Brand Bias and Loyalties (1 Viewer)

When I first read this post, by a very reputable, trusted, and objective outdoor writer, I found myself agreeing with it. We all have brand loyalties and biases with most any product.....but optics nuts are, just, nuts!

FWIW:

"Yes, human eyes vary considerably, and there are even some general trends. On average women are more sensitive to the blue side of the spectrum, and men more sensitive to the red. The pupils of older people don't normally open as widely in dim light, which means a "full-sized" exit pupil of 7mm or so doesn't make as much difference to them as quality glass and coatings.

But our brains also play tricks on us. Several studies have down that price affects not just our judgment, but can actually make the part of the brain perceiving anything respond favorably. One study I came across was of a wine tasting. A bunch of bottles of wine without any label other than price were tasted by a bunch of people, some "sophisticated" wine drinkers and some not. The people were told they were rating new wines as an aid to wineries.

The price labels were phony. Some $5 wines had $30 labels, and some $40 wines had $8 labels, and so on. Overall, the more "expensive" wines were given higher marks, and it didn't matter if the taster was a wine sophisticate or not. That's not surprising, but the people were also hooked up to sensors that recorded responses in various parts of their brains. When most people responded favorably to a cheap wine, it wasn't just price prejudice. The part of their brain involving "taste pleasure" also lit up.

One of the tests I ran about a dozen years ago was covering the name of two brands of roof-prism binoculars of the same magnification and objective-lens diameter with duct tape. One was a high-dollar Big Three Euro, and one was a Japanese binocular costing half as much--though it was the "affordable" favorite of the year. They also resembled each other physically enough that most people wouldn't know the difference.

I don't recall the exact results, but out of about 20 people slightly more picked the Japanese binocular over the Euro, and a few called it a draw. There weren't any price tags on the binoculars, so I think the results were valid.

But binoculars also vary from year to year. Those same two binoculars would be considered very good today, but not top of the line. Some people keep chasing the flavor of the moment, but one thing I've noticed is that while individual eyes vary in optical preferences, skill in glassing varies even more. "

Doesnt surprise me at all. And did you post that little test on the net, because i think I remember reading one about a Zen and maybe a Swaro or Leica.

jgraider said:

When I first read this post, by a very reputable, trusted, and objective outdoor writer, I found myself agreeing with it. We all have brand loyalties and biases with most any product.....but optics nuts are, just, nuts!

FWIW:

"Yes, human eyes vary considerably, and there are even some general trends. On average women are more sensitive to the blue side of the spectrum, and men more sensitive to the red. The pupils of older people don't normally open as widely in dim light, which means a "full-sized" exit pupil of 7mm or so doesn't make as much difference to them as quality glass and coatings.

But our brains also play tricks on us. Several studies have down that price affects not just our judgment, but can actually make the part of the brain perceiving anything respond favorably. One study I came across was of a wine tasting. A bunch of bottles of wine without any label other than price were tasted by a bunch of people, some "sophisticated" wine drinkers and some not. The people were told they were rating new wines as an aid to wineries.

The price labels were phony. Some $5 wines had $30 labels, and some $40 wines had $8 labels, and so on. Overall, the more "expensive" wines were given higher marks, and it didn't matter if the taster was a wine sophisticate or not. That's not surprising, but the people were also hooked up to sensors that recorded responses in various parts of their brains. When most people responded favorably to a cheap wine, it wasn't just price prejudice. The part of their brain involving "taste pleasure" also lit up.

One of the tests I ran about a dozen years ago was covering the name of two brands of roof-prism binoculars of the same magnification and objective-lens diameter with duct tape. One was a high-dollar Big Three Euro, and one was a Japanese binocular costing half as much--though it was the "affordable" favorite of the year. They also resembled each other physically enough that most people wouldn't know the difference.

I don't recall the exact results, but out of about 20 people slightly more picked the Japanese binocular over the Euro, and a few called it a draw. There weren't any price tags on the binoculars, so I think the results were valid.

