Temmie,
I won't argue your point to a degree. Field flatteners aren't new though. It is just that one of the "big three" decided to put it in one of their flagship models and market it.
I guess the question we should be asking is "What is the benefit to a field flattener element?" This may seem like an obvious answer to some. The field is flat..ie, no field curvature. Does this automatically mean that the image is sharp all the way to the edge? From what I have seen of the SE, Swarovision and Meopta then my answer would be yes. Objects are in focus out to practically the very edge of the field of view.
I think the question you are trying to pose is whether or not having a sharp image at the edge of the field of view is essential for regular usage. Essential? No, probably not but I think one could argue that it is a nice "luxury" addition to the rest of the optical performance of the binocular. From personal experience I would say that it does provide a more natural, and relaxed image (temporarily ignoring the rolling ball issue with some models).
Is this going to be the next "hot thing" that all of the manufacturers are going to strive for? Possibly as we not only are now seeing it advertised in the Alpha European brands but also in two of the Chinese models (Hawke Panorama and Zen Ray Prime HD). Could it turn out the same way that ED glass has over the last four or five years with manufacturers offering models with this feature at almost every price point?
Possibly. I don't know how much it actually adds to the cost of manufacturing. If it is something that could be relatively easily implemented then why not start marketing it at various price points? Yes, it will most likely start with the high end products but then after a couple of years I would not doubt that you would see it in the $300-$400 offerings. Five years down the road it might even trickle down to a price point under that. Sure, manufacturers could then limit other aspects of optical performance on some of the less expensive models so as to not hurt their higher end sales. Maybe restrict the field of view while still allowing for a sharp image at the edges.
Lots to speculate on but, of course, that is all this is.
Interesting proposition, Frank. There certainly has been a "Trickle Down Effect" in binoculars, with features such as phase coatings, silver coatings, dielectric coatings, open bridge designs, ED glass, twist up eyecups, etc. going from the top of the pops to the entry level over the past decade.
But I wonder how difficult it is to make field flatteners properly? And how much cost would it add?
I would imagine that the ED glass in the Bushnell Legend Ultra is of lower quality than that used by the Top Three and in the Nikon EDG. But it's still surprising to find ED glass in a roof for $279.
Back when some porros had ED glass, the difference btwn the ED version and non-ED version was at least $100. Cheap Chinese labor has lowered the costs of materials.
The ED glass has to be matched to the other optical elements, so you can just slap on any generic lens.
Similarly, field flatteners would have to be matched to the other optical elements in the compound lens. So one size could not fit all. But with so many clones on the market with the same or fairly close specs, they might fit more than one brand, which would lower costs.
However, the overarching question that Temme brings up is that even if it can be done, do buyers want it?
Do most hunters want field flatteners in their camo Monarchs and are they willing to pay extra ca$h for the upgrade?
Do most birders want field flatteners in their Bushnell Legend Ultra EDs? Would they be willing to pay more than $279 for the upgraded version?
The question is always what the market can bear (especially in a "bear market"
? At the alpha level, Lord knows, anything goes, but if the "trickle down" is too expensive at the lower price points, buyers might balk.
I've always been a fan of bins with sharp edges, and many of Nikon's Japanese-made binoculars have VG edges w/out employing field flatteners. For example, the 8.8* 8x EII, 7* 8x36 Sporter I, 8.2* 8x35 Action WF, and 9.3* 7x35 Action WF porros.
Given the inherent issues in creating the right balance with distortion to avoid "rolling ball" (which both the SE and EDG manage to avoid despite their field flatteners), I think it would be preferable if optics companies just made better configured optics with sharper edges like the Japanese Nikons rather than adding field flatteners, which buyers might or might not like and might or might not be willing to pay extra for.
Brock