Overall Best Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Steve C · Mar 12, 2009

Jeff,

First off thanks for taking the time for the response. I never deem informed opinion as suspect. Twenty years ago, when you were buying your first alpha, there was absolutely no question in my mind either that the alpha class binocular was the way to go. At that point they had no competition. There was the 8.5x44 porro you spoke of and, it, as you pointed out was not particularly trustworthy when the weather was wet. If I were in your position 20 years ago and I was using a binocular as a tool in earning my keep, I'd have sold my soul for a new phase corrected Trinovid. Had I had to do that then, we would not be in this conversation now. So there were a few times between 1988 and 1996 or so, when I had to go binocular shopping that I just looked wishfully at Leica and Zeiss binoculars.

When I started looking at the then new phase corrected mid price binoculars that were coming out at that time, I was pretty amazed at what I saw in terms of price. I could see the difference between the Pentax WP and the Trinovid, but to me it was not worth 2x more money. That price differential has gone to 4-5x now.

Trust me on this one, that when I finally got my hands on the Promaster Infinity Elite ELX ED an the then the ZEN ED, don't think for a minute I did not view them initially with a pretty suspicious mindset. I always have thought there is no such thing as a free lunch and that was, and is constantly in the back of my mind when I posted about these new binoculars.

But, I have always thought there is a price beyond which is unreasonable, and that is for anything, not just optics. Add the fact that I currently use three binoculars pretty regularly; 7x36, 8x43, and 10x42, the price burden really becomes something I won't consider. I'm surely not the only person who feels that way, otherwise there would not be so much interest in lesser price optics, and you guys would be selling more that you are. I find it interesting that the alpha response seems to be keep raising the price level. As far as I'm concerned every time you guys jack up the price, you step further away from potential buyers.

So, I grant, again, that there has to be something there that accounts for the enormous price disparity. You have likely detailed what it is pretty well, and I have no counter to this other than to point out there is a nearly $1,800 price difference between full retail for a ZEN ED and an Ultravid in the 42mm class. It comes down to what is worth what and to who. To date, I do not find myself unable to see what others can, and I'm 61. What I see far more often is people who think they can substitute superior optics for bad binocular technique and poor observational skills.

So, I'd like to see some objective tests of these two disparate classes of binoculars and see what the differences might be. Just what does it take to cause failure. They test rifle scopes, why not torture tests for binoculars too.

I'd love to work for an alpha optics company too, so color me a bit envious. That's really the only way I'd get to give one a try. You do raise a very valid point about the need for extended and diverse trial conditions, and I would think a year is not too small a time frame for a decent trial. So unless Leica will front me a binocular for a year, I have to stick with what I've got. Total cost of ownership is a noble principal, but it does not reduce the purchase burden. I'll also admit that that purchase barrier is probably some what psychological as well.

ronh · Mar 12, 2009

Over in the astronomy world, most people conceded some time back that the Kunming series 8 Porros were "very close" to the top Fujinons, for about half the price. The 8s are rugged, and their centerfield views are excellent. However, the latest Fujinons are lighter, have better coatings, and better corrected field edges. The 10x50 FMT-SX is likely the best corrected widefield binocular made. It is clear there what you are paying the extra x2 for.

Not so, we are told, the roofs. You are paying 5x-7x more for nothing! Remember Fiats, man they would run like hell.

I learned in astronomy that I didn't like learning things the hard way. Imperfect collimation, adjustments that didn't stay put, too much or too little eye relief, temperature dependent focusing, I had been there. But I wanted a roofer. This was before the Chinese look alike ED revolution. Roof prices were a bit scary, however, and I wanted to save money by buying used, so reputation was the only "warranty". That's the situation where it makes sense to go for an older alpha. The Trinovid BA that I landed on just seems to get better and better if anything. It's hard for me to get excited, at least excited enough to do anything, about the prospect of either better, or cheaper, optics.

