Sako: I think your daughter-in-law has made the correct diagnosis!
-
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.
Swarovski New binocular launch (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sanjay Naithani
- Start date
Sako: I think your daughter-in-law has made the correct diagnosis!
brocknroller
porromaniac
Well, now you've done it, Bob, here come two of The Defenders, and they added a new knight to their ranks who thinks I need to see a shrink from Down Under! The blood would rush to my head and my pee would swirl clockwise! Argh!
Lee was the one who said the CL's focuser was stiff, not me. He's the one who said he couldn't catch moderately fast birds with the CL. Don't kill the messenger pigeon!
Sorry if I offended you, I like you even though we never see eye to eye (literally). It's just frustrating sometimes, because just as The Defenders ALWAYS come out of the woodwork after I dare say anything negative about their brand, you post after me or someone else who has a complaint or comment about a bin, any brand, and your opinion is ALWAYS the opposite. Go back to my posts where you posted afterward and see for yourself.
Everybody is different, but most people are inconsistent about it. They might agree with you on one observation and disagree with you on another. You never agree with me, and you usually don't agree with others either, and the CL is a case in point. Saying there's not a damned thing wrong with it is a dig at Lee, not me. My original query was how a focuser could be both "stiff" and "smooth and luxurious" at the same time. That gets into the spooky realm of Schrödinger's cat.
As Dino used to sing, "Everybody agrees with somebody sometime...."
But I guess we never will, so we'll have to agree to disagree. That we should have no trouble agreeing on!
Again, sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intention.
Brock
Well, now you've done it, Bob, here come two of The Defenders, and they added a new knight to their ranks who thinks I need to see a shrink from Down Under! The blood would rush to my head and my pee would swirl clockwise! Argh!
Lee was the one who said the CL's focuser was stiff, not me. He's the one who said he couldn't catch moderately fast birds with the CL. Don't kill the messenger pigeon!
Sorry if I offended you, I like you even though we never see eye to eye (literally). It's just frustrating sometimes, because just as The Defenders ALWAYS come out of the woodwork after I dare say anything negative about their brand, you post after me or someone else who has a complaint or comment about a bin, any brand, and your opinion is ALWAYS the opposite. Go back to my posts where you posted afterward and see for yourself.
Everybody is different, but most people are inconsistent about it. They might agree with you on one observation and disagree with you on another. You never agree with me, and you usually don't agree with others either, and the CL is a case in point. Saying there's not a damned thing wrong with it is a dig at Lee, not me. My original query was how a focuser could be both "stiff" and "smooth and luxurious" at the same time. That gets into the spooky realm of Schrödinger's cat.
As Dino used to sing, "Everybody agrees with somebody sometime...."
But I guess we never will, so we'll have to agree to disagree. That we should have no trouble agreeing on!
Again, sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intention.
Brock
Brock,
Go back to your post #137. After I read it I honestly didn't know where to start in responding to it.
Look at your 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph. I've never used a binocular that had a reputation for RB! I haven't commented on CA in years except to say I'm not susceptible to it. Some people see it-some don't. So be it! In short, I don't "always" do any of that stuff you listed and I never did "always" do it. But I didn't take it personally and you didn't offend me.
I explained why and when I make comments about your posts. It may seem that I'm always disagreeing with you because those are the only times I usually decide to comment. I agree with you lots of times, I just don't comment on it. I do that with other posters too.
As for Lee's issues with the CL; you advertised them and mentioned his name and I responded to your post about them. My experience with the binocular was different than his. He got the message and responded to my post before you got back to me.
Relax. I'm not mad.
Bob
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
I guess I should tune in a little more often!
Our regulars are making some good banter.
Brock, you are getting slayed over on 24hr campfire!
The king of RB!
Better head over there and stick up for yourself!
Just a heads up, your pretty popular!
Bryce...
Our regulars are making some good banter.
Brock, you are getting slayed over on 24hr campfire!
The king of RB!
Better head over there and stick up for yourself!
Just a heads up, your pretty popular!
Bryce...
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Bob,
I've yet to see you mad on the forum.
You are like Spock always logical.
That is a compliment.
Bryce...
I've yet to see you mad on the forum.
You are like Spock always logical.
That is a compliment.
Bryce...
Brock, I'm no Swaro fan boy and I have nothing against you personally. I actually enjoy your sense of humour (UK spelling). However, you do have an obsession about RB and focus wheels. Maybe there's a method to your madness. Perhaps you're hoping Swarovski will offer you a plum job to shut you up. Good luck with that if it be the case.
Hermann
Well-known member
Excellent analogy that sums it up perfectly. The only word I disagree with is "odd", I'd prefer a somewhat stronger word here.
Hermann
And this is the point Bob. You and me are discussing examples of bins that we have personally tried out.
Lee
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
brocknroller
porromaniac
Brock, I'm no Swaro fan boy and I have nothing against you personally. I actually enjoy your sense of humour (UK spelling). However, you do have an obsession about RB and focus wheels. Maybe there's a method to your madness. Perhaps you're hoping Swarovski will offer you a plum job to shut you up. Good luck with that if it be the case.
Well, it worked for Stephen Ingraham. He pointed out the flaws in the original Victory: the resolution was under par vs. its competitors; it showed more than average CA; the metal strap lugs dug uncomfortably into his big hands; and the rubber armoring smelled like old tires. Makes my complaint about Swaro's wonky focusers tame by comparison, and I'm not a guru, so my opinion carries a value of 2 cents, his opinions had much more impact.
Zeiss responded with the Victory II, which addressed the resolution issue and with redesigned strap lugs, not sure about the CA, which might have been caused by a negative element internal focusers (experts have blamed that for the uptick in reports of CA around the time internal focusers came in vogue). And the armoring was made to smell like new tires.
So what did Zeisss do with this recalcitrant? (Arthur Word of the Day). They hired him ("keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"), and he worked for the company for about 10 years. He became so well known through his hosting of Zeiss birding events and representing the brand at optics shows that he now hosts his own birding events and teaches nature photography. He used to teach English. Now he's combined his skill for teaching with his passion for birding. A blessed life, for sure.
lightshedder
As to the RB, I don't know whether or not Swaro heard the cry of this lone wolf in the wilderness, but they must have been aware that others who could afford SV ELs were passing on them because of the RB, so they started tweaking the distortion to lessen it. Plus the SF puts some pressure on them, too, since buyers bothered by RB now had an alternative.
So AFAIC....
Attachments
Last edited:
I was trying to be somewhat easy going with that. Did not want to get anyone- like the mods upset.
Brock-
I think you need a little more excitement in your life. You must have some other desires that you want to explore. There has got to be something else that gets your motor going; besides discussing really unimportant material things.
Or at least go and fondle, examine, and experience the objects that you like to write about. Example- try to get your hands and eyes on a number of the items ( Swaro bins) that you like to write so much about.
I think you need a little more excitement in your life. You must have some other desires that you want to explore. There has got to be something else that gets your motor going; besides discussing really unimportant material things.
Or at least go and fondle, examine, and experience the objects that you like to write about. Example- try to get your hands and eyes on a number of the items ( Swaro bins) that you like to write so much about.
PROVE they changed the distortion levels. I've compared several and I don't see it. So, once again, PROVE your claim.Well, it worked for Stephen Ingraham. He pointed out the flaws in the original Victory: the resolution was under par vs. its competitors; it showed more than average CA; the metal strap lugs dug uncomfortably into his big hands; and the rubber armoring smelled like old tires. Makes my complaint about Swaro's wonky focusers tame by comparison, and I'm not a guru, so my opinion carries a value of 2 cents, his opinions had much more impact.
Zeiss responded with the Victory II, which addressed the resolution issue and with redesigned strap lugs, not sure about the CA, which might have been caused by a negative element internal focusers (experts have blamed that for the uptick in reports of CA around the time internal focusers came in vogue). And the armoring was made to smell like new tires.
So what did Zeisss do with this recalcitrant? (Arthur Word of the Day). They hired him ("keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"), and he worked for the company for about 10 years. He became so well known through his hosting of Zeiss birding events and representing the brand at optics shows that he now hosts his own birding events and teaches nature photography. He used to teach English. Now he's combined his skill for teaching with his passion for birding. A blessed life, for sure.
lightshedder
As to the RB, I don't know whether or not Swaro heard the cry of this lone wolf in the wilderness, but they must have been aware that others who could afford SV ELs were passing on them because of the RB, so they started tweaking the distortion to lessen it. Plus the SF puts some pressure on them, too, since buyers bothered by RB now had an alternative.
So AFAIC....
PS
You might want to answer the simple questions previous posters asked you about your familiarity with the products you repeatedly trash.
Steve C
Well-known member
I have ZERO desire to even appear to support Brock at this point. He has created the brokenroller follies all by himself in search of fame in uncovering a non existent Swarogate conspiracy. He has continually resharpened his shovel and kept digging and may have succeeded in digging a hole he is now stuck in.
