Is it just me? (1 Viewer)

[Scott98]

See it?

OK....it looks like you're not spending as much time in these other forums you missed all this:

Zeiss
-too much blackouts, difficult eye placement, too much rolling ball, two-toned rubber, rubber attracts dust, slippery rubber, too many cosmetic style elements on exterior, terrible cases, manufacturing in Japan, Hungary, China instead of Deutschland, eyecups don't come up far enough, exterior build quality not durable....and you didn't even mention the main one - horrible GREEN color tone....and you forgot the awful LEMON of the Zeiss lineup, the Victory HT's

Nikon

• Leaky prisms show spikes on bright lights at night
• Rubber peels off body, floating diopter, difficult diopter adjustment, "narrow" FOV, lens covers fall off...this is just for EDG, haven't even gotten started w/ MHG - blackouts!!

Leica
HEAVY Noctivids...narrow FOV...smelly rubber....obsolete two-bridge design...again non-Deutschland manufacturing....blurry edges....false color....and probably more

 

[dries1]

Simple, if folks don't like a product, then don't buy it. If they cannot afford it, the decision is already made.

 

[GrampaTom]

OK....it looks like you're not spending as much time in these other forums you missed all this:

Zeiss
-too much blackouts, difficult eye placement, too much rolling ball, two-toned rubber, rubber attracts dust, slippery rubber, too many cosmetic style elements on exterior, terrible cases, manufacturing in Japan, Hungary, China instead of Deutschland, eyecups don't come up far enough, exterior build quality not durable....and you didn't even mention the main one - horrible GREEN color tone....and you forgot the awful LEMON of the Zeiss lineup, the Victory HT's

Nikon

• Leaky prisms show spikes on bright lights at night
• Rubber peels off body, floating diopter, difficult diopter adjustment, "narrow" FOV, lens covers fall off...this is just for EDG, haven't even gotten started w/ MHG - blackouts!!

Leica
HEAVY Noctivids...narrow FOV...smelly rubber....obsolete two-bridge design...again non-Deutschland manufacturing....blurry edges....false color....and probably more

Thanks. Its possible. Though I think Im an equal opportunity cruiser between the big 4. I think...

Happy to add these, but a few questions.

As a user and lover of Zeiss since about 1985, think I would've noticed but don't recall much/any discussion of blackouts, difficult eye placement, rolling ball, too many exterior style elements(?), build quality, eyecups too short, applied to Zeiss in my 3 years here. Horrible green color tone of body, image? I am aware of the Conquest made where debates. Is that a bino complaint? Is it possible these compared with my time here, are more historical examples of past complaints? Things that you longer attending members would remember but something not so familiar to someone with only 3 years here?

I bought a pair of Trinovids same time as my ol Zeiss, sister and brother in law still have em and I still get to use. Think of myself as a Leica fan to. Though confess I paid zero attention to the brand in intervening years. Notice Im lumping these "complaints under brand mostly irregardless of model. Thought Id covered the lack of FOV etc in that list with "Not very innovative FOV/FF wise" FF covering the blurry edge thing. Is this different? have not read recently of smelly rubber, weight (is this different from similar complaints to other brands/models). It could be true Im not paying attention, tho feels more like stuff before my time. Help me understand "obsolete two-bridge design please, dont know that one.

As for Nikon your larger list is for the EDG, which controversially seems to be not around anymore? So back in the day maybe, but not recently? Leaky prisms showing spikes on bright lights at night. Again not familiar. Do I dare get snarky and say I dont bird at night. Just kidding. Please get started with MHG, other than some controversy over their "alpha" status, which they aren't charging for, whats complaints with these?

 

[Scott98]

oh yes, I forgot one complaint for EDG "it's discontinued"

 

[gwlee]

Although Swarovski binoculars are very popular, not all Swarovski binoculars are everyone’s first choice.

 

[Paultricounty]

Swaro:
Loose rubber covering
Glare
Focuser harder in one direction than the other
Sticky rain guards
Objective covers fall off/sticky
Fieldpro solution in search of problem
Flat field distorts things
Fogging
Finger dents in wrong place
Panning uncomfortable for some do to distortion
Shortening close focus in SLC and EL

Leica:
Scritchy/dry feeling focuser
Not very innovative FOV/FF wise
Eye relief

Leica:
To much CA
No open bridge can’t wrap hands around barrels
Not sharp to the edge
Water proofing issues
No thumb indents
Distortion

Zeiss:
Plastic eye cups
Feel cheap

Zeiss
Focuser issues on early SF , to fast on others.
Green hue
Deadly Blue ring
Plastic strap anchors
powdery substance on NIB SF’s and newer conquest’s

Nikon:
No $2-3K entry at the mo (thwarts conversation/comparison)
Weird marketing
Service not so consistent or easy

Nikon:
Terrible objective covers
MHG rubber inlay separations
MHG focuser inconsistent.
EDG diopter drift
EDG Loose eye cup settings
Not bright
WX weight

See it?

No, I don’t. Sometimes we see what we want, or what we think we see 🙏🏼✌🏼.

 

[Paultricounty]

OK....it looks like you're not spending as much time in these other forums you missed all this:

Zeiss
-too much blackouts, difficult eye placement, too much rolling ball, two-toned rubber, rubber attracts dust, slippery rubber, too many cosmetic style elements on exterior, terrible cases, manufacturing in Japan, Hungary, China instead of Deutschland, eyecups don't come up far enough, exterior build quality not durable....and you didn't even mention the main one - horrible GREEN color tone....and you forgot the awful LEMON of the Zeiss lineup, the Victory HT's

Nikon

• Leaky prisms show spikes on bright lights at night
• Rubber peels off body, floating diopter, difficult diopter adjustment, "narrow" FOV, lens covers fall off...this is just for EDG, haven't even gotten started w/ MHG - blackouts!!

Leica
HEAVY Noctivids...narrow FOV...smelly rubber....obsolete two-bridge design...again non-Deutschland manufacturing....blurry edges....false color....and probably more

Sorry Scottie , I posted before I read your post, truthfully no plagiary. 🙏🏼✌🏼.

 

[peter.jones]

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.

And that's the other "problem" on here. You have people going into a heck of a lot of detail looking for the differences between similar models/brands.
There is a whole genre of it here on birdforum.

There must be very few examples of anyone missing a bird due to having the wrong binoculars, assuming they bought a single 8x or 10x, x30mm or x40mm, from within their budget. Very few examples. I can't think of a single example in my life, with a whole range of different models. (I must have missed hundreds due to daydreaming, bad luck, or slight incompetence though)

It certainly doesn't warrant 17.4K threads, 368,000 messages, of useful information!
Even if you buy the "wrong" pair, you'll be fine.

(I'm lucky enough not to wear permanent glasses, so that would be at least one useful thread I suspect!)

 

[tenex]

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?

Yes, of course. The key word here is that such a presumption should be made, out of respect. There could be individual exceptions, but one would wait for evidence of that, or a specific request.

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

Yes, that is exactly what I said... so what is the purpose of this question?

But when you repeat/pile on complaints with no hands on experience how should we judge your opinion?

Who's "we", apart from you? And you haven't identified any instance in which I've done this, so what kind of idiot question is this?

I don't care for your idea of conversation at all, so be careful what you want to "provoke".

 

[Owlbarred]

There must be very few examples of anyone missing a bird due to having the wrong binoculars, assuming they bought a single 8x or 10x, x30mm or x40mm, from within their budget. Very few examples. I can't think of a single example in my life, with a whole range of different models. (I must have missed hundreds due to daydreaming, bad luck, or slight incompetence though)

"Even if you buy the "wrong" pair, you'll be fine."
Well said. For sure, we're wonderfully spoiled, nowadays, with even many of today's "lower-end" binoculars delivering the 'goods' compared to the 'old days.'

For my first Ornithology class in 1971. I had a pair of 7x35B Leitz Trinovids (saved up for more than a year to buy them) and probably impressed fellow students — but they quickly realized that binoculars don't make the birder. There were students that knew the birds by sight and sound far better than I. Even my renowned ornithology teacher had ratty "low-grade" binoculars compared to my Trinovids.

For perspective, Roger Tory Peterson wrote his first edition of the legendary and revolutionary Field Guide to the Birds in 1934, more than a half-century before phase-corrected coatings, for example, were even available.

 

[claves_10]

...Even if you buy the "wrong" pair, you'll be fine.

Completely agree.

 

[Maljunulo]

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?

Yes, I do.

What makes you think it isn’t?

Why do you presume they are not adults, capable of reading and deciding for themselves?

 

[GrampaTom]

Yes, I do.

What makes you think it isn’t?

Why do you presume they are not adults, capable of reading and deciding for themselves?

Nothing. That’s not the point. Don’t we all agree the advice offered here isn’t always so clear? You yourself just posted to this effect. If one comes here and is totally dependent on what they discover, but have no knowledge of the posters experience or knowledge, it makes no difference how smart they are, how able to make up their own mind. Will they make the correct choice? Surely possibly. Luck is that there aren’t too many wrong choices…. That said, of course smart people given good info will more often than not make a good choice. If the info presented at the time that person comes, isn’t so good, then how good is the choice they will make. See it?

 

[Maljunulo]

Nothing. That’s not the point. Don’t we all agree the advice offered here isn’t always so clear? You yourself just posted to this effect. If one comes here and is totally dependent on what they discover, but have no knowledge of the posters experience or knowledge, it makes no difference how smart they are, how able to make up their own mind. Will they make the correct choice? Surely possibly. Luck is that there aren’t too many wrong choices…. That said, of course smart people given good info will more often than not make a good choice. If the info presented at the time that person comes, isn’t so good, then how good is the choice they will make. See it?

Okay ……. what do you propose as a solution to this problem?

 

[GrampaTom]

Okay ……. what do you propose as a solution to this problem?

With post #1 I hoped to start a constructive dialogue. I hoped that dialogue might lead to something like:

1. Do we do this?
2. Why do we do this?
3. Do we agree this is not such a good thing?
4. Can we agree amongst ourselves to notice, speak up, constructively, respectfully to try and change this?

Hopefully by now most are clear on what the "this" above is, I'm referring to. My apologies to those who thought this specifically a a fanboy defense of Swarovski, though it seems a pretty good current example still. Ill chalk up some of the controversy here last couple days to my less than concise way of laying out the subject.

In mid 2020 I had an email exchange with Troubador. He explained he saw his role as a moderator was to maintain comity. He wanted people to get along, stay away from the personal, keep it polite, civil, respectful. I asked, "But what about content? Is comity maintained at the expense of content? How does Birdforum, arguably one of, if not the most important online birding optics forums, make sure it is giving out accurate, useful, quality information if comity is the priority?

Thinking about the last couple days, feels like we made progress on 1 and 2. 3 and 4 not so much.

 

[Canip]

Is it just me, or is this thread going into a funny direction?

 

[adhoc]

Paultricounty Posts #36-37. Thank you. Some of that I did not know. Does/did Nikon actually say Monarch-HG is an improvement over EDG? I cannot imagine anyone will agree.

"---" Post #48. May I suggest that a forum name in alphanumeric should make things a bit easier for us! You're saying that the Binoculars subforum in BirdForum has some connection with using binoculars to look at birds?

Owlbarred Post #50 (and "---" at #48, now seriously). There have been several threads on this subject. They include mention of renowned ornithologists who used ordinary binoculars. How many of us here have used such a binocular for years as our only one and, looking back now, reckon we did not miss much due to not having an Alpha (or thereabouts, in optical quality)! However, in those threads some members assert the value of Aplha to more easily and effectively make difficult species identifications. And, as said here many times before, once you use an Alpha...

GrampaTom, OP. I think the discussion in the thread is useful, and appreciate the information, from you and others. Had it been more concise from the start there would have been less room for misunderstanding! Or is that just me!

 

[BabyDov]

I just don't get it. Why are we worrying if Swarovski gets picked on for any perceived fault? Is any product perfect, no matter how much it costs? People posting their experience with Swarovski or any other binocular are just giving their opinion. I can't imagine anyone making a decision, to buy or not to buy, who will make up his mind based only on one opinion posted here, but rather on several opinions should they lean in the same direction. Furthermore, when buying new binoculars, what really matters most is the buyer's opinion after buying them and using them for a period of time, up to 30 days, (most dealers give that much time). He can decide, for himself, whether to keep them or not.

 

[GrampaTom]

Owlbarred Post #50 (and "---" at #48, now seriously). There have been several threads on this subject. They include mention of renowned ornithologists who used ordinary binoculars. How many of us here have used such a binocular for years as our only one and, looking back now, reckon we did not miss much due to not having an Alpha (or thereabouts, in optical quality)! However, in those threads some members assert the value of Aplha to more easily and effectively make difficult species identifications. And, as said here many times before, once you use an Alpha...

GrampaTom, OP. I think the discussion in the thread is useful, and appreciate the information, from you and others. Had it been more concise from the start there would have been less room for misunderstanding! Or is that just me!

In reverse:

Thanks for the feedback. I struggle with brevity. But from what other's post as well as my own writing. Trying to find the balance between enough for the potential wide array of folks coming here, and not enough from a post that leaves you wondering, is for me a challenge. But thanks.

I suggest its a bit short of the mark to assume looking through a binocular is only about identifying birds. If that was the game, not only would I not buy a binocular, neither do I think would I go birding. While I keep a list, its not what drives me unlike some birders I encounter. The joy of seeing stuff in all their natural beauty is why I do this and why a great binocular brings joy.

Hows' that?

 

[GrampaTom]

I just don't get it. Why are we worrying if Swarovski gets picked on for any perceived fault? Is any product perfect, no matter how much it costs? People posting their experience with Swarovski or any other binicular are just giving their opinion. I can't imagine anyone making a decision, to buy or not to buy, will make up his mind based only on one opinion posted here, but rather on several opinions should they lean in the same direction. Furthermore, when buying new binoculars, what really matters most is the buyer's opinion after buying them and using them for a period of time, up to 30 days, (most dealers give that much time) if needed, to decide to keep them or not.

Doc,
As the OP Im not worrying about Swaro getting picked on. I used Swaro as for me its a pretty obvious example (see the list) of information the forum offers to folks coming here looking for help, that is not always the most balanced or valuable. To riff on Hermann, "People who read this forum are presumably adults who can decide for themselves what they make of what they read." That only works if they get good information. Having someone reject a potential experience with say one of your NLs, (that I know you enjoy), because they read that Fieldpro strap connectors are dumb, or the rubber housing is gonna falloff someday doesn't seem that helpful.
T