But binoculars also vary from year to year. Those same two binoculars would be considered very good today, but not top of the line. Some people keep chasing the flavor of the moment, but one thing I've noticed is that while individual eyes vary in optical preferences, skill in glassing varies even more. "

Click to expand...

I am a bino “nut.” My loyalty, however, resides with the truth. Not the Zeiss truth, nor the newcomer truth; just the plain old—separated from $$$ and snob appeal—truth.

My birding glass is an “alpha,” as are several of the 30 binos in my collection in my basement. No, the collection was not intentional. Most of them came by way of doing repairs and collimation work for others.

Some people get near blows with all that “VS” BS. It’s sad, really, when you consider some are made by the same hands in the same plant, and differ only in cosmetics, price, and advertising hype.

My first telescope was a 3-inch Gilbert in a paper tube. With it I saw tiny images of Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, and the Moon.

Then, I got “educated” in optics. After that, I saw chromatic aberration, coma, astigmatism, curvature of field, and distortion. My telescopes grew in number and quality (I even published a rag called Amateur Telescope Making Journal for 10 years) but my enjoyment of the hobby did not progress as well.

Some folks just like to spend their time discussing things they can’t do anything about—except buy a new bino—and dealing with anomalies that are often well below their threshold of recognition.

You mentioned that 20 people found the Asian binos to be just as good as . . .

Below is part of the gospel I have been preaching for years:

14 "I WANT A GOOD OLE AMERICAN BINOCULAR . . . NONE OF THAT CHEAP ASIAN STUFF FOR ME."

The Fallacy: American made binoculars are far superior to those made in Asia.

The Fact: There hasn’t been a line of consumer binoculars made in the United States for decades.

No one would like to see so many American industries returned to American soil. However, if you’re eager to buy an American binocular, I’m afraid I must be the bearer of bad news. You’re not going to find a consumer line of U.S. binoculars to choose from; there hasn’t been one for many years. There are some specialized military models, but the names most people associate with American “manufacturers” are actually importers.

Without going into all those names, thus stirring the vat of denial, let it suffice to say David Bushnell—the father of the post war “American” binocular business—was not an optician, optical technician, or engineer. He was just a fellow who graduated from USC with a Bachelor of Science degree in Foreign Commerce, and who bought off-the-shelf instruments from the Japanese. His senior tech, a former optical technician at Frankford Arsenal, Al Aikin, designed the “Insta-Focus” mechanism and suggested a limited number of improvements, but the Japanese carried out all the production work. Bushnell was not an innovator of optical gear; he just knew how to sell what was available, and kept his eye on the market.

While it’s true that some consumer binoculars have labels that say, “Made in the USA,” most are simply assembled here from Asian parts. And although some European firms still manufacture most of their own instruments, it’s wrong to think they haven’t learned to profit from Asia’s cheap labor market. Some “European” binoculars are actually manufactured in China or Japan.

This issue kept coming up on a binocular–oriented forum I frequent, until I offered $100 to anyone who could prove me wrong, that there really was a consumer line of binoculars manufactured in the United States.

After three days of reading strong opinions, and receiving photos of women cleaning lenses at a riflescope manufacturing facility, I still had my money and the claims died down . . . temporarily.

Sharing that story with a customer, I was met with, “I know damn well XXXXXX makes binoculars in this country; I just had lunch with their vice¬¬-president last week.”

When this fellow left the showroom, I called the company in question. A master of public relations, their representative said, “I’m certain your customer misunderstood our VP. We do import all our optical products. As a matter of fact, that’s plainly stated at the bottom of each of our web pages.”

But why make a big deal about this bit of minutia? For some it’s not at all minutia.

*******************************
Photo, Illustration, or Comment Photo of Made in USA on Japanese Binocular
*******************************

Is it true Asia produces some of the lowest quality binoculars known to man? Absolutely! Conversely, instruments such as the Nikon Prostar and Superior E, Fujinon FMT-SX (or Polaris), and models by Kowa and others, are instruments on par with the best Europe has to offer.