I've been through the learning curve with the BA, and come to terms with it's somewhat dim, cool viewed, wicked sharp brickiness. It's not quite as precious as the crown jewels, so I use it all the time, and it gets knocked, dirty, and wet. I know it's not the greatest, but the views make me happy, it's easy and fun to use, and I would take it to war.

Considering both quality and price, I nominate for the best all round the used previous-generation alpha.
Ron

falcondude · Mar 12, 2009

ronh said:
Considering both quality and price, I nominate for the best all round the used previous-generation alpha.
Ron

I am not sure if I agree with you on this. But I sort of like this idea as an owner of not too old alpha.

payj · Mar 12, 2009

I for one don't really follow any of this. Just want I nice set of bin's and have about 1000 to spend maybe 1500 if a wait a little. Anyways my question about zeiss was never answered in 80+ posts lol.

rjwims · Mar 13, 2009

payj said:
I for one don't really follow any of this. Just want I nice set of bin's and have about 1000 to spend maybe 1500 if a wait a little. Anyways my question about zeiss was never answered in 80+ posts lol.

I think that with all the hoopla over recently released chinese bins, that unfortunatley your questions got lost in the mix.

You might try starting over with a new post asking your Zeiss question, or maybe choose 1 set from each of the Big 3 alphas and ask for comparisons.

In your first post you asked for good optic and construction quality, which would probably lead you to the Big 3 manufacturers. especially if you are looking to keep them for quite a while or as an investment of sorts.

Also, there is a lot of info on this site about bins in your price range ($1000 to $1500) .

Good luck

Richard

Jim M. · Mar 13, 2009

payj said:
I for one don't really follow any of this. Just want I nice set of bin's and have about 1000 to spend maybe 1500 if a wait a little. Anyways my question about zeiss was never answered in 80+ posts lol.

Here's a link to a site with a number of non-technical reviews of optics, including high-end and midrange binoculars: http://www.birdwatching.com/optics.html It does not rank the Chinese binoculars discussed here, but I think it has a lot of good information, and is a good place to start. (And there is no sign of a decline in Zeiss quality from their rankings--Zeiss actually comes out #1 in their high end survey). Also check out their "binoculars advisor" link on that page. Though of course the posters here will not agree with what this site says any more than they do with each other!

But of course, nothing actually beats just trying binoculars out yourself. Yours is really the only opinion that matters.

Hope this helps,
Jim

denco@comcast.n · Mar 13, 2009

Jeff Bouton said:
Steve,

I would like to add a bit to some of your commentary, and posibly even refute a bit as well. Unlike you, I AM working for an alpha company and therefore will be immediately suspect, however I came to the company not by way of sales experience or for any professional training in optics, but as a professional birder for nearly 20 years prior. If you would indulge me I want to recant some personal experiences that led me to buy my first Alpha binoc again nearly 20 years ago.

At the time I was working as a seasonal field research biologist bouncing from position to position on average of every 3 months. A labor of love paying "small stipends" and typically providing a roof of sorts over my head. My annual salary at this point was at or below $10,000 US, so if anyone couldn't afford an alpha binoc (representing >10% of my annual salary) it was me. However, I still found this a necessity/priority for the following reasons.

Durability/ build quality - In my first years of working as a seasonal biologist (sitting outside for days on end watching birds!) I purchased the best quality bins I thought I could afford. These were a well touted porro that had a great reputation and ran between $250-300. Fresh out of the box these were excellent and like many, I could see little difference between these and the Alphas when I borrowed a pair for a few minutes in bright sunlight. However, after a couple years of intensive use after suffering a couple failures with internal fogging and similar, the colors I enjoyed fresh out of the box were no longer there. I looked into getting these repaired but costs were almost as much as a new pair. I bought a second pair a bit after 2 years and once again (when brand new) the image was wonderful. Unfortunately, as I used these the image degraded all over again. When I purchased my first pair of "alphas" premium glass after 4 years of this, I used them without fail or notable degradation for the next 15 years in the harshest of conditions!

