The ones I looked through were nice, but didnt strike me as a good deal for the dinero
Seems odd a competitive representative of
another optics company, (pete) should feel compelled to offer a negative
at the CL. |[email protected]| I suppose having a hard time competing may be the reason.
When he says "dark" I think that he means that in his opinion it lacks brightness, not that the colour of the rubber armour is less than white![]()
84 responses and we don't even have the review yet. A lot of interest in the Maven.Exactly, there is just that bit missing...
There are some people here who must think that Swarovski is being run by the 3 Stooges!33
Does anybody really think that Swarovski would deliberately build lack of sharpness into the their 8x30 CL Companion because it might compete with its top of the line 8x32 Swarovision which costs $1500.00 more?
As Alfred E. Neuman said: "Hoo Haw!" :-O
If we are reasonable we must assume that Swarovski's managment is also reasonable and wanted to build a binocular that would attract people who didn't want to pay more than 1000 bucks for a binocular and there are plenty of places you can cut to get into that price range without even considering making the binocular less sharp!
I can see this rumor taking wings.o"The brains on Bird Forum are saying not to buy Swarovski's 8x30 CL Companion because they didn't make it sharp!"
I have the 8x30 CL, the 8x30 SLC and a Leica 8x42 Ultravid and I can tell you that all three are equally sharp to my eyes. They exhibit some differences when I use them but not in sharpness. And I have no intention of testing them on an Edmunds Chart.
I had my annual eye exam last Tuesday. My eyes are still unchanged. I still have 20/15 vision in my left eye and 20/25 in my right and I do not have astigmatism.
Bob
PS: The 8x30 CL matches the 8x30 SLC in sharpness to my eyes as it should because it doesn't have a clear plate of glass in front of its objectives like the SLC does but this doesn't mean that their focal lengths are different.
The CL is about 1/2 inch shorter because of this. Their objective tubes are the same width and their objective covers are interchangeable. The clear diameter of their oculars are the same but the eye cups are not interchangeable because the CLs eye cups have have a narrower diameter.
...Are you right handed? If so, then you are also right eye dominant, and that means your worse eye is delivering most of the "message" to your brain...
Bob the Contrarian,
The chances of you agreeing with the majority of opinions on any given bin are about the same as me winning the PowerBall. :smoke:
Are you right handed? If so, then you are also right eye dominant, and that means your worse eye is delivering most of the "message" to your brain, so they would all look equally sharp or unsharp as that eye can see. If you used a booster and a chart, you might detect some differences.
To find your dominant eye, hold a pencil out in front of you, far away enough that you don't see a double image. Then close one eye, then open that eye and close the other. Note the shift in position of the pencil for each eye vis-à-vis both eyes. The eye that shows the pencil in the same position as both eyes is your dominant eye.
Anyway, this wasn't about dissing the CL, it was about foiling yet another "pump and dump" (say no more).
...I know my right eye is my dominant eye and I know how to set diopters for it...