There’s only so much that can be done to make a quality binocular and, in instruments such as these, it all comes together in products of superior structural strength, with superb image brightness and resolution, even near the edge of the field.

Just a thought,

Bill

I've always preferred using a 7x42 in late twilight conditions and I'm an old guy. Of course most of the 7x42s now available are "Alphas" and have "quality" glass and coatings; but I've also enjoyed using an inexpensive "MC" rather than "FMC" Leupold Cascade BX II 7x42 under those conditions also and it's 6mm exit pupil still makes a difference--to me anyway. I sometimes wonder about "coatings." They are all big secrets with the lens makers.

Bob

Interesting article. I was just telling my good friend today how much I like the look of the Minox BV 42mm based on pics (and video review) online.
The BV is Minox's affordable binocular line (decent reviews btw). I'm one of those kooks who just appreciates
binoculars without regard to cost or brand name. I like what I like and don't concentrate on which brand or model is supposed to be the "best".
Of course I do like good optics, but I place more emphasis on the fit and feel. I could be just as happy with an affordable binocular as I could
with a top tier if there are qualities in the "lesser" bin that I really like and provided the optics are good (sharp in the center is primary).
However, I do have some preferred brands like Leica, Leupold, Minox because they just sort of speak to me for some reason or another.
But there are models from other makers I like as well.

This relates to handbags too for me. I have a couple of high end designer bags.
They are made very well of quality material and I do enjoy them.
However I enjoy equally my relatively inexpensive Lesportsac nylon bag.

jgraider said:

When I first read this post, by a very reputable, trusted, and objective outdoor writer, I found myself agreeing with it. We all have brand loyalties and biases with most any product.....but optics nuts are, just, nuts!

Click to expand...

Hardly needs arguing here of all places. The Binoculars forum is the veritable home of brand loyalities--just read any of the longer threads.

jgraider said:

When I first read this post, by a very reputable, trusted, and objective outdoor writer, I found myself agreeing with it. We all have brand loyalties and biases with most any product.....but optics nuts are, just, nuts!

FWIW:

"Yes, human eyes vary considerably, and there are even some general trends. On average women are more sensitive to the blue side of the spectrum, and men more sensitive to the red. The pupils of older people don't normally open as widely in dim light, which means a "full-sized" exit pupil of 7mm or so doesn't make as much difference to them as quality glass and coatings.

But our brains also play tricks on us. Several studies have down that price affects not just our judgment, but can actually make the part of the brain perceiving anything respond favorably. One study I came across was of a wine tasting. A bunch of bottles of wine without any label other than price were tasted by a bunch of people, some "sophisticated" wine drinkers and some not. The people were told they were rating new wines as an aid to wineries.

The price labels were phony. Some $5 wines had $30 labels, and some $40 wines had $8 labels, and so on. Overall, the more "expensive" wines were given higher marks, and it didn't matter if the taster was a wine sophisticate or not. That's not surprising, but the people were also hooked up to sensors that recorded responses in various parts of their brains. When most people responded favorably to a cheap wine, it wasn't just price prejudice. The part of their brain involving "taste pleasure" also lit up.

One of the tests I ran about a dozen years ago was covering the name of two brands of roof-prism binoculars of the same magnification and objective-lens diameter with duct tape. One was a high-dollar Big Three Euro, and one was a Japanese binocular costing half as much--though it was the "affordable" favorite of the year. They also resembled each other physically enough that most people wouldn't know the difference.

I don't recall the exact results, but out of about 20 people slightly more picked the Japanese binocular over the Euro, and a few called it a draw. There weren't any price tags on the binoculars, so I think the results were valid.

But binoculars also vary from year to year. Those same two binoculars would be considered very good today, but not top of the line. Some people keep chasing the flavor of the moment, but one thing I've noticed is that while individual eyes vary in optical preferences, skill in glassing varies even more. "

Click to expand...

