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="kabsetz" data-source="post: 1430851" data-attributes="member: 10167">Jeff,Firstly, thanks for taking the time and effort to contribute to these discussions under your own name and on behalf of Leica. We all appreciate it, it lets us know that our opinions are heard and noted where it matters, at the companies which produce the products we so much enjoy using.On the first point in the quotes above, I must strongly side with Henry Link, though. Only if we forcefully emphasize the word I took the liberty of setting in bold in your quote would I conditionally agree with what you are saying. If by maximum resolution we mean the centerfield resolution, maximum retrievable detail, then at least among the big five (in scopes, I indeed consider there to be the big five, Kowa, Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss, in alphabetical order) the eyepiece design is the limiting factor only insofar as the maximum magnification available by the offered eyepiece selection may not allow for seeing all that the scope objective can deliver. The eyepieces for these scopes themselves are easily good enough to transmit all of that detail to the eye. The "other factor" is insufficient production tolerances, whereby the practically achievable resolution is sample-dependent. Like Henry said, and as my own testing has also shown me, good samples of the 88mm Kowa achieve levels of detail not obtainable by even the best of the 80-82mm crop. As to where the new 82mm Apo-Televid stands among this group I don't have a solid opinion yet, only having seen a couple of units. My initial impression on the new 25-50x superwide zoom is very favorable, but what I think of the scope itself will have to wait for a more extended and thorough trial.On the second point, on "paid company reps offering their opinions under an assumed name/e-address" on virtually every thread on these forums, like Karmantra I would also like to have some proof, otherwise I will have to assume that saying this is an effort on your part to generally discredit most of the user opinions offered on the internet. While I'm readily willing to admit that all too often people jump into rushed conclusions and tend to exaggerate and misinterpret differences they see, having followed (and contributed to) these discussions for quite a few years and despite (if I may say so) having my fair share of healthy cynicism when it comes to people's motives and ethics, I have seen precious few instances where posters appear to have a disingenuous agenda behind their opinions. A few do come to mind where I have thought that this may be a clumsy attempt to talk up/down a particular brand (and, yes, Leica has been among their targets), but they have fortunately been few and far between. I agree that it often makes sense to, if not disregard, then at least apply the proverbial grain of salt onto the most extreme opinions both positive and negative. Reading critically and being aware of your sources is an important part of media literacy. But, to make a blanket assumption that all of the extreme opinions are fabrications by paid "guerrilla marketers" is rather extreme. Instilling paranoia about such underhanded tactics will unfairly discredit the opinions of the vast majority of contributors who are honestly reporting their own experiences.Cordially,Kimmo</blockquote>

Verification