Supply & Demand (1 Viewer)

Checking the sales and it would seem that the slightly higher magnifications are usually a tad higher.

Cabela's hosts the 8x30 Conquest @ 50 clams cheaper than the 10x30. The higher mags of 12x45 & 15x45 skyrocket $350/400 over the 8x.

Yet, the Conquest in ABK 8x40 hoists a tag of 50 simoleons over the 10x40.

The Meostar 10x42 carries only a 20 spot premium over the 8x42.

CLNY gives the ABK 8x40 a price 150 bucks over the 10x40 which ironically is the same price for their ABK 8x40 demo.

The Conquest 12x45 $1049.99 whilst the 12x45 demo slides in @ $874.99.

The Conquest 15x45 is $1099.99 w/demo @ $799.99.

Why 50 clams more new and 75 less demo? Would seem an 125 dollar swing betwixt new and demo in the two models would exhibit a contradiction in terms.

The Conquest 8x30 new/demo $649/ 449, however once again the 10x30 is $699/549. What quality does the demo 10x30 possess to be twice the difference of the new prices?

No big whoop. I go w/flow and the cheaper offerings figuring I can find a spot for them as easy as I can for the other.

One little peculiarity, to me anyway, is that the Cabela's Euro is only available in 10x42 & 12x50 and the Euro HD only 10x42.

I don't notice a Meopta Meostar HD.

Nix,

I have to tell you that I am probably going to have to re-read what you posted to understand what you are getting at. 10x bins are always more expensive at any given objective size. I always assumed it was because they are more difficult to manufacture because any optical or mechanical deficiencies in the design are magnified (pun intended) as you move up the magnification scale. So, for example, the Nikon 7x35 Action EX may be a stellar performer but the 10x42/50 may not. There is only so much you can do within a given price point.

As for the reasons why an 8x might cost more than a 10x especially when discounted...you hit on it with the issue of supply versus demand. A store may have ordered more 10x models and they may not be selling as well as the 8x's or vice versa. So when they discount them the price tends to reflect what they need to sell more of.

In regard to the Conquest line in particular...keep in mind that the 30 mm Conquest line and the 40 mm Conquest ABKs are somewhat different designs because of the two different prisms utilized. The smaller Conquests use the typical Schmidt Pechan prism while the larger Conquests use the Abbe-Koenig design. That would explain the relatively large difference in base prices in comparison to something like the Bushnell Legend Ultra which has the 8x36 and 8x42 priced relatively closely.

As for your Meopta comments....Cabelas sells to hunters primarily. Hunters prefer 10x and above magnification binoculars. They never had 7x or 8x bins in the Euro line as they don't believe they can sell them. They very likely will have a Euro HD in 12x50 in the very near future.

Meopta has commented that they will introduce their Meostar HD 10x42 first followed by the 8x42 HD. I am not sure if they have plans to implement it in their full Meostar lineup but I believe that would be driven by the demand for it.

Thanks Frank. Always enjoy reading your posts. Even the ones I dredge up from years long since past. I was just talking out loud more or less. I find it interesting that, according to the prices seen, the Conquest 10x30 is prized over the 8x30 as the 10x40 is discounted against the 8x40 in somewhat of a role reversal.

I understand that I'm not always fluid in transferring thought to type. Good luck on the following.

I'm sure this make no logical sense, but I'm gonna trash this thread, so here goes nuttin'.

So far the widest FOV that my noggin is comfortable with is the 328' fov of the SIII 8x24. FOV divided by objective comes to 13.6666. That number X 30 is 410', but the 8x30 Conquest only has 360' so maybe it's a bit narrow.

However, if I take the 410' of my mythical 8x and deduct 20% 8/10 FOV for a 10x I come up w/328 which is only two shy of the 330.

Is there any validity to this simple equation, from a simple mind, or is it coincidence possibly combined w/me wishing for figures to match up in my struggling noodle?

I know I ain't that smart, yet I can take criticism.