So here I expand a bit on your own assertion that build quality makes a difference, and suggest that if you buy 3 or 4 "bargain bins" in the lifetime of one of the "alpha"/premium brands then perhaps this isn't as much as a bargain as you thought (or perhaps the "expensive" premium product is not SOO expensive after all). Plus if the image quality deteriorates rapidly on some lesser quality bins, then you are also working through poor views and probably inducing eye strain to boot.

Regarding the issue that most will not be able to note differences, here I have to heartily disagree! I think many convince themselves of this when quickly comparing brand new products at an optics shop or show (I know I did for years ;p ). However, these comparisons are often done quickly. Also, at the shows I typically work, it seems people invariably it's mid day and people want to take these outside or peer out the windows. In bright sunlight average differences between optics at all levels are less noticeable.

I remember my first conscious notation of the power of the premium bin. I was standing shoulder to shoulder with a buddy who had just made the jump and we were staring at a Northern Saw-whet Owl roosting against the trunk of a thick Blue Spruce in a dense grove of conifers. Through my decent porros, I noted a shadowed ovate shape brown and white markings with little contrast. My buddy next to me with his brand new optics that he'd paid 4x more for than me with mine, was yammering on about the colors, and how amazing the feathers were noting it looked as though it had "long eyelashes". My bins were 8.5x his 7x yet I could not see the detail he did. I knew I'd regret it in my wallet but I asked to see.... It was incredible!... as though someone had put a sunlight spot light on the bird .I was seeing amazing color contrast and details just not visible in my bins. I applied for credit and got myself a pair a week later.

Additionally, you can see the same effect at ANY twitch anywhere in the world. Invariably, someone will set up a bargain scope and not be able to make out details be it true colors, or to resolve details on a rare bird then move to a high-end/premium scope set to the same power and be able to see all of this. It happens all the time. So here I say that absolutely there will be times when a bargain optic will not be able to resolve the detail necessary to make a positive ID and the premium optic will! Especially in low light or with distant birds (again at close range in full sunlight this will be less apparent).

Of course, as I said upfront I have a vested interest and my opinions will be suspect... my company stands to gain if more people buy premium optics! However, I will challenge comments like this and ask that before anyone makes these you do the following:

1) take note of which optics are still in use after 10 years or so. I would also welcome all to compare a 3-4 year old "bargain binoc" to a similarly used premium optic and see if the differences are still not easily apparent.

2) Give a premium optic a REAL test not for just moments but try to take advantage of a situation where you can actually borrow a pair for a full day of field birding. Compare your overall experience to include eye comfort, and eye fatigue.

I'd suggest that very few individuals wouldn't find the difference extreme after going BACK to their bargain binocs! ;p I know similarly when I received my sample of our new scope with the revolutionary wide angle zoom eyepiece. I could tell there was superior resolution immediately and appreciated the wide angle view, but it wasn't until I'd used it for a week and went back to it's predecessor (an EXCELLENT scope) that I was absolutely floored by how acutely aware I was of the narrower field of view.... Similarly, I carried a 6.5 pound tripod/head combination for almost 17 years without any problem. Recently I switched to a 3 pound tripod & head combo. After carrying it for a year I accidently picked up someone else's scope with the same old tripod I'd carried everywhere for years. It was FUNNY, I felt as though I were trying to curl bricks. I'd grown so accustomed to the new, improved lighter weight that this old setup was painful!

At any rate, that's my sermon for now. Whatever your pricepoint, I think it VERY safe to say that in most cases you get what you pay for in optics though and to get maximum enjoyment out of your time afield get the BEST quality optics you can. If you're eye doctor shows you are seeing 20/20 (beit corrected or naturally) and others around you are making out details or true colors on birds you can't see well, perhaps you should consider that there is a difference in the optics you choose.

