Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

New Ultravids coming

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Wednesday 8th August 2007, 22:54   #26
308CAL
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: not up north
Posts: 315
matt sent you a pm
308CAL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 06:44   #27
Patriot222
Registered User
 
Patriot222's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 159
[quote=Grandad Too;963048]Is it HD glass, which does not say anything about the glass type or is it Fluorite, which is CaF2 (which would be too expensive), Is it ED glass, which has similar properties to FL glass, but does not contain fluorine ions.

Um, why would FL (CaF2) be too expensive for Leica to use in a binocular? Ziess is doing it and selling them just fine.
Patriot222 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 08:19   #28
Grandad Too
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot222 View Post
Um, why would FL (CaF2) be too expensive for Leica to use in a binocular? Ziess is doing it and selling them just fine.
CaF2 is pure crystal fluorite, I have seen this lens made for semi conductor business and it costs, thousands of Euros and if used as the outside lens would degrade in moisture. The glass used in the FL's is FluorIDE, glass containing fluorine ions. There are other posts on Bird Forum, where the glass abbreviations have been explained (HD, ED, FL (Flouride), CaF2 (Fluorite).

Grandad Too (retired optical engineer).

Last edited by Grandad Too : Thursday 9th August 2007 at 14:52.
Grandad Too is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 12:29   #29
Paul Godolphin
Member

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Traynor View Post
Paul, your conclusion that "they're no good" because Leica omitted a 5 cent washer is simply ridiculous. John
That's not fair, John
I agree that ALL Ultravids are silky smooth when they come from the shop, or else we wouldn't buy them, would we? But there's been post-after-post here on Birdforum for the last four years where owners have found that they go 'juddery' in the months AFTER purchase, and stay that way. Some pairs like yours, don't. Lucky you.
But Leica themselves admit that the binoculars are supplied with a leaning towards this fault, and their service departments routinely fit a Teflon washer to the focus machanism to cure the fault. This is well documented in four years of owner's Birdforum postings.
My own pair cannot be focussed sharply because they vibration from the sticky focus wheel fault blurs the image, so that I can't tell if I've arrived at the correct focus point until I stop moving the knob. That's the fault the Leica KNOW ABOUT and yet are happy to continue putting out in the shops for us to buy. How can we trust them after this?
If you say you've been lucky and got a smooth pair then I'm happy for you. But I'm not knocking you because you're lucky. There's plenty of users out here that continue to suffer, and it's our duty to make this situation known.
This is not a personal attack on your own pair of binoculars, and you don't need to defend yourself. I wish I had yours too. Wanna swap? Bet you don't! (and I won't call you ridiculous for saying 'no'!)
all the best Paul
Paul Godolphin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 15:50   #30
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin View Post
That's not fair, John
I agree that ALL Ultravids are silky smooth when they come from the shop, or else we wouldn't buy them, would we? But there's been post-after-post here on Birdforum for the last four years where owners have found that they go 'juddery' in the months AFTER purchase, and stay that way. Some pairs like yours, don't. Lucky you.
But Leica themselves admit that the binoculars are supplied with a leaning towards this fault, and their service departments routinely fit a Teflon washer to the focus machanism to cure the fault. This is well documented in four years of owner's Birdforum postings.
My own pair cannot be focussed sharply because they vibration from the sticky focus wheel fault blurs the image, so that I can't tell if I've arrived at the correct focus point until I stop moving the knob. That's the fault the Leica KNOW ABOUT and yet are happy to continue putting out in the shops for us to buy. How can we trust them after this?
If you say you've been lucky and got a smooth pair then I'm happy for you. But I'm not knocking you because you're lucky. There's plenty of users out here that continue to suffer, and it's our duty to make this situation known.
This is not a personal attack on your own pair of binoculars, and you don't need to defend yourself. I wish I had yours too. Wanna swap? Bet you don't! (and I won't call you ridiculous for saying 'no'!)
all the best Paul
Paul,

I know exactly what youre talking about and I sympathize with your inability to reach sharp focus. Im sure Leica will correct the problem, if you give them the opportunity. Please keep us updated.