I said mooreorless the same thing the other day on the Swaro Discount thread:

jump down to "The Piaget Effect"

The fact that men are more sensitive to red explains my preference for Nikons, but his reference to women's blue bias makes me question male Zeiss FL owners.

Brock

fugl said:

Hardly needs arguing here of all places. The Binoculars forum is the veritable home of brand localities--just read any of the longer threads.

Click to expand...

Amen, brother!

<B>

brocknroller said:

I said mooreorless the same thing the other day on the Swaro Discount thread:

The fact that men are more sensitive to red explains my preference for Nikons, but his reference to women's blue bias makes me question male Zeiss FL owners.

Brock

Click to expand...

Ha, but saying men are more sensitive to red doesn't mean they like red more than blue, it means they see more red.

From which, one could argue that on average men should think that the Leica view, with it's warm bias, is a bit too red (I do) and, with their 'red-shifted' perception, they should think that Zeiss's FL, with its blue-green bias, is actually nicely colour balanced (I do).

QED.

Lee

jgraider said:

When I first read this post, by a very reputable, trusted, and objective outdoor writer, I found myself agreeing with it. We all have brand loyalties and biases with most any product.....but optics nuts are, just, nuts!

FWIW:

"Yes, human eyes vary considerably, and there are even some general trends. On average women are more sensitive to the blue side of the spectrum, and men more sensitive to the red. The pupils of older people don't normally open as widely in dim light, which means a "full-sized" exit pupil of 7mm or so doesn't make as much difference to them as quality glass and coatings.

But our brains also play tricks on us. Several studies have down that price affects not just our judgment, but can actually make the part of the brain perceiving anything respond favorably...

Click to expand...

So does that mean the 'pleasure' isn't real?

Perhaps you should ask yourself how some of these brands get such a good 'reputation'?

There's an old saying... "buy cheap, buy twice"... that'd be okay with wine though!

Most things in life are based on peoples perception of reality, not reality itself.

I don't know whether this is true or not, but some years ago I was told that the main difference between 'alpha bins' and good quality "lesser" optics was largely a matter of quality control. That is there was much less difference between models within the range a alpha bins than within those of a lower 'rank'. Essentially it was suggested that particularly 'good' sub-alpha bins equalled average alphas, but you had a greater chance of a 'lemon'. Since then I've also been told that the better sub-alphas have got a lot better at quality control ..... Perosnally although I find the difference between the cheaper end and top end bins fairly clear (in suitable conditions), I find it tough to distinguish better £500-600 bins from £1000+ instruments.

sbpbirder said:

So does that mean the 'pleasure' isn't real?

Perhaps you should ask yourself how some of these brands get such a good 'reputation'?

There's an old saying... "buy cheap, buy twice"... that'd be okay with wine though!

Click to expand...

There is a point of diminishing returns though. Is a $2700 binocular that much better than a $1000 binocular? Depending on your needs, is it really any better at all? Is a $2700 binoc tougher than a $1000 model? Does a $2700 binoc bring to light something that a $400 binoc wont when sitting in the back yard looking at birds on the feeder?

At some point the chase for better is feeding ego and little else. Nobody will notice a 2% difference in light trasnmission, but some swear they must have that extra 2%.

I mentioned this before, but in the late 80's I bought a Hart claw hammer. I enjoy wood working, and thought man a handmade claw hammer ought to really have me sinking nails perfectly. I think it was maybe $60 then, when you could buy a Vaughn for $12. But it was a work of art, polished tool steel with a beautiful oiled hickory haft. It was a thing of beauty compared to my red fiberglass handled Plumb or my hickory channel lock hammer. Did it work any better? No, nothing really changed.

Knowing what I know today and looking back what I learned from it was, your brain and your perception may be fooled by taste sensations like the wine above, or by optical sensations like looking through high end optics, but striking tools dont lie, the brain cant fool you when driving nails or chopping wood. The tool doesnt make you skilled, thats on you.

