-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
No love for Steiner? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Upland
- Start date
WJC
Well-known member
If you are speaking of the binos in #22, they're a Kahles and a Celestron Noble. :cat:
Bill
Attachments
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
WJC
Well-known member
Most people have never seen a vendor catalog. I left mine at Captain's. But there might be several permutations of binocular AD-7, G4, or HI-23, etc. making them SEEM different. Most people also don't know that sometimes the NEW 2019 binocular getting so much attention is really the old 1962 binocular with new coatings, new cosmetics, a new price, and a new ad campaign. :cat:
Bill
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
FieldSurveyor
Member
I was in the Navy and we used a Steiner 7x50 quite a bit. It seemed very well made and I liked that I didn't need to focus (I still don't understand how that's possible...I imagine that's what the post above about depth of field is referring to.) Anyway, when we landed in port in Hong Kong (year was around 1992) I ended up purchasing a smaller version of it marketed as Safari I believe in 8x30. I really wanted the Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 but they were very expensive.
The little Steiners worked well for me for a very short time. I never abused them but somehow one of the prisms became out of place and I could not see through one side. They sat in a drawer ever since. I looked into getting them repaired by Steiner once (I think by then I was told to send them to Burris if I remember correctly.) I never ended up sending them in because the price they were quoting didn't seem worth it to me at the time.
So, for me, I do not trust the brand at all. I will never buy another Steiner product.
The little Steiners worked well for me for a very short time. I never abused them but somehow one of the prisms became out of place and I could not see through one side. They sat in a drawer ever since. I looked into getting them repaired by Steiner once (I think by then I was told to send them to Burris if I remember correctly.) I never ended up sending them in because the price they were quoting didn't seem worth it to me at the time.
So, for me, I do not trust the brand at all. I will never buy another Steiner product.
I own an old Steiner "Commander Military/Marine 7x50" for over 30 years now. While they are certainly not alpha optical quality (but still good) they proved to be reliable and robust not overly heavy or bulky and especially good in bad lighting conditions. Those military ones were made super shock proof as one main requirement. Don't remember the g's they can take exactly (14?,16?). They are waterproof as well truly robust and took a lot of travel in the backpack and beating without ever needing servicing. So they were worth it and still are. I actually clean them like dishes under running water with soap! They still look like brand new. Their plastic does not seem to deteriorate or age in any way. Everything works like on day one.
AFAIK the Steiner company got sold some years ago and moved some production elsewhere. Not sure if they build to the same quality standards anymore. The British Army recently ordered new ones so maybe the military stuff is still build the old way?
German army Bundeswehr is said to never have liked the (non servicable -"throw away") Steiners. They loved their more expensive Hensoldts (Zeiss) more, no surprise. Nobody wanted the "plastic" binoculars. Back then it was good for me. I got mine cheap as NOS back then. Still going strong and good value for money.
Bundeswehr went back to custom designed Hensoldts that are very nice but expensive and heavy. Unfortunately they lose some of their optical top performance because of their integrated laser filters.
Future military binoculars are more electronic with integrated laser range finders and target designation data transmission. That's when I start to like my old Steiners even more.
Current new military ones ("Warrior" not Bundeswehr but somebody else's desert camo) are on sale for 199 Euros. BTW: Advertised as "made in Germany".
http://www.zib-militaria.de/Steiner-Fernglas-7x50-Warrior-Neu-und-versiegelt-verpackt
AFAIK the Steiner company got sold some years ago and moved some production elsewhere. Not sure if they build to the same quality standards anymore. The British Army recently ordered new ones so maybe the military stuff is still build the old way?
German army Bundeswehr is said to never have liked the (non servicable -"throw away") Steiners. They loved their more expensive Hensoldts (Zeiss) more, no surprise. Nobody wanted the "plastic" binoculars. Back then it was good for me. I got mine cheap as NOS back then. Still going strong and good value for money.
Bundeswehr went back to custom designed Hensoldts that are very nice but expensive and heavy. Unfortunately they lose some of their optical top performance because of their integrated laser filters.
Future military binoculars are more electronic with integrated laser range finders and target designation data transmission. That's when I start to like my old Steiners even more.
Current new military ones ("Warrior" not Bundeswehr but somebody else's desert camo) are on sale for 199 Euros. BTW: Advertised as "made in Germany".
http://www.zib-militaria.de/Steiner-Fernglas-7x50-Warrior-Neu-und-versiegelt-verpackt
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, FS:
First, thank you for your service.
I was a Navy Opticalman (rate from 1948 – 1999). We referred to Steiners as “the disposable binocular.”
You said, “I liked that I didn't need to focus (I still don't understand how that's possible.”)
That was the LARGE MALE BOVINE EXCREMENT that pushed me over the edge and caused me to start writing about optics. It was one of the greatest money-making frauds ever to enter the optical industry! If you didn’t have to focus, it was only because your own physiology allowed you to accommodate the dioptric difference as illustrated in the attached. At the expense of quoting myself:
“Good advertising need not be accurate or even meaningful; it needs only to be believed!”