Good birding all,

Jeff Bouton
Leica Sport Optics, USA

Your experiences have little relevance to this thread. An older unsealed non-waterproof porro-prism develops fogging problems so you should buy alpha binoculars because of their higher quality does not make sense any more. The new Zen-Ray 8x43 ED is far from your first porro-prism. This is a binocular that is Argon sealed and is totally as fogproof and waterproof as the top alphas. It's build quality from my observations after having many different alphas is 99% as good as any alpha and I really don't feel it is going to fall apart in a year. Furthermore the optics are 99% as good as the very top Alphas costing five times as much and after comparing it side by side with my older alphas including my Leica 7x42 BN's and my Nikon 8x32 L-XL's it is easily way superior! I sold my Leica 7x42 BN's and my Nikon 8x32 L-XL's after observing with the Zen Ray for a week. I did not want to go BACK to the optics on the Leica or the Nikon. The Zen Ray is that superior. I observed under different lighting situations and in different situations and every time I much preferred the image of the Zen Ray. I am a very experienced observer. I know what I am seeing. Leica, Zeiss and Nikon should be very scared because if you are looking for value and if you don't have to have a big name hanging around your neck and you don't care about status but you care more what the view looks like when you look through the binoculars then you have some serious competition. When I started this thread I too did not believe these Chinese ED binoculars could ever come close to the big name binocular manufacturers. Well my experiences have been educational for me. The view through these Zen Rays is absolutely wonderful and the price performance ratio is astounding. Build quality, ergonomics, and balance are all very close to the alphas. They need some improvements especially in their accessories that is true but that is easy to do and you can rectify that your self for a small investment. Top quality optics are now available to the people who can't or don't want to spend $2000.00 and I think that is fantastic.

Dennis

denco@comcast.n · Mar 13, 2009

ronh said:
Over in the astronomy world, most people conceded some time back that the Kunming series 8 Porros were "very close" to the top Fujinons, for about half the price. The 8s are rugged, and their centerfield views are excellent. However, the latest Fujinons are lighter, have better coatings, and better corrected field edges. The 10x50 FMT-SX is likely the best corrected widefield binocular made. It is clear there what you are paying the extra x2 for.

Not so, we are told, the roofs. You are paying 5x-7x more for nothing! Remember Fiats, man they would run like hell.

I learned in astronomy that I didn't like learning things the hard way. Imperfect collimation, adjustments that didn't stay put, too much or too little eye relief, temperature dependent focusing, I had been there. But I wanted a roofer. This was before the Chinese look alike ED revolution. Roof prices were a bit scary, however, and I wanted to save money by buying used, so reputation was the only "warranty". That's the situation where it makes sense to go for an older alpha. The Trinovid BA that I landed on just seems to get better and better if anything. It's hard for me to get excited, at least excited enough to do anything, about the prospect of either better, or cheaper, optics.

I've been through the learning curve with the BA, and come to terms with it's somewhat dim, cool viewed, wicked sharp brickiness. It's not quite as precious as the crown jewels, so I use it all the time, and it gets knocked, dirty, and wet. I know it's not the greatest, but the views make me happy, it's easy and fun to use, and I would take it to war.

Considering both quality and price, I nominate for the best all round the used previous-generation alpha.
Ron

Try these Chinese ED's.You will be like me and won't want to go back to your older alphas. You get the view of a new ED alpha for less money than you could sell your old alphas for. These new ED binoculars are like HD TV(New Technology) and your older alphas are like regular TV(Old Technology).The value of your older Leica BA's are going to go down now to because it will be like old technology once people figure out they can get better optics for way less money. You might want to sell them before that happens. Technology is going to constantly improve in binoculars. Newer coatings, better prism designs, and probably electronics will come into play with image intensifiers and such improving the image that comes through your lenses. This kind of stuff is already showing up in telescopes. One of the members here mentioned why isn't there a contrast control on binoculars in a humorous way. That kind of control of the image is coming and will make the binoculars we now have obsolete.

Dennis

lucznik · Mar 13, 2009

I haven't spent a lot of time on Birdforum for awhile. It's nice and sad all at the same time to see that some things don't change.

