When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)

jremmons said:

I just hate the idea that I may spend $2K+ only for for a major breakthrough in binocular technology to present itself soon after; other technologies develop rapidly, so it is odd to me that binocular development seems to be a bit stagnate.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about that for one second. I say buy you a used SLC or FL in great condition be it 7X42 or 8X42. Neither is perfect BUT both have great optics, have a great track record, are well made, and are back by the best companies in the business. That binocular will never go out of style and will rarely be beaten or equalled optically for years to come. THEN if you want something "different," or "flat field," or "improved handling," or "fill in the blank" DO it if you can afford it. If not, hang on to your ace in hole do anything binocular above.

chill6x6 said:

I wouldn't worry about that for one second. I say buy you a used SLC or FL in great condition be it 7X42 or 8X42. Neither is perfect BUT both have great optics, have a great track record, are well made, and are back by the best companies in the business.

Click to expand...

Hello,

There is a fellow on Cloudy Night Forum, I think from the Netherlands, who thinks that the FL has better build quality, as well as great optics, than anything made since. The 8x32 FL is still in production. It seems that both hunters and bird watchers prefer 42 mm binoculars, as you do.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Even if there was a technological break-through, it might be a year or two before it's assessed as 'better'. The tendency seems to be that there is a rush towards the 'new, improved' before a backlash starts, and you start wishing you hadn't sold your Trini or FL to fund it.
Anyway, each day you put it off, your eyes are getting older!
Sometimes these things can be overthought.....

chill6x6 said:

I wouldn't worry about that for one second. I say buy you a used SLC or FL in great condition be it 7X42 or 8X42. Neither is perfect BUT both have great optics, have a great track record, are well made, and are back by the best companies in the business. That binocular will never go out of style and will rarely be beaten or equalled optically for years to come. THEN if you want something "different," or "flat field," or "improved handling," or "fill in the blank" DO it if you can afford it. If not, hang on to your ace in hole do anything binocular above.

Click to expand...

Chuck: This is a fair point. I've actually owned both the 7x42 Victory T*FL and the SLC-HD 8x42 (older, two-toned model). Both were great optics but sold due to financial reasons. The FL is a special achievement and along with the bulky Kowa, one of the few optics I truly regret selling. The SLC-HD was very good, but I think the newer one may be brighter than the model I had (although the close focus is worse). I'll keep an eye out for the a nicely priced 7x42 Victory, but have a lot of interest in the 8x42 Victory SF and 8.5x Swarovision as well.

Arthur: Yes, I agree that the Victory T*FL is one of the best built, best handling binoculars; I am a huge fan of glass reinforced, polycarbonate body.

Paddy77: I'm a scientist, so overly researching things is just in my nature, so to speak. I consider myself analytical and slow to make a decision lest I've not fully considered all available research and information. As you mention, I maybe have crippled myself with analysis paralysis, missing a few really good deals on the Victory SF (such as when Chuck sold his recently!).

Justin

There is still quite some demand for SARD 6x42 wide angle bins from WW2 era, modern bins can’t deliver the wide views. I like my Rangemasters from probably the 60s. OK coatings, glass and housing material have moved on a lot, but old is not necessarily “obselete”. I don’t have much hope for digital when compared to the high resolution and wide field we are used to, you’d need a lot of pixels to give you that and optics and sensor to feed the screens... save the bother and use your retinas instead. We are well into the land of rapidly diminishing returns... small improvements, not step changes

Peter

jremmons said:

Chuck: This is a fair point. I've actually owned both the 7x42 Victory T*FL and the SLC-HD 8x42 (older, two-toned model). Both were great optics but sold due to financial reasons. The FL is a special achievement and along with the bulky Kowa, one of the few optics I truly regret selling. The SLC-HD was very good, but I think the newer one may be brighter than the model I had (although the close focus is worse). I'll keep an eye out for the a nicely priced 7x42 Victory, but have a lot of interest in the 8x42 Victory SF and 8.5x Swarovision as well.

Arthur: Yes, I agree that the Victory T*FL is one of the best built, best handling binoculars; I am a huge fan of glass reinforced, polycarbonate body.

Paddy77: I'm a scientist, so overly researching things is just in my nature, so to speak. I consider myself analytical and slow to make a decision lest I've not fully considered all available research and information. As you mention, I maybe have crippled myself with analysis paralysis, missing a few really good deals on the Victory SF (such as when Chuck sold his recently!).

Justin

Click to expand...

Have you considered a Nikon EDG 8x42

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

Quote from Allbinos.com "A record-breaking score in our test (no other pair of binoculars, tested by us so far, has reached a result over 150 points) and the lack of flaws that could be put in the ‘cons’ section are an explicit proof what kind of equipment we deal with here. If you don’t want to compromise on anything this set of binoculars is definitely for you."

Perhaps Chuck can chime in ... I believe he owns all of the above notwithstanding the SF which he sold.

