about an hour compairing them with the new ultravids the Nikon were fractionally sharper to my eyes, extremely well made,BUT after an hour of playing decided they were to heavy and got the Leica's.If Nikon were to bring out binoculars that were lighter but the same optics and build quality they would sell ashed loads.

Leif · Feb 11, 2004

Ragna said:
If Nikon were to bring out binoculars that were lighter but the same optics and build quality they would sell ashed loads.

My thoughts precisely. According to one review, they (8x42 HG) are heavy because the frame is designed to withstand a drop onto a hard surface from a good height. (So it's not the glass elements that weigh a tonne.) Very nice optics though, despite my reservations about a bit of CA, and a very nice texture and shape to the armour.

scampo · Feb 11, 2004

You're right, Graham - and I suppose they might have a new model in the wings as the HGs are now older than others. They are no lightweights but I do find I can hold them very easily and comfortably. Leif does see some CA, but I can't replicate that at all with a friend's but I'm going to have another good go soon - in fact my Swaros can produce CA if I try hard.

I haven't looked at the Ultravids yet (I ought to keep well away - having just taken my first "digiscoped shots" this afternoon, I can't see my beloved looking too happily on me buying a new digital camera (my Fuji's front lens element is just too big not to cause serious vignetting).

The Swaro's take some beating as far as bins go for me as I have large hands and I can wrap my fingers all the way round the barrels. I wouldn't change from my Optolyth Alpins for years because I found roof prisms hard to get used to.

Edward woodwood · Feb 11, 2004

I've never understood the problem of a few extra grams on a pretty light pair of bins anyway (HGs), when birders carry monstrous scopes and heavy tripods. Seems back to front to me.

Ragna · Feb 11, 2004

Steve just checked B&H prices approx Ultravids 8x42 £750 Swarovski 8.5x42 £820 Nikon ventura 8x42 £500.The Leica's are cheaper over in America but the Swaro's are more expensive,The Nikon's they are giving away best price i have found over here is £725.Almost worth flying out to get a pair.

scampo · Feb 12, 2004

Tim Allwood said:
I've never understood the problem of a few extra grams on a pretty light pair of bins anyway (HGs), when birders carry monstrous scopes and heavy tripods. Seems back to front to me.

Tim - you're not expecting logic, are you??

(-:

I agree with you 100% - but the 8x30s are quite a bit different from the 8x42s in weight. They're all very "holdable" though.

scampo · Feb 12, 2004

Ragna said:
Steve just checked B&H prices approx Ultravids 8x42 £750 Swarovski 8.5x42 £820 Nikon ventura 8x42 £500.The Leica's are cheaper over in America but the Swaro's are more expensive,The Nikon's they are giving away best price i have found over here is £725.Almost worth flying out to get a pair.

Now thats' a good idea, Graham - buy them in Florida and a tour of the Everglades could put them to good use, too! I'm not sure but you might be collared for 17.5% VAT + duty on your return, won't you?

dogfish · Feb 12, 2004

Tim Allwood said:
I've never understood the problem of a few extra grams on a pretty light pair of bins anyway (HGs), when birders carry monstrous scopes and heavy tripods. Seems back to front to me.

Not really. Binoculars are around my neck all of the time when I'm in the field but I'm only actually carrying my scope and tripod for a minority of the time. Agree that the 8.32 HGs are light enough not to worry though. Anything up to 800g doesn't bother me.

Jay Turberville · Feb 12, 2004

The problem with the notion of buying the optically best scope - in the context of digiscoping - is that very few objective tests actually exist. Most digiscoped images are shown at 1/4th of the images original resolution and have been worked over in an image processing program. Things like chromatic aberration artifacts are routinely removed by people interested in showing nice photos.

Most scope reviews are highly subjective and entirely based on visual observation - not digiscoped images. This leaves the buyer wondering how much sharper a photo digscoped with a 1 or 2 ranked scope will be when compared to a scope ranked 4 or 5. Was the lower ranking due to a color cast that is of virtually no consequence in a photo? Was there some other factor that has little to do with final photo quality?

Furthermore, what makes a good viewing scope and what makes a good digiscoping scope aren't necessarily the same. I much prefer a straight scope for digiscoping, but would rather view through an angled scope. Its hard to dislike very long eye-relief for digiscoping. But some people prefer shorter eye reliefs for visual observation. Other ergonomic issues might factor in as well.

So in the end, its very much a balancing act between how often the scope will be used visually and how often it will be used for digiscoping. And then there is always the "value" issue. Even when purchasing a top end optic, one still should ask the question of whether the fine points that distinguish two very close contenders really are worth any significant extra cost. They may very justify the additional expense. But if the money is dear, then this must certainly be weighed.

scampo · Feb 12, 2004

A fine, balanced analysis and explanation, Jay - what complicates matters further is the idiosyncratic ways in which we choose items that are very expensive - and what influences come to bear on the decision making process.

I was speaking to someone today whose friend amazingly changed his new (month-old) Leica 77mm TeleApovid for a new Swaro 80 the day after he looked through the latter.

I suggested this was plain daft as I have looked through these scopes alongside my Nikon ED82 and the differences just are not objectively sufficient to choose one above the others. Needless to say I was rebuffed. A kind of madness borne of our affluence, I suppose.

Choosing top-of-the-range scope (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Senior Member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread