Is it just me? (1 Viewer)

[GrampaTom]

Ive a question. It's based entirely on intuition, an impression.

First, this exchange from a few weeks back, from a "well known member" who joined March 16, 2023.

"I have been birding quite intensively with the NL Pure 8x32 over the past week. My findings:
The rainguard was a bit stiff in the beginning, was actually too tight. But after a week regularly putting it on and taking it off, it's already a lot better
I followed a courting black-tailed godwit against a bright blue sky. Then I saw a wide grayish ring around the blue center. In other situations I have not seen this ring, but I have not looked for it either.
Thanks to the FOV, it really is easier to find and track birds. But at a marshy area where a lot of birds could be seen from left to right I tend not to move the binoculars anymore, but to let my eyes wander through the field of view. And then kidney beans appear. It's not a disaster, it's preventable.
At another moment the glasses started to fog up a bit. I realized that I opened my mouth a little while watching. When I closed my mouth it fogs up less quickly. But I do think so in colder weather this phenomenon will strike quickly, as others have also reported. A pity.
As for the neckstrap, I've been on the verge of purchasing the Rick Young Harness. But I think anyway that it wouldn't make me happy, I don't need anything but a neckstrap. That's why I bought one simple traditional lightweight neckstrap.
The fieldbag I don't use. In the attic I found a bag that was once intended for a film camera or camera. Is perfect for me, especially because there is a flap at the top, ideal for me.
It is a wonderful pair of binoculars, I am very happy with it.

Chuckling to myself, I asked,
"Was there anything in particular you liked?"

And the response,
"Yes, the clear crisp image, the FOV, the handling, focuser."

To which I wrote,
"There you go. Me to"

Damning with faint praise?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a thread entitled "Binocular Sightings" started by A2GG in 2021. My impression, (without going back and counting), of the so-called Alphas, most expensive binos, (Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss), Swarovski seems to be the most well represented/observed by those of us who've participated. Think Ive done it last 3 years and that has been my observation, just wandering about 150 or so days during our winter migration. Zeiss seems less represented. Leicas in the rear view mirror. The majority clearly lower priced, but adequate brands/models. I get there could be geographic, store representation explanations.

That said, Im also under the impression, Swarovski is the market leader in high end binoculars. Cant point to a source, though thinking Jan Van Daalen, maybe whom we haven't heard from in some time. John Roberts, you know?

Continuing with the impression thing, here on Birdforum, within the Swarovski sub group, some of, if not the most important conversations are about things Swarovkski doesn't do well. Fieldpro - "a solution in search of a problem." Glare? For sure, for years. Flat field distorts? What - reality or what one is used to seeing in binos without? Panning issues do to bouncing balls? Rubber armor inexplicably falling off. Weird placing of finger dents on back of EL tubes. Fogging? Well we know Swaro took away the coating for this. Sticky rain guards. Fiddly objective covers - that fall off. Oh, I forgot a scritchy focuser, harder in one direction than the other.

Scheez, why would anybody buy a Swaro?

I can't remember reading comparable criticisms when reading in the Leica or Zeiss subgroups, about those 2 brands. Neither do I have an impression that those 2 brands are commonly disparaged within the Swarovski subgroup in the same way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the question:

If I'm correct, admittedly I may not be, why is Swarovski seemingly so uniformly criticized on Birdforum? Why is it folks who come looking for info on what bino to buy find these criticisms, repeat them as if they've learned something, use them to justify a non Swaro purchase or in the case above repeat them as a review of the bino bought, and ignore the best of the thing and the actual reason they purchased? Is it human nature? Is it cool to criticize what apparently for many, is the best of the best? Or maybe we know things the market doesn't? What does this say about us, our value, our credibility?

 

[Ted Y.]

That said, Im also under the impression, Swarovski is the market leader in high end binoculars.

