-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Simple question... (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter cnick6
- Start date
How quaint. |;|
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Where does one begin in responding to such an unwarranted diatribe? As Denco does in thread after thread, he will deride other products under the assumption that it builds up what he currently owns. It does not matter if it is totally out of context of the thread. The Nikon Monarh 7 8X32 and the new Zeiss SF line are the targets in this thread.
The first part of the above ramblings is in reference to the Bird Watcher's Digest article by Michael and Diane Porter. I would have preferred to discuss this topic in the separate thread on the article, but to no surprise, Denco opted to continue his off topic rants in this thread. The Porters run a birding web site where they have published the results of numerous binocular evaluations. They have also written optics related articles for well known birding publications and they are authorized dealers for Swarovski and Zeiss, among other brands. Since what they wrote was not in line with Denco's current agenda, he immediately dismissed what they had to say about comparisons between the Zeiss SF line and the EL line. Of course their conclusions are just opinions to be accepted or not, but their back ground should warrant more than an immediate rejection.
Denco says that the only area in the article where the SF betters the SV line is in FOV. Again, that is not correct. Here is the a link that will get you to the article if you are interested in finding out what was really said.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307138
Denco says they did not mention build quality, but as usual, that is misleading. They did touch on quality at the end of the article and said that one of the practical benefits of buying a top end binocular is for the incredible build quality. It looks to me that the Porter's think they all have incredible quality so there is no need to make a distinction between Leica, Swaro and Zeiss. They also touched on written warranty coverage for USA distributed products. Leica was lifetime but can not be transferred. They have a three year no fault policy. Swaro also has a life time warranty and it is transferable. They do not have a written no fault policy. Zeiss looks the best to me with a lifetime transferable warranty and a written 5 year no fault policy. It looks like all three have confidence in their build quality with a lifetime warranty.
Denco is correct when he said the article did not mention that the SV had sharper edges, However the article does have a whole section titled "Edge-to-Edge Sharpness". It was discussed and they concluded "the Swarovski and the Zeiss were razor sharp, both at the center and at the edge". The reason the article did not say the SV edges were sharper is because they did not think there was a difference or not a difference worth mentioning. I have seen both and think neither is sharp to the edge. the Swaro maintains sharpness a little closer to the edge, but not to a significant amount and it was an immaterial difference to me. The noticeably larger FOV of the SF, especially in the 8X, may result in a larger center of view when considering real distances.
Denco makes the statement "I would bet if Allbinos would test the SF the SV would still beat it". This is just another example of many baseless statements that he thinks boost his binocular de jour.
The tirade in bold type and HaHa's about stains on the SF armor is beyond rational and borders on hysteria. Two members reported staining of the SF armor after use. One reported subsequently that he was able to polish it off. Let's put this problem shown with bold type in perspective. I have been using a SF for over two months every day and have no stains on the armor. Other members have handled or used the SF and have not reported this problem. The SF has been handled by thousands of people at shows with no reports of staining. The operation of the binocular is not impacted. This is not say it is not a problem for these individuals and that it should not be addressed. But it is not the epidemic made out in bold type, HaHa's, and even an "Oh my god". This is just one more example of an exaggerated statement presenting something out of context to promote an agenda.
Denco promotes what he considers superior build quality of the EL by cherry picking out a thread discussing some stains on the armor of the SF. Although not desirable, it is something that cleans up and in no way impacts the operation of the binocular. What he fails to mention is another current thread in the Swarovski sub forum, where a member who owns a Swaro EL reported that "the focus knob was rubbing severely against the rubber armor causing a rough focus and a squeaking sound". This happens when the temp reaches 80 degrees F. The member goes on to say that he called Swaro USA customer support and was told by the Swaro agent that this is a known problem and there is nothing that can be done to fix it! So Denno has a major problem (in bold type HaHa) with a stain but he has no problem with a known focus mechanism defect where a Swarovski agent says it can not be fixed. Ridiculous! The explanation for this position is simple. One story promotes his personal agenda and the other does not.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307104
Responding to these posts creates a dilemma. One of the reasons we come to this forum is for knowledge. It does not seem right to leave such nonsense scattered from thread to thread. On the other hand, it just give attention to the guy's personal agenda and goes against Jerry's advice to not feed the troll. Despite Jerry's good advice, I think it is more important to challenge the nonsense.
When I saw the "HaHa" in that one sentence, it made me think of the old song "They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha-Haaa". Maybe Perterra is on to something .
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
I get the impression that Dennis is presenting this review as something special. In fact it is just a redisplay of a Bird Forum thread written by member Globetrotter from Spain.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=301412
Globetrotter directly addresses Denco in the thread saying:
For me keep your SV......Unless a bigger FOV is desired both SV and SF are top Bins, in case to go for SF maybe is a good idea wait a little bit until they fix some issues.
That does not sound to me like someone who is thrashing the SF.
. Dear Bruce,
. Your post 183 is well balanced and well presented.
I'm not experienced in Internet ethics, but when I see HaHa and HeHe posted I would think that the person posting these remarks is simply making fun and belittling the person he is referring to.
If somebody did that to me I would certainly take offence.
And these idiotic comments are repeatedly posted and I'm pretty sure others also take offence to them.
I have seen mentioned regarding Internet posts that posting things in bold is considered bad play. And I think to post whole paragraphs repeatedly like this is not something that is welcomed.
I'm sure that sometimes I post things, which some people might object to. But I do try my best, although sometimes I do post light-hearted comments. If I offend anybody, I am sorry.
This Internet is a weird place that I have only used for a fairly short time.
. Your post 183 is well balanced and well presented.
I'm not experienced in Internet ethics, but when I see HaHa and HeHe posted I would think that the person posting these remarks is simply making fun and belittling the person he is referring to.
If somebody did that to me I would certainly take offence.
And these idiotic comments are repeatedly posted and I'm pretty sure others also take offence to them.
I have seen mentioned regarding Internet posts that posting things in bold is considered bad play. And I think to post whole paragraphs repeatedly like this is not something that is welcomed.
I'm sure that sometimes I post things, which some people might object to. But I do try my best, although sometimes I do post light-hearted comments. If I offend anybody, I am sorry.
This Internet is a weird place that I have only used for a fairly short time.
Last edited:
HighNorth
Well-known member
Right on Bruce!
I also want to add that the M7 8x42 has better glare control than any flat field binocular I've tried, by a wide margin. I don't know where Dennis got his, but it might be a faulty sample (though I doubt it). More likely, he is unwilling to admit that his vaunted SV 8x32 fails miserably in this regard, even vs. the "lowly" M7!
HN
I also want to add that the M7 8x42 has better glare control than any flat field binocular I've tried, by a wide margin. I don't know where Dennis got his, but it might be a faulty sample (though I doubt it). More likely, he is unwilling to admit that his vaunted SV 8x32 fails miserably in this regard, even vs. the "lowly" M7!
HN
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Binastro,
I am in complete agreement with you about Bruce's post and I welcome your comments.
I find it tiresome to have threads hijacked for ulterior motives, although I do not mind a little wandering. Usually, I refuse to feed the troll but I am happy when someone reveals nonsense for what it is.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Last edited:
perterra
Well-known member
The advice wasnt pointed at me, but I took it.
Rathaus
Well-known member
Right on Bruce!
I also want to add that the M7 8x42 has better glare control than any flat field binocular I've tried, by a wide margin. I don't know where Dennis got his, but it might be a faulty sample (though I doubt it). More likely, he is unwilling to admit that his vaunted SV 8x32 fails miserably in this regard, even vs. the "lowly" M7!
HN
My SV 8.5x42 certainly don't like glare. Not many of my binos do, excepting the canon 10x42 (and Fuji to a lesser extent) which seem to cut through the glare. I want to make sure I'm referring to glare as the right thing....
I'm attaching a picture of the view from a farm stay place I go to. It's sunset, and within half an hour when the sun has set enough for viewing, the pastures and view become 'milky' looking...washed out. Even when The light is really fading, the glare can be even worse when looking in that general direction. Is this a glare issue, or is there other terminology I should be using?