I'm sure I'm way off base, but I'm attempting to understand the relationship between FOV and magnification. I realize the FOV is an angle/cone of sight, yet for somewhat practical purposes could I realistically say that a given 10x would have 8/10 the FOV of an 8x?

I do the same inaccurate description for FOV feet. Whatever it is @ 1000yds I divide by 10 for 100 yds. I know the 1000yd mark is the result of the angle continuing outward and the 100yd mark would be smaller than 1/10 of the 1000, but I figure I'm close enough for cipherin' on the fly. I welcome any remarks/comparisons or analogies unto Jethro Bodine.

I realize there's differing methods of construction, prism types, but I was just looking for a way to ballpark the FOV a couple of magnifications in either direction from a known FOV, evah so roughly, knowing the focal point and/or the objectives would be different length/diameter.

I have a SPI, Southern Precision Instruments defunct since the 80's out of San Antonio, Tejas, Galilean 4x40 that has clean and sharp pic all the way to the edge w/no chance of blackout-kidney bean.

Of course it would probably be lucky to have 100' FOV @ 1000yds. So, I understand that in the quest for more FOV problems arise in providing a large clean pick towards the edges. Compromises must be made.

I know the best glass, design and craftsmanship costs the most. I'm looking for what works for my eyes & noodle at under a grand. My self imposed limit of 300 per unit, that quickly jumped to 400, has seen a holiday spike of over seven bills.

The madness has me locking both knees, ala Fred Flintstone, as I simultaneously throw out the anchor to power assist the soles of my feet, so I might 'aver a go at slowing down the runaway ride. A fiscal nightmare w/touch of Jethro Tull's, Locomotive Breath for ambiance.

I can't justify spending 1,500-2,500 and up on the creme de la creme. That sort of leaves me looking at the proclaimed hunting glass due, not so much to larger objectives for gathering light, to more slender FOV.

The Viper 8.5x50 is only 305' FOV, but that is a pleasant view for me. If I use my logic that 1.5 x more will decrease that FOV roughly by 15% coming in at 260' fov.

As fate would have it there's a Viper 10x50 and the fov is 278', so whilst no exact I'm somewhere in the ballpark. I'm sure some of the less expensive models utilize smaller FOV in order to maintain a decent resolution within the smaller arena w/more economical optics.

If nothing else I've managed to work two Jethros into one post and if you add me it makes three.

Nix,

As I mentioned in my PM the other day I don't necessarily think your issue is with field of view itself but rather how the glass you chose attains that field of view. At all but the highest price point there are going to be some optical compromises to obtain that wide field of view. In many cases this is noticeable field curvature outside of the sweet spot. So, you then are left to theorize that you need a narrower field of view in order to get rid of the edge affects that you do not like.

That may or may not be the case. Every binocular design is different. Some may have the type of edge distortion you find objectionable and some may not. It is a long, difficult task really only learned through trial and error. You could go by others' comments here on the forums to try to isolate what bin may or may not work for you. I have followed both routes and find that each works at times.

Based on what you commented on previously I would suggest a few bins:

One, maybe the Nikon SE 8x32. It has a huge sweet spot that is very close being sharp to the edge. That would give you a wide field of view without much, if any, edge distortion to ruin the experience.

Or, you could go the other way and continue to try bins with narrower fields of view and less edge distortion. Something like the Pentax DCF SP (8x43 for example) or one of the Minox HG models perhaps? Both can be found heavily discounted from their original "new" prices. If you want even better optical quality then consider the Pentax DCF ED. Same field of view specs across the configuration lineup but with better performance because of the ED glass.

Just some things to consider.

You might even try looking through a Nikon 8 x 30 EII just to see how you get along with it. It has a huge FOV (8.8 degrees) (You can really roll your eyes here:eek! with a correspondingly very large sweet spot ALONG WITH a large amount of pincushioning at the edges. But note that it is not sharp nearly to the edge like the Nikon 8 x 32 SE is. These EIIs cost about 200 Clams (which is the same amount of green in Simoleons) less than the SEs do.

Bob

I need to go to a store where I can glance through various glass. So far anything w/much of a view hasn't panned out.