Ultimately there's no right/wrong here...Whether you are a fan of just one brand, prefer only top tier, refuse to spend more than 200 bucks on a bin, like to try out a different binocular each week, own only one bin or twenty...It's a hobby and there's no right or wrong way to enjoy it. IMHO

You only live once, can't take it with you when your gone.
If you can afford, do it enjoy it and don't look back.

Bryce...

perterra said:

I mentioned this before, but in the late 80's I bought a Hart claw hammer. I enjoy wood working, and thought man a handmade claw hammer ought to really have me sinking nails perfectly. I think it was maybe $60 then, when you could buy a Vaughn for $12. But it was a work of art, polished tool steel with a beautiful oiled hickory haft. It was a thing of beauty compared to my red fiberglass handled Plumb or my hickory channel lock hammer. Did it work any better? No, nothing really changed...

Click to expand...

Except you wouldn't have the beauty. :t:

Why does it matter if people spend £2000 or £20 on an artefact? But to deny there's a difference is nonsense. Trying to suggest everyone should be happy with a $12 fiberglass hammer is also denying that some people know how to get the best out of a $60 hammer, perhaps the feel of the wood in their hand allows them to feel the nails better?

Anyway the bottom line is not all binoculars are created equal. Where do you suggest people draw the line at how much to spend or when to ignore a percentage difference as no difference at all?

sbpbirder said:

So does that mean the 'pleasure' isn't real?

Perhaps you should ask yourself how some of these brands get such a good 'reputation'?

There's an old saying... "buy cheap, buy twice"... that'd be okay with wine though!

Click to expand...

If you're asking me, the pleasure is indeed real, but skewed after digesting the make, brand, model. If you could see no brand, make or model, just the product itself, I do believe you wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusion.

As to reputation, I do believe some of it is earned and well deserved, and some of it is nothing more than marketing genius.

I spent another happy and arm aching hour from sunset to the last of twilight last night making another direct practical comparison of a Nikon Monarch X 8.5x45 and a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, the third in the last week.

Different brands, different specs., different bins and for my purposes to use either one or the other for the same practical use. Sure price and perceived value are important to us all, and all for our own reasons. The cost to me for each of these bins was virtually the same.

The Nikon is the slightly taller, yet the Zeiss is over 100g heavier, both carrying identical replacement straps.

The Nikon has the wider two-finger focus wheel, the Zeiss the smoother and faster focus.

The Nikon has the rubbish Nikon eye-piece covers, the Zeiss has the rubbish Zeiss objective covers.

The Nikon has the open style bridge, the Zeiss is single hinged.

The Nikon has the characteristic grippy green rubber, the Zeiss is clad in the trademark smooth black shaft.

Both have three stage twist up eye-cups, those on the Zeiss twist off to enable cleaning of the eyepieces.

Both have a non-lock diopter, the Nikon diopter is wider than that on the Zeiss.

The Nikon offers the much 'lauded' standard field of view, the Zeiss benefits from the wider field.

The Zeiss has the higher transmission ; this can be clearly judged for yourself simply by viewing, with your back to the sun, white clouds in a clear sky. Easy viewing with the Nikon, here the Zeiss is made to make your eyes water.

The view through the Nikon is relaxed and natural, some would describe it as 'warm' and this would in no way be a criticism. The view through the Zeiss is characteristically cold. There is, to my eyes, no discernable difference in sharpness.

In the last half-hour of twilight the Zeiss has only a very slightly brighter image, and it is truely marginal, the Nikon, through benefit of the slightly higher magnificant has a shade higher resolution, it's just fractional. Neither offers any practical advantage over the other.

In the last few minutes of twilight there is no difference whatsoever between them to my eyes and for my purposes.

The Nikon is the everyman's mid-market bin, the Zeiss is the sub-alpha.