I do not know. It depends of the definition of "leader".
If I'm correct, this brand is not visible in Canada, except the jewels.
Zeiss, you can buy in some shops, Leica you can buy in some shops, Swarovski ...
I learned about the existence of Swarovski binoculars on this forum.

 

[dries1]

When top status is at the peak of the hill, there are always invaders attempting to climb the hill to take it down.

 

[Hermann]

So the question:

If I'm correct, admittedly I may not be, why is Swarovski seemingly so uniformly criticized on Birdforum?

You're not correct. Swarovski isn't "uniformly criticized" on Birdforum. On the contrary. However, Swarovski doesn't get everything right. That's what people point out on the forum. BTW, most other manufacturers are critized much more harshly than Swarovski.

Why is it folks who come looking for info on what bino to buy find these criticisms, repeat them as if they've learned something, use them to justify a non Swaro purchase or in the case above repeat them as a review of the bino bought, and ignore the best of the thing and the actual reason they purchased?

People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read. They don't need a nanny who protects them from critical views of their binoculars or scopes.

Is it cool to criticize what apparently for many, is the best of the best? Or maybe we know things the market doesn't?

Even the "best of the best" can be improved. That's called progress.

What does this say about us, our value, our credibility?

So "we" (whoever that is) lose "credibility" if "we" criticize a product, that "many" believe is "the best of the best"?

Mind boggling.

Hermann

 

[GrampaTom]

I do not know. It depends of the definition of "leader".
If I'm correct, this brand is not visible in Canada, except the jewels.
Zeiss, you can buy in some shops, Leica you can buy in some shops, Swarovski ...
I learned about the existence of Swarovski binoculars on this forum.

Ah sorry, I meant sales volume. Which top tier bino sells the most? It seems fair to conclude the brand that sells the most is a "leader," especially if it happens year after year. Maybe somebody here knows for sure.

 

[Owlbarred]

...
If I'm correct, this brand is not visible in Canada, except the jewels.
Zeiss, you can buy in some shops, Leica you can buy in some shops, Swarovski ...
I learned about the existence of Swarovski binoculars on this forum.

No, Binoculars Canda is a large bino shop and carries the complete Swarovski lineup.

Binoculars Canada :: Clearance & Used

 

[GrampaTom]

You're not correct. Swarovski isn't "uniformly criticized" on Birdforum. On the contrary. Perhaps it would've been better if Id written "commonly" criticized. However, Swarovski doesn't get everything right. No, but apparently most think they get a lot of the important stuff right, most of the time.That's what people point out on the forum. BTW, most other manufacturers are critized much more harshly than Swarovski. Not my impression. Please note my initial sentence, "Ive a question. It's based entirely on intuition, and impression." You are of course welcome to your impressions. Cant think of a list quite like the one above commonly associated with Swarovski, that would be similar for Zeiss or Leica. Can you? That would help.

People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read. One of those pearls we commonly use, but short of the mark pretty obviously. And its no insult. Folks come here looking for advice. How are they supposed to know who or what is right?They don't need a nanny who protects them from critical views of their binoculars or scopes. Nanny?

Even the "best of the best" can be improved. That's called progress. Yes, of course. Seems like most of the better companies are engaged in this form of continuous improvement, continuously, though not all with equal vigor..

So "we" (whoever that is) lose "credibility" if "we" criticize a product, that "many" believe is "the best of the best"? Well we sure dont acquire credibility if we criticize wrongly, stuff that is inconsequential, or stuff that is anecdotal, not backed by data.

 

[james holdsworth]

Look up some threads about FL edge softness, SF colour cast, Leica CA etc….some of those discussions went on for years. I think you’re just noticing because that’s what you own.

And, yes, top dog will always get the most scrutiny.

 

[Maljunulo]

People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read.

I must confess that I do, from time to time, wonder about this.

 

[GrampaTom]

I think you’re just noticing because that’s what you own.

Yea, you're right 2 Zeiss, 2 Swaros... OH!