The experience of a 20+ yr professional has "little relevance," but the observations of a hobbyist who is known to have changed personal binocular preferences about as quickly as most people change their socks and who has loudly, forcibly, and repeatedly declared that whichever binocular was the then-current favorite was "made by God" and to "trust me, you'll never go back" is to be simply accepted without challenge? Really?

Come on Dennis. Not everyone is going to agree with you. That doesn't make them wrong nor does it invalidate their opinions or reduce them to having "little relevance."

Personally, I'm not too intrigued by this new crop of Chinese binoculars. I'm sure they look great, but I'm not so quick to bite. If Zen Ray, Promaster, Hawke, and whoever else is still around in a couple of years, maybe I'll give them some consideration. Maybe.

I remember not too long ago there was a fair amount of hubbub on the net about the Carson XM binoculars. They were supposed to be the ultimate in low-cost, high-performance options that would scare the Alpha companies into changing their ways. Then they disappeared. Poof! No one talks about them anymore.

I remember when Vortex came out with their Razors. They too were supposed to be the ultimate insult to Alpha-optic snobbery. "Absolute Alpha level quality at mid-range prices." They are still around and they are even still considered by many to be of very high quality. But the enthusiasm for them has definitely waned.

The market is a funny thing. Just like with cars, it's usually not a very good idea to buy the first examples of new models just coming off the drawing board and onto the show room floors. They may look great, but they almost invariably end up having some nagging bugs to be ironed out or worse yet, simply failing and disappearing...

lucznik · Mar 13, 2009

payj said:
I for one don't really follow any of this. Just want I nice set of bin's and have about 1000 to spend maybe 1500 if a wait a little. Anyways my question about zeiss was never answered in 80+ posts lol.

I would suggest you avoid the extremes of so-called binocular advancement and invest your money in brands and models that have proven themselves, their quality (both optical and build), their actual, proven, long-term warranty coverage and customer service, etc. over the course of time. Some such options in the sub $1000 budget category might include:

Bushnell Elites
Leupold Golden Rings
Meopta Meostars
Zeiss Conquests
Pentax DCF SPs or EDs
Nikon Premier LXLs

and to a (somewhat) lesser extent, the Vortex Razors.

Let the people who really don't care if they lose out on their investment (because in a year at most they will be buying something else anyway) play with this new crop of Chinese binoculars. They can field-test them and if they are actually as worthy as they appear at first glance, you can get a pair as a backup or a replacement later.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 13, 2009

lucznik said:
I haven't spent a lot of time on Birdforum for awhile. It's nice and sad all at the same time to see that some things don't change.

The experience of a 20+ yr professional has "little relevance," but the observations of a hobbyist who is known to have changed personal binocular preferences about as quickly as most people change their socks and who has loudly, forcibly, and repeatedly declared that whichever binocular was the then-current favorite was "made by God" and to "trust me, you'll never go back" is to be simply accepted without challenge? Really?

Come on Dennis. Not everyone is going to agree with you. That doesn't make them wrong nor does it invalidate their opinions or reduce them to having "little relevance."

Personally, I'm not too intrigued by this new crop of Chinese binoculars. I'm sure they look great, but I'm not so quick to bite. If Zen Ray, Promaster, Hawke, and whoever else is still around in a couple of years, maybe I'll give them some consideration. Maybe.

I remember not too long ago there was a fair amount of hubbub on the net about the Carson XM binoculars. They were supposed to be the ultimate in low-cost, high-performance options that would scare the Alpha companies into changing their ways. Then they disappeared. Poof! No one talks about them anymore.

I remember when Vortex came out with their Razors. They too were supposed to be the ultimate insult to Alpha-optic snobbery. "Absolute Alpha level quality at mid-range prices." They are still around and they are even still considered by many to be of very high quality. But the enthusiasm for them has definitely waned.

The market is a funny thing. Just like with cars, it's usually not a very good idea to buy the first examples of new models just coming off the drawing board and onto the show room floors. They may look great, but they almost invariably end up having some nagging bugs to be ironed out or worse yet, simply failing and disappearing...

