Steve C
Well-known member
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.
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.
Last edited: