This is a frequently repeated mantra, and I disagree.
Because I do not want to get dog piled, I will just say that if you can't see a difference between a $200 binocular and a $2,000 binocular, a visit to an ophthalmologist is in order.
-
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.
Athlon Midas 8x42 vs. Viper HD vs. Vanguard ED II (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rajiggyfizzle
- Start date
Because I do not want to get dog piled, I will just say that if you can't see a difference between a $200 binocular and a $2,000 binocular, a visit to an ophthalmologist is in order.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Steve was implying. The Athlons absolutely compare favourably to many "much more expensive" binoculars in the $300-500 range, but the trade-off is dealing with increased sample variance and likely poor warranty support. Nobody is using a $2000 alpha as their benchmark comparison for $200 Chinese binoculars.
Steve C
Well-known member
I was going to let this pass, but Bob, Johnny, and Andy seemed to understand what I meant. Top level binoculars were nowhere in my thought process. As far as I could see, the Vortex Viper can be considered considerably more expensive than the Midas.
With all due respect, I fail to see where some viewers of top tier glass see what they think they are seeing. Nothing wrong with my eyes, but I sure don't see what some seem to think they see. Nothing the matter there, top level glass is top level.
Now for the ophthalmologist part. I go to one pretty regularly. Went in first for what turned out to be a small ocular retinal occlusion. It effects the lower portion of the vision in my right eye. I gives me zero issues behind binoculars, or for that matter life in general. The doctor said the bad part was there was nothing he could do for it. The good part however says that my 72 year old eyes are far healthier than most eyes half my age. They still dilate past 7mm. There is no macular degeneration, cataracts, floaters or anything else they normaly see in eyes of senior citizens. Blood flow through my eyes is superior. I can read easily two lines below the line at the low end of 20/20. The test was for the occlusion, and their schedule was too tight to take the time to see just what it was. He said it is a lot sharper than 20/20, and that eyes my age are almost never as sharp as mine. So I don't think poor eyesight on my part can be the root of any disagreements about views trhough various binoculars.
With all due respect, I fail to see where some viewers of top tier glass see what they think they are seeing. Nothing wrong with my eyes, but I sure don't see what some seem to think they see. Nothing the matter there, top level glass is top level.
Now for the ophthalmologist part. I go to one pretty regularly. Went in first for what turned out to be a small ocular retinal occlusion. It effects the lower portion of the vision in my right eye. I gives me zero issues behind binoculars, or for that matter life in general. The doctor said the bad part was there was nothing he could do for it. The good part however says that my 72 year old eyes are far healthier than most eyes half my age. They still dilate past 7mm. There is no macular degeneration, cataracts, floaters or anything else they normaly see in eyes of senior citizens. Blood flow through my eyes is superior. I can read easily two lines below the line at the low end of 20/20. The test was for the occlusion, and their schedule was too tight to take the time to see just what it was. He said it is a lot sharper than 20/20, and that eyes my age are almost never as sharp as mine. So I don't think poor eyesight on my part can be the root of any disagreements about views trhough various binoculars.
