I agree with Arthur and Tom. I find build quality to be impossible to evaluate in any meaningful way simply by handling a binocular.
How true. But many people trust their feelings, and so it becomes an issue. And reliable, independent tests are scarce.
A product designer with a shrewd eye toward marketing will certainly know how to massage the consumer with those little cosmetic and tactile touches that suggest Quality and Luxury. A few bits of well finished metal on the exterior, nicely textured rubber armoring and a little extra heft and, voila!,
Except for those sober Zeiss designers, it seems.
I admit that their current products are uglier than those of their immediate competitors. At the same time I have come to the conclusion after long rounds of comparing, that optically they have the edge. At this moment in technological history and by what may well be a small margin, but their image to me looks best.
And if I put the binos to my eyes, who cares what they look like.
Looking through beats looking at.
I agree with Arthur and Tom. I find build quality to be impossible to evaluate in any meaningful way simply by handling a binocular. A product designer with a shrewd eye toward marketing will certainly know how to massage the consumer with those little cosmetic and tactile touches that suggest Quality and Luxury. A few bits of well finished metal on the exterior, nicely textured rubber armoring and a little extra heft and, voila!, we now have a binocular that appears to be beautifully built "like a tank". Composite materials are at a disadvantage, even if they are superior to metal in thermal stability and resistance to deformation, because they are too light and "plasticy feeling". I'm not inclined to make any judgements about which expensive binoculars are the most durable because I simply can't tell from looking at them. What we consumers need is technically informed lab and field testing for build quality and durability, but unfortunately we don't see much of that.
Composite materials are at a disadvantage, even if they are superior to metal in thermal stability and resistance to deformation, because they are too light and "plasticy feeling".
I wonder if future generations might frown upon our "metal- and leather age" apprehension because they are more used to others materials and have learned to appreciate their virtues to a larger degree that the forces of tradition allow us to.
What we consumers need is technically informed lab and field testing for build quality and durability, but unfortunately we don't see much of that.
I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT!
At the same I was shocked by the number of people who actually reject those data even if they are available.
I was frequently bashed when I referred to the above mentioned test which is the only one I know that employed reproducible ISO test protocols.
The data were sometimes dismissed as being "irrelevant", the engineers were accused of "knowing next to nothing about how to REALLY evaluate" binoculars, and much more trust was granted to "holy men", i.e. anonymous people "who know best".
I was once beaten out of an astronomy website just because a questioned the "Wisdom" of such a holy man by pointing out that we didn't know anything about the health status of this guru (he might be 80 years old and half blind, or just a joker who takes other for a ride).
My attempts to induce some critical thinking in those people failed completely.
So I sincerely wished these wise words
What we consumers need is technically informed lab and field testing for build quality and durability, but unfortunately we don't see much of that.
will really spread!
Tom