John
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 19:54   #31
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,396
I do not believe for a minute that Leica admitted to a design fault. What they have done is try to accommodate people like yourself who have a problem adapting to the design. Given that they make this accommodation, therefore, it's quite fair to point out that you've not taken advantage of it. Some might even say it's ridiculous that you haven't. I'm one of those.
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 20:58   #32
Patriot222
Registered User
 
Patriot222's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandad Too View Post
CaF2 is pure crystal fluorite, I have seen this lens made for semi conductor business and it costs, thousands of Euros and if used as the outside lens would degrade in moisture. The glass used in the FL's is FluorIDE, glass containing fluorine ions. There are other posts on Bird Forum, where the glass abbreviations have been explained (HD, ED, FL (Flouride), CaF2 (Fluorite).

Grandad Too (retired optical engineer).
Oh, ok. I understand now. The Zeiss FL is not CaF2, it's FL or (Fluoride)

Thank you for the good info.

So your original question about what kind of glass the new Leicas will have was rhetorical with regards to whether it was CaF2 (Fluorite) glass?

Does this mean that we can assume that the new Leica will be either ED or FL glass?

Thanks

Last edited by Patriot222 : Thursday 9th August 2007 at 21:01.
Patriot222 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2007, 23:20   #33
Swissboy
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 3,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt green View Post
Tried a few ultravids since they first came out and never handled a dudd yet, last one was an absolute gem .....Matt
I have handled a few too, and I found every variation from silky smooth to so ratchety that a precise focus was not possible (kind of what Paul describes for his sample). I am not sure whether they come in this variation as they leave the factory, but all the ones I tried were new ones in stores. Though some may have been used more than others for demo purposes.
I should add that this whole discussion excludes the compacts which are of a different design, I would think. At least, I have not seen any there that were not silky smooth. And my own 10x25 Ultravids are still as smooth as they were when I bought them.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2007, 00:34   #34
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,396
I actually owned two 10x42 BLs and found their focus mechanisms to be excellent. They were returned because of eyecup issues and the fact that the leather covered tubes hurt my delicate paws. I've also examined at least a dozen BRs over various counter tops, the most recent being the outstanding 8x32. I would have bought it but for the 8x32 LX L that showed up at less than half the price. At one of those countertops another fellow and I were trading floor samples. He felt the focus mechanism was rough, and I thought the very same ones were sweet. Yes, there is a tactile sensation but that's a far cry from declaring that it compromises focusing accuracy. It might, it might not. There are a lot of factors to consider with focusing accuracy.

The comparison with the LX L is worth mention, since Nikon and Leica took diametrically opposite approaches. The LX L has virtually no stiction, whereas the BR has quite a bit. If you're used to the BR, the LX will seem like a runaway. However, once adapted to it they are exquisite. Couldn't say I prefer one design to the other, though.

Vive le difference !
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2007, 00:56   #35
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,338
ED and FL (and SD, HD, UD, XD, etc.) are are not glass types. They are marketing terms that seem to be designed to imply high quality without actually telling us anything.

Since Schott is part of Zeiss, "FL' is probably one of the fluor-crowns (FK56, FK54 or FK51) from the Schott catalogue. Leica could buy one of those from Schott or they could choose to buy glass with similar characterisics from Ohara (FPL53 or FPL51) or others. The performance of the final product will depend just as much on the matching glass types in the objective and we haven't got the slightest idea what they are. In the end we'll just have to look through the things.

