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="BruceH" data-source="post: 3242655" data-attributes="member: 106398">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.<a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307138" target="_blank">http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307138</a> 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.<a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307104" target="_blank">http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307104</a>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 .<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification