In Dennis's defense, he my have been suffering from hypoxia while on top of those high Colorado hilltops and his judgment was impaired. :-O
I must be one of the naysayers. I was loitering around the optics counter at Bass Pro about a week ago talking with another customer when he asked my opinion on a Swarovski CL and a Lieca that he was considering. I looked at an elk head mount near a large glass window and the CL view had noticeable wash out where as the Lieca did a much better job handling the sunlight coming in from the window. As I recall the Liecas were the Ultravid 10X32 so it was not an apples to apples comparison. However, I was expecting better from the CL. Maybe my expectations were too high because they had the Swarovski name on the side. Also, first impressions can sometimes be wrong, as pointed out in the Dennis example. In fairness, I would like to check them out again.
I suggested he take a look at Vortex 8X32 Viper HD ($559.99) and we both agreed it totally out preformed the CL in our limited testing. He was impressed by the Viper, but unfortunately for him, the Viper only came in an 8 power and he was insistent on a 10X32.
This was Swaro's first foray into the mid-tier segment (although I suppose you could include the 8x30 SLC when it was selling for $899). In fact, some members did a comparison btwn those two bins since ostensibly, the CL was made to replace the SLC.
At the time of the CL's release, there were only the old Conquests, the HGLs, and the Meopta competing in that segment.
But now that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet is getting in on the mid-tier market and adding features such as dielectric coatings and ED glass, the CL has a lot more competition and so do the HGLs, as I mentioned on the Nikon forum.
However, that might not matter in the case of the CLs if comments from pleased CL owners on BF are typical. They like CLs because of their small size and light weight of the bin for traveling and carrying around their neck. But also because they are Swaros.
Now, I'm going out on a limb and hope that I don't get hung by my thumbs like Mussolini, but based on your expectations about what a Swaro should deliver, it occurred to me that the Swaro badge could just as easily sway the potential buyer in the other direction.
I'd like to see a "blind test" done where the CLs were disguised and bulked up to look like some other roofs, and then ask alpha owners who haven't tried the CL to look through them and say what they think of them compared to other midsized and full sized mid-tier models such as the Meopta 8x32 Meostar, the 8x and 10x Conquest HDs, 8x and 10x Trinovids, and 8x and 10x32 HGLs (also all disguised).
I have a hunch that w/out the "Swarovski" badge, they wouldn't rate the CLs as highly. Just as your expectations lead to disappointment, others' expectations might bolster their opinions of the bin.
A real "gear head" would know the difference, of course, but similarly if you disguised a Chevy Cruise (before its release) as a new compact Mercedes, with the all the usual interior and exterior Mercedes markings, would the upscale drivers of Lexus, Acura, and Infinity autos be able to tell the Chevy was not a Mercedes? Would the test drivers not rate the Cruise higher thinking it was a Mercedes than if they knew it was a common Chevy?
I think you can't exclude the "prestige factor" when judging bins made by Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski. The name alone carries expectations.
Except in the case of Zeiss wipes, which are made in China.
<B>