The best man or binocular will win.I "ain't" biting. I've seen this movie before at the Bird Forum theater and think I know what the ending will be from this particular director/producer.
The best man or binocular will win.I "ain't" biting. I've seen this movie before at the Bird Forum theater and think I know what the ending will be from this particular director/producer.
That's how the American economy works. HaHa! If everybody was like you it would stagnate.There have to be people with expendable income to buy stuff they really don't need like a Zeiss SF. My financial resources are like a Black Hole unlimited when it comes to binoculars at least.There is no need for a competition. The SF and the SV are excellent binoculars. Only thing is that their performance has to be related to their price, unless you have unlimited financial resources to fund your investments.
You mentioned that the market has decided. That is a good point: I have bought my Nikon 8x30 EII more than 10 years ago. That time I believed that they offered a good performance for their money, and I was planning to use them temporarily until I would find the right high end glass for me. Since then, I have tried all of them, and though they were somewhat better here and there, I haven't yet felt the need to replace the EII. So I still keep on using them.
Perhaps this is one key point: People as me, who buy in this price class, are often satisfied with what they got. Then, there are others who always want the "best" (or, sometimes, just the newest and most expensive gadget there is on the market), who continuously change from Leica Trino to Zeiss FL to Swaro SV and now to Zeiss SF.
The manufacturers cannot make the big money with customers who are too satisfied with their products and who are using them over many years. The real money is made with those who remain restless and jump onto every bandwagon that passes by. So there exists little drive to produce good, but moderately priced Porros, which would anyway remain unattractive to the high end buyers (regardless of performance), but which find their satisfied group of customers who stay with them. To the manufacturer, it is more beneficial to continue making items with minor improvements that nonetheless keep the prices growing up, which generate thousands of entries on the discussion boards even prior to their introduction
Cheers,
Holger
Maybe the dingo ate your baby.
That's how the American economy works. HaHa! If everybody was like you it would stagnate.There have to be people with expendable income to buy stuff they really don't need like a Zeiss SF. My financial resources are like a Black Hole unlimited when it comes to binoculars at least.
Holger's post at #58 above is the most sense i've heard in a while, and just about sums up what i think.
From 1992 to around 2010, i used an old pair of Viking 8x42 porros, and prized them dearly. They worked (mostly) for almost everything i did. It was only when i became aware of the 'optics yardstick' that i realised they perhaps lacked a little something. I've still got them, and they will never leave, even if now i use a Vanguard Endeavor, as we shared a lot of real good times.....I'm certainly not spending £2000 chasing rainbows.
Paddy
Perhaps this is one key point: People as me, who buy in this price class, are often satisfied with what they got. Then, there are others who always want the "best" (or, sometimes, just the newest and most expensive gadget there is on the market), who continuously change from Leica Trino to Zeiss FL to Swaro SV and now to Zeiss SF.
Cheers,
Holger
Surely this cannot be true.
It seems very unlikely that there is a large group of bino obsessives that flit from alpha to alpha as the new models emerge. The members of this forum are in no way representative of the real world imho.
Rather there is a much larger number of people who are clueless but who need quality optics for some reason, maybe a trip. Some buy whatever the salesman gives them, some just buy the cheapest and some buy the most expensive they can find, because that is 'the best'.
New customers is what drives the market. Most binoculars remain in the cupboard gathering dust subsequent to the occasion of their purchase.
Surely this cannot be true.
It seems very unlikely that there is a large group of bino obsessives that flit from alpha to alpha as the new models emerge. The members of this forum are in no way representative of the real world imho.
Rather there is a much larger number of people who are clueless but who need quality optics for some reason, maybe a trip. Some buy whatever the salesman gives them, some just buy the cheapest and some buy the most expensive they can find, because that is 'the best'.
New customers is what drives the market. Most binoculars remain in the cupboard gathering dust subsequent to the occasion of their purchase.
You may be right - I guess it is a topic that must have been analyzed before by the marketing guys of the manufacturers. I would like to know their results. To me it seems almost impossible to believe that a bloody newcomer, with no former experience in this field, steps in and shells out 2000 bucks for something he doesn't understand. But then, what do I know about customer profiles ...
Cheers,
Holger
Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.
Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.
It is not about "my thread" or "your thread", as far as I know nobody "owns" a thread on this forum, it's about any thread:
if you have some useful info about the topic of a thread then post it, but if you want to digress (just to have "fun") then I am unsure as to whether you should post----at any rate, this fact seems obvious to me and I have no intention to discuss it any further.
Peter.
Does anybody remember what was the question in the original post? I know I am going to be told that this is a free forum and that the usual amount of clutter per thread must be at least 50%. However IMO if the clutter could be kept under 10% then that would be what most people call a useful thread.