FWIW, FPL53 glass has optical characteristics so similar to CaF2 that it has largely replaced genuine Fluorite in astronomical APO's. FK56 is also very similar to CaF2, but I don't think it's used very widely in consumer optics.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 13:21   #36
Paul Godolphin
Member

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I do not believe for a minute that Leica admitted to a design fault. What they have done is try to accommodate people like yourself who have a problem adapting to the design. Given that they make this accommodation, therefore, it's quite fair to point out that you've not taken advantage of it. Some might even say it's ridiculous that you haven't. I'm one of those.
Elkcub, mate we've agreed and disagreed on various discussions before, and I've got the greatest of respect for your well-reasoned and logical points of view. But you can't be serious over this, surely? These Ultravids are sold in working order, and go faulty within a few months of sale. and yes, their service department HAVE confimed to me that this is an acknowledged fault, for which they offer a standard fix. This is not "accommodating people like myself", it's repairing a built-in fault that thay KNOW exists, and they continue to sell the binoculars in the faulty condition. Surely, that is cynical profiteering, to sell a known faulty product, and pocket the profits, without re-investing in the permanent re-design of the item for the benefit of the user? (cf. the Lockheed Starfighter aircraft. Same situation. Known as the "Widow Maker", this plane had known handling deficiencies, but continued to be sold to unsuspecting consumers in other countries long after it's shortcomings were revealed).
Yes, I can confirm that Leica DID admit to a design fault to me. Fact. Do you think I've posted this information for fun? I'm simply passing-on the facts, straight from the 'horse's mouth' for the benefit of potential buyers. If I'd had the opportunity to see the postings on Birdforum BEFORE I bought them, then I would have been saved getting a duff pair of bins. How can you possibly say that's ridiculous?
Yeh, you're right. It's my fault. I can't adapt to the design. I also can't adapt to the design of my faulty bicycle, which arrived in the box with it's handlebars missing so I can't steer it and keep falling off. Rotten old me, eh? What an unreasonable customer I must be. Faulty Leica bins like dozens of other Birdforum posters, and it's MY fault??? NOW who's being ridiculous?
Paul
Paul Godolphin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 13:24   #37
PYRTLE
Registered User
 
PYRTLE's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 2,368
Oops - it was all going so well and I did agree with Paul a ccouple of days ago!
PYRTLE is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 13:42   #38
Paul Godolphin
Member

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PYRTLE View Post
Oops - it was all going so well and I did agree with Paul a ccouple of days ago!
Hi Pyrtle

Well, thanks for agreeing with me a couple of days ago, it's most appreciated. I guess from this posting that you don't any more? I'd also guess that you've seen the strength of my reply to the last writer, and this has changed your mind? I'm sorry about that. I'm very aware that my very direct way of offering my findings tends to alienate people. I apologise if that's what's happened. But I tend to focus very closely on the matter in hand, and forget that others might take offence. Hope I haven't added you to the list.
But the whole reason for this is that these binoculars are duff. Many postings before me since 2003 said the same. I can't understand why guys just have to argue and call blokes liars when they state the facts. Blimey, I've got 1000 worth of facts wasting in my cupboard at home. If the fella says he doesn't beleive me, then surely he deserves a 'broadside'? I'm not a liar, and I wasn't looking for an arguement.
all the best
Paul
Paul Godolphin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 14:43   #39
PYRTLE
Registered User
 
PYRTLE's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 2,368
PM on its way to you.......still agree with you, haven't changed my mind either
PYRTLE is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 15:05   #40
hinnark
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin View Post
That's not fair, John
I agree that ALL Ultravids are silky smooth when they come from the shop, or else we wouldn't buy them, would we? But there's been post-after-post here on Birdforum for the last four years where owners have found that they go 'juddery' in the months AFTER purchase, Paul

Maybe I missed something, but I never read about cases like this, besides yours. There were Ultravids with focus problems at the beginning of the Ultravid production but these problems have been fixed long ago. A sample of those jerky focus issue Ultravids could be identified from the beginning. Either it has slip stick from the beginning or not.

Paul, your trip to the Pacific Islands seems to be pretty boring since you spend so much time at the internet. Didnt know that you can go online there at any place.

Steve
hinnark is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 19:23   #41
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,396
Paul,

Thank you for the kind comment. I do try to be logical, so if you've seen that quality it's very pleasing.