Which one is the better for my uses. Neither. Which one is the one to keep at the expense of the other. Neither, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, I'll likely be keeping both.

Would I make this recommendation to you ? Your view is not the same as mine, go figure and work it out for yourself.

. What upsets me is how badly some people treat top-quality binoculars.
I have seen some in such an appalling condition that I'm amazed how anyone could treat them this way.
I presume that the previous owner wanted the best and most expensive binocular but had no idea how to treat it or in fact any other item.

I used to chauffeur my boss in his Rolls-Royce car, in fact with two of his Rolls-Royces.
Unfortunately, because of health issues he had to give them up but he got an older Rolls-Royce in exchange.
Although I was a fast driver, I treated cars well even though I cruised at 120 mph with my boss sleeping in the back. He often lent me the cars or allowed me to take them hundreds of miles to Rolls-Royce to be serviced.
The well-known person who had owned and driven the older Rolls-Royce handed it over to me when I delivered the new Rolls-Royce.
I had in fact worked on some very old Rolls-Royces as a trainee mechanic.
Anyway I had a 100 mile drive to bring back the old Rolls-Royce to my boss.
It had mechanical servo brakes. I didn't need to use the brakes properly until I got back into town. I must admit that I was doing 40 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour limit. I happened to see my boss walking along the street so I braked. Because previous owner had destroyed this car, when you hit the brake pedal nothing happened for about two seconds and then the brakes locked on. The MGB sports car behind me, almost slammed into the back of me.
Another thing I had not realised and was not told about when I collected the old car was that there was a lever which adjusted the suspension between town and open road.
In those days there was no speed limit in Britain. I took a well-known curve at 90 miles an hour and the car tipped over onto two wheels. I've never actually had an accident in any car, and I fought this situation and got the car back onto all four wheels and then took it easy. I could not understand why this happened until I found out that the suspension was on the very soft town setting. If the previous owner had any sense he would have told me this.

Then I had the mind-boggling experience of being the front passenger when the well-known owner took possession of the new Rolls-Royce. We had a 120 mile journey.
He drove up to every roundabout in this virtually new Rolls-Royce at over 100 miles an hour and then slammed on the brakes, which were Servo assisted, but this time hydraulic, triple drum brakes. Smoke poured out of both front wheel arches as he got it down to sufficient speed to take each roundabout. He did this repeatedly.
This well-known owner should never have been allowed to own or drive a Rolls-Royce or even a milk float.
He just did not deserve to own a Rolls-Royce however rich he was.

So some people who own top-quality products just do not deserve them.

Of course, most people who have top quality items, such as fine binoculars, appreciate and look after them very well.

So it is the owner as well as the top-quality product that have to blend.
To me it doesn't matter at all what binocular I use or anybody else uses as long as one gets enjoyment out of it.
Although I will comment and say 'that's a nice binocular' if they have a top-quality one.

perterra said:

I mentioned this before, but in the late 80's I bought a Hart claw hammer. I enjoy wood working, and thought man a handmade claw hammer ought to really have me sinking nails perfectly. I think it was maybe $60 then, when you could buy a Vaughn for $12. But it was a work of art, polished tool steel with a beautiful oiled hickory haft. It was a thing of beauty compared to my red fiberglass handled Plumb or my hickory channel lock hammer. Did it work any better? No, nothing really changed.

Click to expand...

But PT if you had kept on using your Hart hammer, because although it didn't do the job any better, it was just as good as the cheapo hammer, and actually you really enjoyed the feel of it in your hands and how it looked on the tool rack after you had cleaned it up, I wouldn't have said to you 'Hey PT stop feeding that ego of yours'. I would have thought hey theres a guy who appreciates a fine piece of craftsmanship.

I am sure there are folks toting Swaros and Zeisses and Leicas who look down on folks carrying lesser revered brands but I sure as heck don't think they are all ego-pumped sociopaths.

Surely we are allowed to get pleasure from owning the bins of our dreams, whether those bins cost $200 or $2000???

Lee