 

[Joe H]

I hesitate to wade into this conversation as this sort of topic often becomes acrimonious. Hopefully my input will be of some value – no offence is intended in any of the following points.

In terms of birding optics, I can confirm that up here in Alaska Swarovski binoculars are the most commonly carried by ardent birders. I’d put Leica second, followed closely by Zeiss. Scopes are more of a mixed bag. We get a lot of tourists up here in summer to view nature, their optics are all over the place – with a lot of porro binoculars that generally are not seen up here among the serious birding set. I myself have owned Swaro and Zeiss and previously owned Leica.

When I lived in Australia the criticism of excellent performers was known as the Tall Poppy Syndrome. It’s a concept that’s been studied a bit and easy to research on-line. Basically, a thing (person, car, restaurant, whatever) is noted as excellent, then becomes the target of criticism. Why? Jealousy, mass scrutiny brings exaggerated criticism to minor flaws, some things with a reputation for excellence really are not as good as advertised, or some combination of all of the above.

To answer the question directly, I think the amount of criticism Swarovski takes might be because their optics and build quality are so good, that minor flaws in the overall product seems glaringly out of character. My old 8x32 ELs (2004) have been through a lot (Arctic cold, tropical humidity, a Middle-East war) but they have always provided a perfect (to me) birding view. I’ve had “waterproof” optics fail in heavy rain, focus knobs stop working and all manner of parts beak off my optics. Of those I’ve owned, the Swarovski EL is the only one I’d consider perfectly functional over the last 19 years of hard use. But they are not without flaws. Because they are so good, little things that are not good seem really out of place.

Things like the plastic bits on the neck strap breaking early on in freezing temperatures (replaced with Nikon camera parts that had better plastic); the glue that secures the rubber armor to the barrels has come loose in places making it feel lumpy; the slip-on objective lens covers slipped off and got lost immediately; most recently the plastic rain guard has started getting hairline cracks on the surface. None of these things are worth “fixing” to me as they aren’t really broke, but they are definitely noticeable on such an outstanding birding tool. It’s like the optics and mechanical guys hit it out of the park, while the plastic and rubber guys are just barely able to keep up.

I’m not sure if this will add any clarity to the original post, but it’s fun to commiserate about our favorite hobby accessories. Thanks for reading.

 

[NDhunter]

Ah sorry, I meant sales volume. Which top tier bino sells the most? It seems fair to conclude the brand that sells the most is a "leader," especially if it happens year after year. Maybe somebody here knows for sure.

Swarovski is easily the leader in sales of top end optics. That is a well known fact, as it has been for years.
So, Tom what is your motive in your quest for knowledge ? Are you just looking for trouble ?
Jerry

 

[pppppvvvv]

Might be worth mentioning at this point to those more sensitive to any criticism of Swarovski etc, that you have bought a pair of binoculars. Period.

You haven't designed them, owned the company, or given birth to the binoculars.!

 

[GrampaTom]

Swarovski is easily the leader in sales of top end optics. That is a well known fact, as it has been for years.
So, Tom what is your motive in your quest for knowledge ? Are you just looking for trouble ?
Jerry

I was thinking Swaro is the sales volume leader Jerry, but chose not to write it that way as I can't recall where that comes from. Didn't want to be guilty of adding another myth. You know?

I believe my motive is reasonably obvious. I am indeed trying to provoke - thinking and conversation.

Looking for trouble? Searching my conscience.... no. Im curious though why did you apparently experience it that way?

 

[GrampaTom]

Might be worth mentioning at this point to those more sensitive to any criticism of Swarovski etc, that you have bought a pair of binoculars. Period.

You haven't designed them, owned the company, or given birth to the binoculars.!

Think I get your point. I believe you’re offering an opinion as to (my), motive that’s not so well informed. It’s true I do own a couple Swaros. It’s also true I do not own shares in that family held business. Nor am I an employee whose future depends on its success. A fan then? Well sure.

But is that why I raise this question?