This is at 1400m altitude and nice and cool. The cannon's IS was behaving very well....but also virtually no glare or milkyness...just crisp.
Attachments
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
........
I also want to add that the M7 8x42 has better glare control than any flat field binocular I've tried, by a wide margin. ...........More likely, he is unwilling to admit that his vaunted SV 8x32 fails miserably in this regard, even vs. the "lowly" M7!
HN
Here is a thread from a couple of years ago where the member asked about a comparison between these two models. You might want to get some popcorn, it is a long one.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=260462
As a side note, Denco at the time claimed there were no veiling glare issues with the SV 8X32 EL, but since then he has several threads mentioning that the SV EL 8X32 does sometimes struggle with glare.
Perterra and Arthur - Thanks.
Jerry, I do see your point, it is a dilemma for me. I do limit my responses to the most egregious postings. I have never put anybody on ignore but instead use that little wheel on the mouse for posts that are not of interest. It is hard to avoid viewing a train wreck.
HighNorth
Well-known member
Yes, it certainly looks like your Eyeball Mark I experience terrible glare! You should definitely replace them with something that has better baffling!
HN
Rathaus
Well-known member
Arthur,
I agree that a little well intentioned wandering can be very interesting...and it often proves to be the most interesting bit. But, I've been absent a few days...out of reception...and returned to this monstrous train wreck! Lol. I had no idea that bird watchers could be such ferocious creatures!
Rathaus
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Arthur,
I agree that a little well intentioned wandering can be very interesting...and it often proves to be the most interesting bit. But, I've been absent a few days...out of reception...and returned to this monstrous train wreck! Lol. I had no idea that bird watchers could be such ferocious creatures!
Rathaus
Hell Rathaus,
As far as I know, the binocular forum is the most contentious and the forum most likely to descend into ad hominem contumely. The anonymity of the internet may enable this but the vast majority of BF posters avoid posting tasteless, offensive or puerile remarks.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
Well put Arthur. The staff spends a good part of their time between the bin section and spammers. Heck, I seriously doubt that a lot of these bin lovers are not even into the bird life.
Steve C
Well-known member
Most of the rancor here is directly attributable to denco. It is POINTLESS to illustrate his flip flops and various other absurdities. You can be logical, friendly, adversarial, or outright angry, no approach will work. I've embarrassed myself trying (yeah he's made me really mad a couple of times), but no more...no more. He seems to be driven to be the final source on binocular opinions. That is too bad because he probably has enough experience to be a useful contributor. However, discussions with his involvement are NEVER about optics, they are always about denco. Moderator involvement always tells us to keep discussions on optics (fine advice to be sure), but they miss the point optics discussions on denco dominated threads are pointles, even impossible. I'm not taking issue with the moderators, by and large they get to the right place and I do not envy their task.
You have to put denco on your personal ignore, just scroll right on by. Forum ignore does not work because somebody always feels compelled to quote him, sometimes necessary but it crashes the forum ignore function. So my advice is to stop wasting any of your life energy arguing with him. That is what he lives off of. Just report the post. If the moderators get enough denco reports maybe they will get the hint.
I hope everyone has a good weekend.
You have to put denco on your personal ignore, just scroll right on by. Forum ignore does not work because somebody always feels compelled to quote him, sometimes necessary but it crashes the forum ignore function. So my advice is to stop wasting any of your life energy arguing with him. That is what he lives off of. Just report the post. If the moderators get enough denco reports maybe they will get the hint.
I hope everyone has a good weekend.
Last edited:
John Dracon
John Dracon
K. C. Foggin - Who said that being a moderator was fun? How is anyone able to ascertain whether a poster is "into bird life?" I'm one of the worst "drifters" on this website, but I'm also a avid bird watcher. But I can say after posting over an eleven year period, this is one of the worst threads I have posted to for its gratuitous comments. Why don't you exercise your prerogative and shut this thread down? Better yet, delete it.