If you go back to my post you'll see that 'ridiculous' was addressed, specifically, to not sending your Ultravids back for accommodation, correction, or repair; call it what you will. It seems that you'd rather have them sit in a closet as a poster child for what you believe is bad design, a cover up, or international corporate fraud. That's what I've made of it, so if you would address that observation it might seem more logical. As John said, if you do send them back we'd be most interested to know what happens.

Blue skies,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 11th August 2007 at 05:36.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2007, 20:24   #42
Curtis Croulet
Registered User
 
Curtis Croulet's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Temecula, California
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin View Post
(cf. the Lockheed Starfighter aircraft. Same situation. Known as the "Widow Maker", this plane had known handling deficiencies, but continued to be sold to unsuspecting consumers in other countries long after it's shortcomings were revealed).
The F-104's flight characteristics were known from the mid-1950s (first flight in 1954). Its shortcomings were intrinsic with the overall design of the aircraft. I doubt that foreign customers, which included the Federal Republic of Germany (the Germans know a thing or two about aircraft design), were "unsuspecting." They simply accepted that a high degree of pilot training and vigilance were necessary.
Curtis Croulet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2007, 22:43   #43
Swissboy
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 3,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Croulet View Post
The F-104's flight characteristics were known from the mid-1950s (first flight in 1954). Its shortcomings were intrinsic with the overall design of the aircraft. I doubt that foreign customers, which included the Federal Republic of Germany (the Germans know a thing or two about aircraft design), were "unsuspecting." They simply accepted that a high degree of pilot training and vigilance were necessary.
I guess it was some higher ranks who accepted that. But the fighter was also dubbed the widow-maker. If I remember correctly, they lost more than 50 of those aircraft. So it seems that they were not very successful implementing that increased vigilance. The Italians seem to have fared better with their same basic model. I wonder why.

OK, we are digressing. But the comparison is not fully valid, as the pilots hardly had a chance to select another aircraft. Unlike us who have a fair choice of excellent binoculars.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 01:15   #44
truecolors
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: no cal
Posts: 9
Will the new 8x42 ultravids be as good as the golden rings as the pair of ultravids that i looked at today had a real bad sticky focus that appeared to be messed up or dry / or needing lubed.

thanks and this place has alot of good info
truecolors is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 01:30   #45
Curtis Croulet
Registered User
 
Curtis Croulet's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Temecula, California
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swissboy View Post
I guess it was some higher ranks who accepted that. But the fighter was also dubbed the widow-maker. If I remember correctly, they lost more than 50 of those aircraft. So it seems that they were not very successful implementing that increased vigilance. The Italians seem to have fared better with their same basic model. I wonder why.
This relates to the binocular topic, because some people here seem to have this idea that only greed or incompetence has prevented this aircraft or certain brands of binoculars from being built to meet some peoples' expectations, and that people (and governments) buy these things only because they've been duped. It's this attitude that I find annoying.

The one time I tried an Ultravid, I didn't like the focus. "Notchy" was a good term for it. I played with the binocular for half an hour, trying to convince myself that it was really OK. But I just couldn't accept it. However, many people actually like it, and it gets great reviews, and Leica almost surely gets stacks of letters from ordinary birders and big-time ornithologists telling them how wonderful this binocular is. Maybe they'll change the focus in their next-generation binocular, but I can't see that they'd bother now. Some people, believe it or not, don't consider the notchy focus to be a "fault." The knowledge that it'll work in both Antarctica and Death Valley without modification seems to be sufficient reason to put up it.

