Looking through a binocular…..The majority of what is discussed in this forum is “in the eye of the beholder“.
Do you consider the issues in that list are false information?Cant think of a list quite like the one above commonly associated with Swarovski, that would be similar for Zeiss or Leica.
It is no contradiction; you are right both of you. Or not relevant?People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read. ... Folks come here looking for advice.
Not false, well maybe. More like not important. The reference to 1st world problems is what I’m struggling to make. If you read the quoted dialogue that was in post 1. The fellow survived us. He wrote a review of his new NL highlighting all the “issues” he learned here. Then when pressed he acknowledged why he chose with the stuff that actually matters. see #20...Do you consider the issues in that list are false information?
This aspect is not clear in your posts.
Or not relevant?
Tom, I kind of agree with James on this one. I own most of these top dogs and they all have areas that we call issues, and other areas where things can be improved. Complaints or areas of weakness are pretty much inherent in all of them. I can list an equal number of less than stellar performance issues in all three of those manufacturers, let’s not forget to ad in Nikon. Some of these manufacturers in trying to improve some of these issues have actually gone backwards.Yea, you're right 2 Zeiss, 2 Swaros... OH!
Don’t forget the stimulating conversation , and political rants 😜✌🏼🙏🏼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.
Please do. And then please can you demonstrate not what you've personally experienced, but what gets reported frequently here of these? I agree with most of what James said, except theres an historical issue. He wrote, "I think you’re just noticing because that’s what you own." Id argue no, Im noticing cuz thats whats being written here now. Many of the older respondents here, who's nerves Ive apparently pricked, keep wanting to make this my fandom for Swaro. Hardly. Im loyal to family, friends, ideas. Inanimate objects, not so much. If they dont work and cant be reasonably fixed they go. Bye. What Im talking about is the dialogue, advice here, that focuses on imagined Swaro shortcomings, that are not terribly consequential to why we buy binoculars. And that at a rate that far exceeds Leica, Zeiss, Nikon shortcomings in any recent postings.. That is my impression. Prove me wrong. Is there a shopping list of stuff we complain about for those 3 brands that comes close to Swaro? Now?Tom, I kind of agree with James on this one. I own most of these top dogs and they all have areas that we call issues, and other areas where things can be improved. Complaints or areas of weakness are pretty much inherent in all of them. I can list an equal number of less than stellar performance issues in all three of those manufacturers, let’s not forget to ad in Nikon. Some of these manufacturers in trying to improve some of these issues have actually gone backwards.
I really want to forget your silly political rants.Don’t forget the stimulating conversation , and political rants 😜✌🏼🙏🏼
Paul
They’re only selling political rants to somebody who doesn’t understand them. And because we have differing opinions does it mean that mine is wrong ✌🏼I really want to forget your silly political rants. They dont belong here. They are just wrong
Thats correct. They are not silly. Because we have differing political opinions, one of which is this conversation does not belong here, you are correct it does not follow yours are wrong. One does not beget the other.They’re only selling political rants to somebody who doesn’t understand them. And because we have differing opinions does it mean that mine is wrong ✌🏼
I can only report my experiences with all of the binoculars being discussed. There seems to be many things here that I and many of the groups that I observe with also don’t recognize, at least in a make or break decision. For instance the glare issue of some of the swarovski‘s , I don’t doubt that some people are having this issue but I truly wonder how much is true and how much is just repeated when some buys another brand. I’ve had over a dozen people using multiple top dog binoculars in comparison with the Swarovski‘s , NL’s and EL’s and I couldn’t definitively say that they were any worse or better than Ultravid‘s or SF’s with glare.Please do. And then please can you demonstrate not what you've personally experienced, but what gets reported frequently here of these?
Some people are more sensitive to criticism than others.I agree with most of what James said, except theres an historical issue. He wrote, "I think you’re just noticing because that’s what you own." Id argue no, Im noticing cuz thats whats being written here now. Many of the older respondents here, who's nerves Ive apparently pricked, keep wanting to make this my fandom for Swaro.
I don’t necessarily think that that is true. Leica has had focuser and CA complaints for years , even as they improve in both areas. Zeiss FL edge issues, SF as James stated and I’d ad very thin cheaply made plastic eyepieces with like three threads, Conquest even worse, the list is pretty even. I’d even go far as to say that I think Swaro may have more complainers than actual true issues be ping complained about.Hardly. Im loyal to family, friends, ideas. Inanimate objects, not so much. If they dont work and cant be reasonably fixed they go. Bye. What Im talking about is the dialogue, advice here, that focuses on imagined Swaro shortcomings, that are not terribly consequential to why we buy binoculars. And that at a rate that far exceeds Leica, Zeiss, Nikon shortcomings in any recent postings.. That is my impression. Prove me wrong. Is there a shopping list of stuff we complain about for those 3 brands that comes close to Swaro? Now?
Agreed. Thank you 🙏🏼Thats correct. They are not silly. Because we have differing political opinions, one of which is this conversation does not belong here, you are correct it does not follow yours are wrong. One does not beget the other.
Adhoc, I didn’t know that about the SLC, I do know they did lengthen the short focus distance on the EL 42’s after the NL’s were introduced. I do know that this was not intended as improvement. I got two differing explanations from Swaro on this, one was to make it less expensive so they could lower price , and the other was they couldn’t have the previous model have a better short focus distance. Again I wouldn’t agree that this was done for the intention of improvement.Paultricounty: "Some of these manufacturers in trying to improve some of these issues have actually gone backwards." I'm very interested to know examples of this, thanks. I'm only able to recall that in the Swaro. SLC the close focus distance was moved back--to enable the design of the instrument to be simpler and less costly to produce.
yes, of course. If you're asking, I would say no, there is nothing unusual or special about Swaro being piled-on to or overly criticized in these forums. All the binoculars have their worst aspects aired-out over & over again here. It seems like a form of customer feedback to me, a democratic consumer process of people wanting their needs to be listened-to and addressed by the manufacturer.Is there a shopping list of stuff we complain about for those 3 brands that comes close to Swaro? Now?
Not sure what you mean with this "Yes of course. If you're asking, I would say no. Sorry, if its just me...yes, of course. If you're asking, I would say no, there is nothing unusual or special about Swaro being piled-on to or overly criticized in these forums. All the binoculars have their worst aspects aired-out over & over again here. It seems like a form of customer feedback to me, a democratic consumer process of people wanting their needs to be listened-to and addressed by the manufacturer.