QC Issues Victory SF (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

The products under discussion here, the Zeiss SF x42 series are superb for 95% of users, and induce nausea in some of the other 5%.
The same goes for the high end Swaros. The geeks seem to agree that studies confirm the perception really occurs, and is correlated with a certain measurable type of distorsion - if I understand rightly.

Unfortunately we get a bunch of defensive replies here of the style “never happened to me or me friends so you must be a lying b*stard to claim that”.
We also get some constructive remarks like “try before you buy, trust your own eyes, not what people say”.

I vote we go with the neutral “try before you buy” advice and move on to a less controversial topic, eg. whether one should use animal-leather straps on birding binoculars


Some

Unfortunately, this merry-go-round will turn forever, and some folks get really would up about such things.

We don't all see the same, and our minds don't all work the same.

Sometimes that helps, but often it hinders the orderly exchange of information here.

 

[Troubador]

I disagree.

It is not a matter of "surviving very nicely" it is a matter of having and using what we see as the best available.

As for being "obsessed with luxury items" you are attaching a judgmental label to anything over an arbitrary price limit which you are setting in your own mind. (and we have no idea what that limit is)

We, for the most part, do not buy our binoculars with the idea of their being "luxury items" it is just that we believe that the ones we select are the best that the state of the art and the laws of physics permit to be manufactured and sold at a realistic price.

Lower price inevitably means compromises, which may or not be acceptable to us.

Yust my opinion.

My understanding of what Eronald was saying is that he wasn't so much focusing on the arbitrary price limit but on bino functionality. I think he was saying that there are binoculars that are 'good enough' and binos that are better than this fall into a category that he would call 'luxury' and which I interpret to mean 'better than they need to be'. Of course just as you point out that we don't know what price he has in mind, neither do we know what level of bino functionality he considers as good enough, but as a general proposition I don't think we need to know this. I have had many satisfying nature observations using Opticron Travellers so to this extent I wouldn't argue too much with anyone who concluded that my Zeiss SF32s were therefore 'luxuries' and there is nothing wrong with a few luxuries in life IMHO.

Lee

 

[Rotherbirder]

I disagree.

It is not a matter of "surviving very nicely" it is a matter of having and using what we see as the best available.

As for being "obsessed with luxury items" you are attaching a judgmental label to anything over an arbitrary price limit which you are setting in your own mind. (and we have no idea what that limit is)

We, for the most part, do not buy our binoculars with the idea of their being "luxury items" it is just that we believe that the ones we select are the best that the state of the art and the laws of physics permit to be manufactured and sold at a realistic price.

Lower price inevitably means compromises, which may or not be acceptable to us.

Yust my opinion.

A higher price also inevitably means compromises which may or not be acceptable to us, as becomes apparent from reading the variety of complaints in many of these threads; and - of course, no one can escape the compromises imposed by the laws of physics, no mater how much cash they are willing to part with!

RB

 

[Maljunulo]

.......... and - of course, no one can escape the compromises imposed by the laws of physics, no mater how much cash they are willing to part with!

RB

Those are permanent, and therefor outside the discussion.

As I said, sometimes you just have to accept the best, even if it is not perfect.

 

[Maljunulo]

It always fascinates me to see how clearly we know exactly what we mean when we type something, but someone else reading it can (and will probably) see it as saying something different. (sometimes quite different)

I guess that's how lawyers stay in business.

I apologize if I misunderstood anyone's meaning.

 

[GrampaTom]

It always fascinates me to see how clearly we know exactly what we mean when we type something, but someone else reading it can (and will probably) see it as saying something different. (sometimes quite different)

Amen!

 

[Troubador]

It always fascinates me to see how clearly we know exactly what we mean when we type something, but someone else reading it can (and will probably) see it as saying something different. (sometimes quite different)

I guess that's how lawyers stay in business.

I apologize if I misunderstood anyone's meaning.

Maljunolo, please don't beat yourself up. When trying to understand text that has been posted on pages such as these, the reader has no access to tone of voice, facial expression or body language, all of which give us vital clues during normal, face to face conversation. In addition, English is not the first language of all Birdforum's members and their facility with the sometimes puzzling aspects of English usage varies enormously. Add to this the fact that there are differences in English usage between regions of the world that nominally speak this 'same' language and it is amazing that we understand each other on Birdforum as well as we do.

Lee