As for the five-cent teflon washer to "fix" the Leica's focus: I have to say that I can't argue the point I'm about to make. If someone here makes expensive products for a living, then I'd like to read their opinion. But I read in another forum, about another type of product, that a seemingly trivial change can snowball downstream, resulting in greatly increased costs, and even increased price to the consumer. Oh, yes, now I remember: it was a comment from a famous designer and manufacturer of high-end astronomical telescopes. Anyway, that was his explanation as to why small annoyances never get "fixed." For Leica, most people are happy. Those who aren't can have the washer installed at a repair station.
Curtis Croulet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 04:11   #46
F7A
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: KMSP
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by truecolors View Post
Will the new 8x42 ultravids be as good as the golden rings as the pair of ultravids that i looked at today had a real bad sticky focus that appeared to be messed up or dry / or needing lubed.

thanks and this place has alot of good info
Is this a fake post?
F7A is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 06:07   #47
Paul Godolphin
Member

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Paul, Thank you for the kind comment. I do try to be logical, so if you've seen that quality it's very pleasing......if you would address that observation it might seem more logical. As John said, if you do send them back we'd be most interested to know what happens. Blue skies,
Ed
Yes of course, Ed. You're right that I appear to be making a pointless complaint, if I haven't made any effort to send them back for repair, and I agree with you that it may appear that way.
I should explain that the problem worsened over the time when I was packing to leave, and had no time to get them sorted (and fully field-tested over an extended period) before setting-out on my year-long world trip. Too much risk!
However, I promise to post the result of the repair when I go back to the UK in 2009.
But I do have to say again that my complaint is not that I can't get it fixed, it's that I bought them in the first place. I very very much wish that I'd been a Birdforum subscriber earlier, and then I'd have known in advance that no matter how good the Ultravids feel in the shop, they are likely to go stiff LATER. I sincerely want today's readers to know that, because I wish I'd had the opportunity. As my Dad used to say...." If I stuck my hand in the fire, would you?..." And of course, the answer is no! I'm just pointing out that this product contains a potential risk, and that if they wish to own these otherwise EXCELLENT binoculars, then they will first have to be prepared to accept the fault, should their own pair be one of the unlucky ones. I sincerely believe that Leica should have corrected it by now, when they admit full knowledge of it.
Thanks again for dis-agreeing with me in such a polite and patient manner. It's a pleasure discussing it with you.
all the best Paul (back in New Zealand again)

PS: Hinnark....the trip isn't boring, but it's certainly an isolating and although beautiful, a sometimes lonely experience. You guys on birdforum are great company wether we agree or not, and we all value similar things. It's worth going a long way to a dial-up to read what you're all doing while I pick up my emails! Thanks for coming along.

Last edited by Paul Godolphin : Saturday 11th August 2007 at 11:05.
Paul Godolphin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 06:19   #48
truecolors
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: no cal
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by F7A View Post
Is this a fake post?
no it's not a fake post. I was at a chain store and was looking to upgrade
my gold rings but after going outside with the leica's ultravid 8x42 brand new out of the box and comparing them I and the sales person both agreed that the focus was goofy and the veiw was equal as in too close to call,both pairs there at the same time same place..the color on both were both real rich and pure as in WYSIWYG I will agree that the ultravids felt better and lighter but the view did not justify 1200 dollars more espicially for the bad focus problem. Maybe both manufactures could share their talents and create a real awsome pair of bins.
thanks
truecolors is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 19:43   #49
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin View Post
...
However, I promise to post the result of the repair when I go back to the UK in 2009.
You're on, mate !

Blue skies,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 11th August 2007 at 19:46.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 11th August 2007, 21:58   #50
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,553
Much of what we read on BF is nothing more than Post-Purchase Rationalization. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-pu...ationalization

I'll add the Not-Worthy Rationalization to the mix, which says "It's too expensive for my budget, so it can't possibly be worth it."

Finally, the 95/25 rationalization proclaims "Buy this model and get 95% of the big gun's performance for 25% of the cost."

John
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone using 10x25 Ultravids? Sancho Leica 37 Monday 18th December 2006 22:48
Leather Ultravids Swissboy Leica 14 Tuesday 11th October 2005 22:15
Ultravids on the way hotroach Leica 8 Thursday 25th August 2005 15:07
ultravids - odd question postcardcv Leica 17 Monday 15th August 2005 12:27
Anyone using the 10x50 Ultravids? Marley Leica 6 Friday 20th May 2005 02:42

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.28957510 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:09.