Try the new Zen Rays 8x43 HD's. I think you will change your mind. By the way I have been involved with amateur astronomy and optics for at least twenty years and I think my observational experience is on par with the gentleman who made that post. I am not doubting his experience but his argument using an older porro-prism design as not being durable as a logical reason to spend $2k on an alpha binocular does not make sense. I change optics when I feel something offers a better view than what I have and especially represents a better value. Can you criticize me for that. I am an innovator and I am usually the first one to try new technology even if it can be risky as you say.

Here is another review on Zen Ray 8x43 HD's from another forum. The fellow says the Zen Rays were as good as anything he tried except the new Nikon EDG's:

" went to a demo put on by Zen-Ray a few months back and had the chance to view the new for 2009 ZEN ED. It was put on by their rep who is a real nice fellow. Anyway, it was the local Audobon store and they were nice enough to bring out any binocs we wanted to compare. We had side by side to compare, Leupolds, Leica's, Zeiss, Swaro and a number of Vortex, Pentax and a few others I can't recall. The Zen was pretty darn good compared to any of those, maybe the only ones for my eyes anyway that may have been better was the Nikon Edg - those are something else. It was a good rainy Oregon day that day so you could really see how clear/bright the Zens were - I like them much better than my Pentax DCF SP's. I will get a pair as soon as I have a little extra $$$$. "

Dennis

denco@comcast.n · Mar 13, 2009

lucznik said:
I would suggest you avoid the extremes of so-called binocular advancement and invest your money in brands and models that have proven themselves, their quality (both optical and build), their actual, proven, long-term warranty coverage and customer service, etc. over the course of time. Some such options in the sub $1000 budget category might include:

Bushnell Elites
Leupold Golden Rings
Meopta Meostars
Zeiss Conquests
Pentax DCF SPs or EDs
Nikon Premier LXLs

and to a (somewhat) lesser extent, the Vortex Razors.

Let the people who really don't care if they lose out on their investment (because in a year at most they will be buying something else anyway) play with this new crop of Chinese binoculars. They can field-test them and if they are actually as worthy as they appear at first glance, you can get a pair as a backup or a replacement later.

Yes. Stay with the old proven designs. Don't try any new technology.I have heard that before. Be content with mediocre optics and pay twice as much for them because they have been around for twenty years and have proven themselves in the marketplace. I definitely don't feel I have lost on my investment with these new Zen Rays. I guess I am an innovator with new ideas and technology. By the way if you want a pair of Nikon 8x32 L-XL their is a pair on E-bay. They are mine.

Dennis

Kevin Conville · Mar 13, 2009

Without getting personal, I have never been susceptible to hard sell

I am skeptical of evangelical types, and question what appears to be a driving need for validation. I suspect I may not be alone. Keep pushing if you must but I'll tell you it's counter productive.

At this point, for me, the merits of Zen Rays are irrelevant. I want nothing to do with them.

I'm thinking there must be an Aesop parable that fits...

On another note, how 'bout those Mets?!

denco@comcast.n · Mar 13, 2009

Kevin Conville said:
Without getting personal, I have never been susceptible to hard sell

I am skeptical of evangelical types, and question what appears to be a driving need for validation. I suspect I may not be alone. Keep pushing if you must but I'll tell you it's counter productive.

At this point, for me, the merits of Zen Rays are irrelevant. I want nothing to do with them.

Too bad Kevin you are missing out on a good optics bargain. I find it hard to not be enthusiastic about Zen Rays. I don't think I am giving them the "Hard Sell" but I feel I must defend them against their critics. I find the philosophy of staying with the old tried and true immensely boring and counterproductive to advacements in technology. Never thought of myself as an evangelical type but I guess If that's promoting what you believe to be true then it is evangelism of sorts. Sorry, but I will defend what I believe to be true and I don't think I am pushing you into buying Zen Rays rather I am pointing out their good points and bad points. I am not really trying to sell them to you I am just reporting my observations with the binoculars. I don't have any connection with the company nor do I own any shares of their stock. I am surprised that you have mistaken my enthusiasm as a kind of forced opinion. Take the information from this thread and try the binoculars and then make your own decision as to if you like them or not.