All the bells and whistles

Interesting - i work with a lot of scientists, so i know the syndrome!
There was an interesting Zen-related theory i read once, in that we make decisions with the sub-conscious mind and instinctively. We then construct the evidence to support the decision, or to strengthen the choice we've already made....i certainly did that with the Pocket, and don't regret a moment of it!

Variable-ratio focus is the next revolution.

For those of us who are both birders and butterfly watchers (or anyone else who uses bins to quickly view things from ~5 feet to infinity), the next potential revolution in binocular design is obvious--use of variable-ratio focus. It is an existing technology, does not require an increase in binocular size/mass, but would be a real game-changer because it has not been used in any otherwise top-end optics (I've seen it in only a few binoculars, including Pentax Papilio, Brunton Epoch, and Minox HG). Getting the bird or butterfly in view and in focus _quickly_ and _precisely_ is extremely important, and variable-ratio focus allows for optimizing that aspect of binocular performance. If the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV were updated to incorporate variable-ratio focus, its close-focus capability would be much more useful and I'd be very happy.

--AP

wllmspd, post 45,
There are quite a few newer binoculars then the Sard 6x42 porro (more than 1700 gr) which have a very large Field of View even larger then the Sard, see my recent test report on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Gijs van Ginkel

Alexis Powell said:

For those of us who are both birders and butterfly watchers (or anyone else who uses bins to quickly view things from ~5 feet to infinity), the next potential revolution in binocular design is obvious--use of variable-ratio focus. It is an existing technology, does not require an increase in binocular size/mass, but would be a real game-changer because it has not been used in any otherwise top-end optics (I've seen it in only a few binoculars, including Pentax Papilio, Brunton Epoch, and Minox HG). Getting the bird or butterfly in view and in focus _quickly_ and _precisely_ is extremely important, and variable-ratio focus allows for optimizing that aspect of binocular performance. If the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV were updated to incorporate variable-ratio focus, its close-focus capability would be much more useful and I'd be very happy.

--AP

Click to expand...

Yes, something such as this is even what I mean by newer technology. I'm guessing the ability to incorporate such a feature exists, but there is only little demand.

paddy7 said:

..... Anyway, each day you put it off, your eyes are getting older!
Sometimes these things can be overthought.....

Click to expand...

LOL !! :-O

By far the most likely 'thing' to become obsolete !

This is what Bill has been banging on about for years (largely falling on deaf ears - perhaps it's all the sudden loud noises that cause the inability to 'hear' even the written word, and all the panicky neurosis ?! :-O o ) ........ :cat:

There is nothing game changing on the near horizon - pick your favourite format and bin whether new or 2nd hand (some of those 7x gems like the FL, EDGII, UVHD+ are unlikely to come back into popular fashion new) and get on with it! :t:

If you are going to be flush, then consider 2 or 3 of these current (or near superceded) 'alpha's' in the various formats of your choice. Have an 'alpha' as a 'beater car bin' - why not? Your eyes are not getting any better, nor may the opportunities to view wild things in the natural world, and any improvements over the near term are likely to be incremental at best ........




Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

LOL !! :-O

By far the most likely 'thing' to become obsolete !

This is what Bill has been banging on about for years (largely falling on deaf ears - perhaps it's all the sudden loud noises that cause the inability to 'hear' even the written word, and all the panicky neurosis ?! :-O o ) ........ :cat:

There is nothing game changing on the near horizon - pick your favourite format and bin whether new or 2nd hand (some of those 7x gems like the FL, EDGII, UVHD+ are unlikely to come back into popular fashion new) and get on with it! :t:

If you are going to be flush, then consider 2 or 3 of these current (or near superceded) 'alpha's' in the various formats of your choice. Have an 'alpha' as a 'beater car bin' - why not? Your eyes are not getting any better, nor may the opportunities to view wild things in the natural world, and any improvements over the near term are likely to be incremental at best ........

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

BINGO! :cat:

For me I think the most accurate answer is when you decide or convince yourself so.
For most of us and certainly for myself most binoculars from the mid tier up will be more than adequate as long as they last us. Often it can be the case of chasing the dragon only to find that your existing pair are perfectly fine and comfortable.
The grass is always greener?

When will the current alphas become 'obsolete'?
Any day now, we hope.
~ Signed, binocular manufacturers

Foss said:

When will the current alphas become 'obsolete'?
Any day now, we hope.
~ Signed, binocular manufacturers

Click to expand...

I think it a shame that the Legends of optics backed themselves into a financial corner. They have been paying the best of the best technicians and engineers, and now they have to continue just to keep them in their court. It is a hard row to hoe. Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, and others have advanced the technology that have caused so many observers to jump up and down, pee their pants, create the “alpha,” and propagate the verbiage—some of which is actually true—that have caused so many to believe engineers are holding back, as if they should be able to come up with some improvement THAT COULD BE RECOGNIZED AS A BONEFIDE improvement ... every month.

Everyone knows there are hundreds of perfumes and colognes on the market. But how many know that ALL those come from mixing FIVE BASIC FRAGRANCES? Some are pleasant; some are repulsive; some are viscous; and some could be used to catch and hold flies. Usually, the repulsive ones don’t make it to the market.

The same is true with optics. The engineer needs to watch the iterations throughout the design process. The average observer doesn’t understand. More often than not, they don’t even try. It’s easier to demand this or that than consider just what it takes to make “this or that” a reality. I have probably designed more telescopes of Houghton derivative than anyone on the planet. And I know that lenses and mirrors of the same curvatures, glass types, thicknesses, and spacings can produce widely varying aberrations depending on where you tell the program you want the field stop to be.

I have such great respect for the Big Boys. But not being a nitnoid, if I need to use my 1950s Jason, I’ll use my 1950s Jason. But some people get their pleasure by seeing how much money they can spend that their neighbor can’t. Some people can squeeze an eagle off a quarter and are thrilled to use binoculars others wouldn’t touch. I know the difference but don’t care. Mainly because I know that so many differences observers claim to see ... they cannot. Does that mean there are no improvements in binocular optics? Absolutely not! But those improvements need to arrive in major steps—and not incrementally—to be NOTICED by most observers. Wasn’t it Aristotle who said ... “Reality bites”?

The binoculars getting the most lip-service today, have names unheard of just 30 years ago. Does that mean they are inferior to the legends of the industry? Absolutely not. Why? Because many of them are actually manufactured by companies nearly as old as those legends and have come up with innovations of their own.

What do Meade, Celestron, Hawke, Leupold, Vortex, Bushnell, Opticron, Swift, Meopta, Avalon, Maven, Vanguard, Track, Tom Lock, and Oberwerk have in common? They are all companies that do not make binoculars ... and never have.

You can spend $3,000 to $6,000 on a hand-held binocular. But if you’re planning to spend that much—and I am certainly not saying you shouldn’t—you should not be surprised if your neighbor questions your true interest in the hobby. Is it birding, amateur astronomy, hunting, some sort of field work, or is it the perceived power of one-upmanship? :cat:

Merry Christmas!

Bill

Alexis Powell said:

For those of us who are both birders and butterfly watchers (or anyone else who uses bins to quickly view things from ~5 feet to infinity), the next potential revolution in binocular design is obvious--use of variable-ratio focus. It is an existing technology, does not require an increase in binocular size/mass, but would be a real game-changer because it has not been used in any otherwise top-end optics (I've seen it in only a few binoculars, including Pentax Papilio, Brunton Epoch, and Minox HG). Getting the bird or butterfly in view and in focus _quickly_ and _precisely_ is extremely important, and variable-ratio focus allows for optimizing that aspect of binocular performance. If the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV were updated to incorporate variable-ratio focus, its close-focus capability would be much more useful and I'd be very happy.

--AP

Click to expand...

hi AP - are you talking about variable ratio as is found on scopes such as the Harpia? That a sharper turn of the focus increases the ratio?

jremmons said:

Chuck: This is a fair point. I've actually owned both the 7x42 Victory T*FL and the SLC-HD 8x42 (older, two-toned model). Both were great optics but sold due to financial reasons. The FL is a special achievement and along with the bulky Kowa, one of the few optics I truly regret selling. The SLC-HD was very good, but I think the newer one may be brighter than the model I had (although the close focus is worse). I'll keep an eye out for the a nicely priced 7x42 Victory, but have a lot of interest in the 8x42 Victory SF and 8.5x Swarovision as well.

Arthur: Yes, I agree that the Victory T*FL is one of the best built, best handling binoculars; I am a huge fan of glass reinforced, polycarbonate body.

Paddy77: I'm a scientist, so overly researching things is just in my nature, so to speak. I consider myself analytical and slow to make a decision lest I've not fully considered all available research and information. As you mention, I maybe have crippled myself with analysis paralysis, missing a few really good deals on the Victory SF (such as when Chuck sold his recently!).

Justin

Click to expand...

You could certainly do worse than listen to the practical wisdom of Uncle Chuck.

And (not many people know this) FL 10x32 has a field flattener so choosing between 8x and 10x FL 32s is more than just a question of which magnification.

Research and analysis can be enjoyable in its own right, not just because it leads you towards or justifies a decision but you almost always learn unexpected stuff along the way.

Lee

zzzzzz said:

Have you considered a Nikon EDG 8x42

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikonedg8x42/nikonedg8x42review.html

Quote from Allbinos.com "A record-breaking score in our test (no other pair of binoculars, tested by us so far, has reached a result over 150 points) and the lack of flaws that could be put in the ‘cons’ section are an explicit proof what kind of equipment we deal with here. If you don’t want to compromise on anything this set of binoculars is definitely for you."

Perhaps Chuck can chime in ... I believe he owns all of the above notwithstanding the SF which he sold.

Click to expand...

Well, I was actually typing EDG when I replied above, but erased it.

SURE the EDG fits right in there. Maybe the best between the FL, SLC, and it. Factory representation and support down the road was what separated the Zeiss and the Swarovski from the Nikon. I wouldn't think that would be anywhere nearly as good.

Quote of the day from Lord Kelvin, patron saint of Metrologists...
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

PEter