I put some time into Birdforum, daily. Have for few years. It’s entertaining, speaks to an activity I truly do enjoy….. ah birding, rather more. Im a little in and out as when the migration is on I’d rather be birding.

I came here looking for advice about modern binos wanting to update, what I had owned for decades. It took awhile to figure out of all the advice flying around some was good, some not so. Some was fact. Some opinion. Some was science. Some pseudo science. I’m still trying to sort through all that.

What happens to others who like me, looking for info on binos do a Google search and discover Birdforum and a couple other websites? They may not know what they don’t know. I didn’t. Seems clear as I read those like minded, like motivated folks, they are greeted with this same selection of content. How do we help them steer through all this? This is what Im thinking about when raising this question.

 

[Owlbarred]

When I lived in Australia the criticism of excellent performers was known as the Tall Poppy Syndrome. It’s a concept that’s been studied a bit and easy to research on-line. Basically, a thing (person, car, restaurant, whatever) is noted as excellent, then becomes the target of criticism. Why? Jealousy, mass scrutiny brings exaggerated criticism to minor flaws, some things with a reputation for excellence really are not as good as advertised, or some combination of all of the above.

To answer the question directly, I think the amount of criticism Swarovski takes might be because their optics and build quality are so good, that minor flaws in the overall product seems glaringly out of character. My old 8x32 ELs (2004) have been through a lot (Arctic cold, tropical humidity, a Middle-East war) but they have always provided a perfect (to me) birding view. I’ve had “waterproof” optics fail in heavy rain, focus knobs stop working and all manner of parts beak off my optics. Of those I’ve owned, the Swarovski EL is the only one I’d consider perfectly functional over the last 19 years of hard use. But they are not without flaws. Because they are so good, little things that are not good seem really out of place.

Was trying to formulate similar sentiments but am glad I waited. You've said it all perfectly.

 

[tenex]

If I'm correct, admittedly I may not be, why is Swarovski seemingly so uniformly criticized on Birdforum? Why is it folks who come looking for info on what bino to buy find these criticisms, repeat them as if they've learned something, use them to justify a non Swaro purchase or in the case above repeat them as a review of the bino bought, and ignore the best of the thing and the actual reason they purchased?

I should just "Like" Hermann's perfect post #4 and stay out of this mudhole... but I suspect (with some hesitation around putting more words in your mouth) that you meant to say "unfairly" not "uniformly", or in any case are mainly suggesting that Swaros are unfairly criticized (here), in a manner that tragically misleads naive newcomers. So to this: no, that's not so (neither part), and yes, it's probably just you. With a bit more effort you can probably answer questions like this yourself.

A number of obvious reasons exist for frequent complaints about Swaros, starting with the very fact that they outsell other top brands by such a margin: more units sold, more problems, as a marketing guy(?) should realize. They're priced aggressively with discounting discouraged, which understandably makes buyers more demanding. Trying to be super-eco-conscious now with $3k bins at the expense of function or durability is definitely problematic. Their designs have been especially quirky in respects that get mixed reviews. And on the other hand of course there are very positive posts about Swaros as well, while all brands get criticized: Leica for not innovating, Nikon for poor marketing and support, etc. It's all rather complicated, as everyone needs to discover and evaluate for themselves. I regularly see threads here go astray by imagining someone actually needs help instead of just information to make their own choice, which is exactly the impulse you demonstrate again here. Not everyone would care to follow in your footsteps anyway.

 

[Owlbarred]

Swarovski is easily the leader in sales of top end optics. That is a well known fact, as it has been for years.

Even saw Swaros briefly on Yellowstone (Season 4, Episode 2 "Phantom Pain" @2:31).

 

[Maljunulo]

Good grief!

 

[GrampaTom]

I should just "Like" Hermann's perfect post #4 and stay out of this mudhole... but I suspect (with some hesitation around putting more words in your mouth) that you meant to say "unfairly" not "uniformly", or in any case are mainly suggesting that Swaros are unfairly criticized (here), in a manner that tragically misleads naive newcomers. So to this: no, that's not so (neither part), and yes, it's probably just you. With a bit more effort you can probably answer questions like this yourself.