Dennis

Veracocha · Mar 13, 2009

It seems many would advocate waiting to see if these Chinese binoculars prove their worth before parting with your money or trading in your Alpha's. Nobody seemes to have given a timeframe for doing so.

It will be interesting to see if the Alpha manufacturers do the same or willl they try to match the offerings whilst bringing costs down? Surely their strategy won't be wait and see. Could it be they might actually use the technology & the skills thats available at a fraction of their current costs?

Tero · Mar 13, 2009

Bushnell Elites
Leupold Golden Rings
Meopta Meostars
Zeiss Conquests
Pentax DCF SPs or EDs
Nikon Premier LXLs

and to a (somewhat) lesser extent, the Vortex Razors.

Good list. The Pentax SP are as good as the Conquests, to me anyway. The Conquests had some oddity in the optics I could not put my finger on. So the Pentax ED would definitely beat the Conquests. If 8x30, Conquest may be a contender still.

I have virtually identical spec wise Pentax SP 10x42 and Promaster 10x42. I still use both, if that means anything to anyone out there.

Well, the Promaster has a tiny bit wider field. Sharpness at center is the same.

lucznik · Mar 13, 2009

[email protected] said:
I have been involved with amateur astronomy and optics for at least twenty years and I think my observational experience is on par with the gentleman who made that post.

I don't necessarily disagree with this at all. But, you are the one who tried to suggest that his expererience (as a 20+ yr professional) was of "little relevance" simply because it did not coincide with yours. Surely we have to give a professional credit for at least as much relevance as we allow for an amateur.

[email protected] said:
I am not doubting his experience

But you are. You specifically said that his experiences have "little relevance."

[email protected] said:
I change optics when I feel something offers a better view than what I have... Can you criticize me for that[?] I am an innovator and I am usually the first one to try new technology even if it can be risky as you say.

Actually, I truly do not fault you for this at all. It is a perfectly acceptable way to do things. It just may not be the best example for those who are just getting into optics and/or who have a more inflexible budget and who perhaps don't have the same tolerance for risk, spending, and loss that you do.

Think about this for a minute - in the last few years you have loudly proclaimed the absolute and total superiority of at least 6 different binoculars. Starting with the 10x42 Zeiss FL, then I think it was the Leica 8x32, followed by the Nikon LXL (also in 8x32) and finally a 7x42 Leica trinovid. At some point in there you actually, literally BEGGED people not to buy porro prism binoculars as they represented "old technology" only to later buy and then herald the superiority of the very old Nikon SE. Today it is the Zen-Ray. Within a year, it WILL be something different (and not necessarily something "new").

Is it "wrong" to go through binoculars so quickly? Absolutely not! If it makes you happy, then go for it. I know lots of people, some even who post regularly on this board, that also go through binoculars as fast as they are introduced. Some of them even more quickly than you. The problem lies in the fact that, throughout this progression (and regression) from binocular to binocular, you have continuously made such unyielding proclamations as:
"Get the best, forget the rest"
"Take my word for it, you'll never go back"
"[X-binocular] literally blows everything else away. There's no comparison"
"Once you try 7x, you'll never go back to 8x, trust me."
"[X-binocular] was made by GOD!"

At the same time you have dismissed as irrelevant anyone who didn't agree with your then-current assessment.

If a person did "take [your] word for it" and actually followed your advise they would either have ended up spending much more money than they had ever intended to or they would have had to settle for some worthless peice of junk, perhaps that Victory FL, that is "absolutely blown away" by all these other models - all but one of which (the new Zen-Ray) were in production at the same time you started posting about the Zeiss' supposed total superiority.

lucznik · Mar 13, 2009

[email protected] said:
Yes. Stay with the old proven designs. Don't try any new technology.I have heard that before. Be content with mediocre optics and pay twice as much for them because they have been around for twenty years and have proven themselves in the marketplace.