And as evident from so many binocular forums, some people will stand in line to believe any nonsense that comes along. While trying to help my neighbor understand the realities of the matter at Captain’s, I have been shot down many times by those who just knew my 45 years in optics was nothing more than “window dressing.” After all, they saw it themselves.
In many ways, we are ALL ignorant. That’s just part of being human. But when it metastasizes into willful stupidity ... it’s terminal and the best that can be done is to stand firm in protecting your neighbor from false—although popular—doctrine.
“In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.” —Thomas Jefferson
Hi, Sebzwo:
You don’t use your Steiners in the same way and under the same conditions as the military. The US Army chose the Steiner Commander to replace their ill-thought out M19 binocular. Even so, it had a short-lived hurrah, there. The rubber deteriorating is one of the things that caused it to fall from grace. It was replaced by the Fujinon AR/Swift Seahawk/Bushnell Navigator. They were cheaper, more practical, and a knowledgeable tech could repair them is his sleep.
Steiner sold out to Beretta in 2008. However, even before that many were coming from China. You said,
“German army Bundeswehr is said to never have liked the (non servicable -"throw away") Steiners.”
Steiners CAN be repaired—at least the famous, squatty models. Just NOT cost effectively. I found their original “navigator” to be a fine glass and was equally impressed with their “preditor.” :cat:
Bill
PS The Navigator II is the rearmost instrument of the three. Most people just see a binocular as a binocular. But to paraphrase scripture, "a longer focal length hides a multitude of optical sins."
Attachments
Last edited:
Interesting to note that late last year Steiner recruited an binos mechanical engineer which suggests they have design input into the binos, wherever they are made.
Lee
Coatings change optics a lot, especially apparently phase coatings for roof binoculars. And it seems that even prisms for porros used to come in several grades, with military glasses getting better ones. Am I right that one can get quite a range of product value without changing the physical conformation of the optics?
Edmund
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, Edmund:
Yes, but not necessarily for the reasons you state. Coatings can change ... coatings, but not the optics. Some of the prisms used today, are no different from those used decades ago. Of course, the bubbles are gone as well a serious striations. Yes, poorer prisms are saved for lower quality instruments. Other than that, I know of no other breakdown. Also, today, it is harder to make a bad prism than a good one ... at least in a quality-oriented company.
Only the ad campaign and the inexperience or naivete of the observer make them better (I covered the power of suggestion in post #49). And relating to coatings, it is only when there is a MAJOR upgrade that the average observer will notice a difference ... regardless of opinions. In my long lifetime, there have only been TWO—Multicoatings (and the method of adhesion) over simple mag fluoride and phase coatings in roof prisms.
There is a tendency for the consumer to think military instruments get the best of everything. That is just not so. Some items created for aerospace and a VERY few special programs have special LIMITED RUNS of product. The average soldier, sailor, or airman is currently using off the shelf products from Asia.
“Am I right that one can get quite a range of product value without changing the physical conformation of the optics?”
Yes, but most consumers will never know. Too many people see a binocular as aperture, magnification, and possibly coatings, and they credit every bit of image brightness on those coatings. In the REAL world, there is a bit more to consider leading to real or imagined image brightness:
1. Smoothness of optical surfaces
2. Precision in design (caring or understanding)
3. Best choice in selecting glass types, curvatures, and spacings (and it would not be cost effective to do this for ONE product.)
4. Precision in manufacturing
5. Precision in testing
6. Primary and secondary baffling
7. Edge blackening (a lost concern)
8. Slotted prisms (in Porros)
9. Size and position of the field stop
10. Knife edge on that stop
11. Number of elements in the eyepiece
12. Type of eyepiece
13. More
14. Personal physiology and PERCEPTION
In most cases, #14 will supersede the SUM of the previous 13.
Just a thought, :cat:
Bill
Last edited:
Bill,
That wasn't my question. My question was - when a manufacturer has nailed down the casing and optical of a device, can't they still make a whole range of qualities and prices just by changing the quality of the QC and prism glass and coatings?
I had a friend who made trousers, and he told me that the actual batch was customised to the price the brand buyer wanted, and that one batch might last years and the other would wear out quickly, the price difference on such would be a few percent. And I wonder if it's not the same for optics, coatings, glass element centering, prism uniformity etc is specced for each bunch, and so the new bino can be much better or much worse than the old one even if they look just alike even when you take them apart ...
Edmund
That wasn't my question. My question was - when a manufacturer has nailed down the casing and optical of a device, can't they still make a whole range of qualities and prices just by changing the quality of the QC and prism glass and coatings?
I had a friend who made trousers, and he told me that the actual batch was customised to the price the brand buyer wanted, and that one batch might last years and the other would wear out quickly, the price difference on such would be a few percent. And I wonder if it's not the same for optics, coatings, glass element centering, prism uniformity etc is specced for each bunch, and so the new bino can be much better or much worse than the old one even if they look just alike even when you take them apart ...
Edmund
WJC
Well-known member
Yes, that’s how they make their money ... modifications. It is now and has always been a mix-and-match proposition. Let’s say there are 2,000 binoculars coming from Asia, today. Those 2,000 can probably be broken down into 100+ variants. It’s like choosing options on a new car. :cat:
Bill