A number of obvious reasons exist for frequent complaints about Swaros, starting with the very fact that they outsell other top brands by such a margin: more units sold, more problems, as a marketing guy(?) should realize. They're priced aggressively with discounting discouraged, which understandably makes buyers more demanding. Trying to be super-eco-conscious now with $3k bins at the expense of function or durability is definitely problematic. Their designs have been especially quirky in respects that get mixed reviews. And on the other hand of course there are very positive posts about Swaros as well, while all brands get criticized: Leica for not innovating, Nikon for poor marketing and support, etc. It's all rather complicated, as everyone needs to discover and evaluate for themselves. I regularly see threads here go astray by imagining someone actually needs help instead of just information to make their own choice, which is exactly the impulse you demonstrate again here. Not everyone would care to follow in your footsteps anyway.

---------------------------------
Hermans perfect post #4? I rather prefer my response to that (#7). Can I guess you did not read it? Ill redo here in case. Mine's in bold.

"You're not correct. Swarovski isn't "uniformly criticized" on Birdforum. On the contrary. Perhaps it would've been better if Id written "commonly" criticized. However, Swarovski doesn't get everything right. No, but apparently most think they get a lot of the important stuff right, most of the time.That's what people point out on the forum. BTW, most other manufacturers are critized much more harshly than Swarovski. Not my impression. Please note my initial sentence, "Ive a question. It's based entirely on intuition, and impression." You are of course welcome to your impressions. Cant think of a list quite like the one above commonly associated with Swarovski, that would be similar for Zeiss or Leica. Can you? That would help.

People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read. One of those pearls we commonly use, but short of the mark pretty obviously. And its no insult. Folks come here looking for advice. How are they supposed to know who or what is right?They don't need a nanny who protects them from critical views of their binoculars or scopes. Nanny?

Even the "best of the best" can be improved. That's called progress. Yes, of course. Seems like most of the better companies are engaged in this form of continuous improvement, continuously, though not all with equal vigor..

So "we" (whoever that is) lose "credibility" if "we" criticize a product, that "many" believe is "the best of the best"? Well we sure dont acquire credibility if we criticize wrongly, stuff that is inconsequential, or stuff that is anecdotal, not backed by data."
-------------------------------------------
Tenex, you are of course welcome to your opinion. Actually you can see I corrected "uniformly" to "commonly" a word I think even better than your "unfairly." Those are quite different things aren't they? Words like "tragically" are of course yours. This is hardly the stuff of tragedy. As to this, "I regularly see threads here go astray by imagining someone actually needs help instead of just information to make their own choice, which is exactly the impulse you demonstrate again here." I have no clue. A distinction without a difference, perhaps?

Do you really think Hermann's "People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read." is correct? Relevant? Really? If they come here doing research isn't it fair to think they dont know? And aren't they displaying some courage by coming here, saying that and asking? Then we give them failing rubber covers, Fieldpro struggles, uneven focusers, flat field that doesn't feel good, glare, fogging, panning issues, sticky rain guards. These are all pretty much first world problems that surely don't deserve to count much against the stuff revealed in the dialogue above of that unnamed but discerning enough poster who looked beyond them in #1 (above).

"Chuckling to myself, I asked,
"Was there anything in particular you liked?"

And the response,
"Yes, the clear crisp image, the FOV, the handling, focuser."

I get you are disgruntled by the price of Swaros, (me to) and work hard to avoid admitting that, when you come up with your own list of reasons, not particularly relating to the bino itself, to justify your own decision not to buy ELs or NLs. Its OK. You get to make your choice. But when you repeat/pile on complaints with no hands on experience how should we judge your opinion?

Do you really think Leica's lack of innovation or Nikons marketing and service issues equate? Really?