Your Leica Trinovids, you know, the 7x ones that were "made by God," were "old technology" when you discovered them. That didn't stop you from heralding them as "the best."

The Nikon SE, which you also have proclaimed as being "made by God" is a binocular that, not so long ago, you literally BEGGED people not to try because they represented "old technology."

Doesn't this create a bit of a contradiction?

My favorite thread in this vein came from October 2005 between you and Robert Ellis. RedBishop had intimated that he might buy a Nikon SE to which we were treated to the following:

[email protected] said:
Please oh please don't get an outdated Nikon SE. Watch E-bay. An 8x42 Zeiss FL just went for about $850.00. Stretch your budget a little and you have got the best.

Dennis

Robert Ellis said:
The SE is still optically superior to anything. If you like it and it works with your face there is nothing that can top it as far as bang for your buck.

[email protected] said:
Where do you come up with the idea that the Nikon SE is optically superior to anything. That's the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard of. Both Better View Desired and Aluva have ranked roof prisms over the SE. I think you are reading some old tests or you haven't looked through a new Zeiss FL. I had SE Nikon's and they were noway superior to some of the modern roof prisms. Don't spread your biased opinions to unexperienced or unknowing people. Cmon give me a break!

Dennis

bcl05 · Mar 13, 2009

I think we all need to step back and relax a bit. Being overly dogmatic is ugly and not productive. There are lots of great binoculars out there, at multiple price points. Also, different eyes see things differently, and what may be fabulous to one observer may be only okay to another equally qualified person.

I got the Zen-Rays. They are great for me, and make me happy to bird with them. More than that, I'd hesitate to say.

I would add, that if cost is a major issue, then they deserve consideration. For me, I didn't even look at the "Alphas" because they were simply more money than I was able or willing to spend at once. Comparing the ZRs to many other excellent binoculars at the <$1k price level, I didn't see enough difference to justify the extra cost. Maybe another set of eyes would. Another person might put more value in the longer track record in other companies. If they made a different decision than me, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

So for the OP, asking what is the "best binocular" is to me, like asking what is the best restaurant, band, or painting. It is meaningless, and only prone to stimulate overheated discussion and hard feelings. Try a bunch, and go with your gut feeling about what seems to fit you best.

rjwims · Mar 13, 2009

Hi Lucznik

While I see where you are coming from, I doubt that anyone can change Dennis's mind TODAY.

Arguments on both sides have gotten somewhat old. (and I say this with massive amounts of sarcasm.) B

As Henry has stated, the most relevant technical information seems to have come from Ron (Surveyor), but I still find his assessment somewhat inconclusive, for a few reasons, including the fact that he did not have a late production model of a Zen Ray.

Perhaps one of the experts would be so kind as to do a thorough technical review of the Zens and at least end the debate from an optics perspective.

After all, with a 30 day money back trial period, a $10 out of pocket fee to try the Zens doesn't seem all that steep a price to find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The alpha pundits could then throw out a lot of facts related to areas where the Zens fall short (if they do optically) and by how much.

Not that any of this would change Dennis's opinion at the moment, but it could help others make a decision based on technical facts.

Lastly, what if we all eventualy find out that the Zens do hold a candle to some alphas, but we find this out AFTER they are either no longer available or at a much higher price?

How would anyone bashing them feel about how their contribution or lack thereof affected this community?

Note: I do have a horse in this race, in that I bought the same Zens that Dennis owns, and I would be willing to send them to any respected tester on this forum, if that would help end the debate.

JMO

Richard

Overall Best Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Certified newbie

Member since 2007

Well-known member

Well-known member

Inspector Gadget

Inspector Gadget

Well-known member

Well-known member

yardbirder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Retired

Inspector Gadget

Inspector Gadget

Well-known member

Certified newbie

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread