BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Dracon" data-source="post: 1599669" data-attributes="member: 14799"><p>Brock's comprehensive analysis of SE cost in relation to optical quality only confirms what I have long suspected about the optical industry.  It is trying to make as many bucks as it can (with good reason), and has discovered that "status" attached to an object may be the most compeling reason a consumer buys brand X as opposed to brand Y.  But in an economy which is imploding, the masses may not be able to afford the almost insanely costly high end stuff. I believe that the German engineers were the first to develop the roof design, something different and more compact, but not superior to the porro.  The gagetry the Germans can come up with is simply breathtaking.  What we are seeing now reminds me of the last invention of the mad scientist before he committed suicide.  Rifle scopes and binoculars are now festooned with doodads.  Rangefinders and exotic reticles.  It reminds me of the trash compactor rage - taking 20 pounds of trash and compacting it into 20 pounds of trash.  The Japanese engineers evidently stumbled on to a design with the SEs  that works.  We now have what we call "an inconvenient truth", a superior optical piece that is virtually ignored in favor of something(s) much more expensive.  This may be an outstanding example of what happens when disposable income is what it is.  As has been pointed out in previous posts, a few tweeks to the SE line can make it equal to any binocular for much less. John</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification