BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3328394" data-attributes="member: 92780">Hey Buudd,  I don't want to sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas, but your post seems more about personal preferences and an extract from the Flat Earth Society Almanac than any direction I want optics manufacturers taking!  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />To paraphrase the immortal words of former President Alfred E. Neuman,  "The end of your world came yesterday - too bad you missed it ....."Some of the 2nd tier offerings I find quite bland and redundant - while plenty of folk have time for the Zeiss Conquest HD, I find it a bit blah ..... (little brother the Terra ED, totally meh ...... ).  They seem to range from the optically quite good (but tank-like in weight), particularly some of the Japanese or Eastern Bloc built stuff, old Leica Trinovid etc, to things that actually have a logical basis for existence - such as the lightweight Vortex Razor HD.  Most seem to exhibit various compromises to hit the target price point - reduced Fov's, and ER's, slightly less transmission, contrast, and absolut colour fidelity, and increased weight through less sophisticated mechanical engineering and less exotic material specification.It seems to me that an enormous amount of resources are wasted in creating the broadly 3, but many and varied different levels of offerings - material, process, and duplicitous marketing grunt and copy.  Wasted  in the sense that with just two levels - alpha, and value, ...... vastly, vastly greater scale economies could be achieved thus bringing a substantial cost reduction for the two levels to around ~$1500, and ~$200-$400 (plenty of room to offer play in that value range), respectively.  Of course that still leaves room for ~$100 and below entry level porros, and maybe even some 1/2 priced updated alpha type porros for the porrosaurs, and porromaniacs out there .........Buudd, I think y'all hit two cost saving nails on the head with the greater minimum focusing distance requirement in practice, and the simpler diopter mechanism, unless of course a beautifully designed Leica-like centre mount fashion statement is called for.  Most folk want something quality that works reliably - the simpler and cheaper the better - and if that means right eyepiece based, then so be it!  But Buudd ...... the waterproofing thing? - de rigueur at all price points - for the purposes of keeping condensation, dust, fluff, and grit out of the bin as much as depth pressurised water or catfish!  And the lightweight thing? - can be done better - much better - enter the 'back to the future' (that should keep you porch rockers satisfied <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> CFRP .... lighter, stronger, cheaper!  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />What I can't fathom though is all the cr*pping on about flat field "shtick", especially when it (room spinning levels of AMD) only affects a minority (~5-10%, quoting some reliably made up figures! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ...... so the extra 1 or 2 elements per tube may cost ~<1% in transmission loss ....... sooooo ?????   and ?????!  It's hardly deal breaking stuff - I'm sure there's room in the stocking for both recipes of goodies  :t:I also find it a hard to believe fairytale that after 5 and a half thousand of your posts (and likely you reading through something like 5 times that amount), which may average some 500 words each (if you're being brief!) or nearly 3 000 000 words!!! that you still don't comprehend the concomitant benefits of increased transmission ????!!!!! :h?:   :brains:   :scribe:  To the manufacturers I say 100% - go for it! You have open license!Why deprive the world of the brightness Wow! of the "up to and more than 95% tr" HT-type of kit?! ..... let the kiddies look, smile, rejoice, and sing and play in the yard!  3<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />What's needed is not some nihilist regression as you postulate - but rather aim for the skies and shoot for the stars!!!   :king:The full Xmas lights, bells and whistles alpha dawgs, pushing the boundaries of performance - but still at an economy of scale circa $1500-odd, and the trickled down, watered down, specification hobbled 'value' class in whatever optical prescription permutation that takes (reduced Fov's, ER's tr%'s, ED glass of a lesser god, less complex and less expensive coatings, etc, etc).  Underpinning both classes can be a paradigm shift to E-glass, or Carbon Fibre reinforced plastic ....... HunTing snobbery be damned!  :smoke:Besides, you already have your perfect bin - the Swaro SLC - turn some of those 3 000 000 words into pennies, and go forth and enjoy!   B <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Bah Humbug indeed!Chosun  :gh:</blockquote>

Verification