However I give credit to Swarovski in their ability to continually keep their due diligence up to date. I see no reason that they may not have done something to the edges with whatever distortion recipe they may or may not have chosen to use. I can not PROVE this either. However, unlike Brock I recognize this is one anecdotal observation and not a point in a data set. As far as I can see (as far as I can see OK) the distortion levels at the edges of the early SV and the current SV, particularly the 8.5x42 version are different. I see no RB in the current and still see it in the early. The still images are equally compelling, but to my eyes the edge is DIFFERENT. It may well seem unchanged if you are one of the vast majority (how vast seems a mystery) who were not affected. If I were the head guy at Swarovski and could have had my engineers tweak the edges ever so slightly and make this a non issue I sure would have done it. The mark of a great company is to do what it needs to keep itself great. I bet somebody at Swarovski (maybe a lot of somebodies) has that task as part of the job description. Keeping tabs on Brock is likely in no job description.
However I give credit to Swarovski in their ability to continually keep their due diligence up to date. I see no reason that they may not have done something to the edges with whatever distortion recipe they may or may not have chosen to use. I can not PROVE this either. However, unlike Brock I recognize this is one anecdotal observation and not a point in a data set. As far as I can see (as far as I can see OK) the distortion levels at the edges of the early SV and the current SV, particularly the 8.5x42 version are different. I see no RB in the current and still see it in the early. The still images are equally compelling, but to my eyes the edge is DIFFERENT. It may well seem unchanged if you are one of the vast majority (how vast seems a mystery) who were not affected. If I were the head guy at Swarovski and could have had my engineers tweak the edges ever so slightly and make this a non issue I sure would have done it. The mark of a great company is to do what it needs to keep itself great. I bet somebody at Swarovski (maybe a lot of somebodies) has that task as part of the job description. Keeping tabs on Brock is likely in no job description.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Brock! I'm sure we all appreciate your input to this forum, but lately, you have been going a bit overboard with the RB thing and wonky Swaro focuser! God knows I agree with you, but maybe you should dial it down a bit? Just a little bit?
HN
If you were paying close attention, you would have noticed that my responses were in direct proportion to The Defenders denials and personal attacks. Last week, I sent a complaint about this to the powers that be, but they didn't respond nor do anything about it,. so this week, I felt I had no choice but to defend my honor.
Even if I can't read their posts unless someone replies to them, if they only replied to each other that would be better, although others would still get to see their nasty comments, and that peeves me. Plus, I'm outnumbered so each return volley has to hit multiple targets like a MERV. If the return fire seems disproportional, that's why.
You know, I actually do like Swaro bins, my second favorite brand, in fact, they are just priced too high for my budget (and I think simply priced too high), but given the company's unofficial No Fault Policy, I would buy one if I ever found a sweet deal and my pig's feet jars were full, though more likely an SLC than EL.
I don't like wonky focusers on any bin, no matter what the price point or stiff ones or ones that turn too fast. Last week I was using three Nikon bins - M5, P7 and SE - and the focuser tension and speed on all were right in "my zone."
Except for the SE, the other two are inexpensive bins, and yet Nikon still was able to make the focusers w/out flaws. Why can't Swaro? Why isn't anybody else asking that question? Why isn't Swaro being proactive about this issue the way they were with the RB, which even the latest Defender recruit acknowledged.
That's all I'm saying, or at least that's all I would be saying if I weren't besieged by hostile forces. My beef isn't with Swaro, it's with the handful of Swaro owners who See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil about their brand (and their new recruits).
It's a big mystery why some Swaro focusers work fine and others don't. They all have the same mechanisms, so what's different from sample to sample? These are legitimate questions, which I've tried to ask rationally, but I keep getting caught up in the drama that others create in their relentless blind allegiance to their brand, which they closely identify with, like Arthur said. So to them, an attack on their brand, is an attack on them. It's also my fault for foolishly taking the bait.
Well, since nobody that has any authority will stop them, and now I have even you complaining about it, I will bid you adieu and start posting on 24hrcampfire where I'm revered. :flyaway:
And here they come again, trumpets a' blastin'...
<B>
Steve C
Well-known member
Torview
Well-known member
Brock my friend,
It seems to me that you want Swarovski to manufacture the SV to your interpretation of perfection when they have clearly gotten it right for an awful lot of owners globally as it is, everywhere I visit Birding in the UK the most numerous Alpha hanging from necks is overwhelmingly the Swarovski, this may slowly change now as more people investigate the Zeiss SF.
I doubt any one looking to buy and reading your posts on this thread is thinking "ah ha, this guy`s switched on, you can`t beat user experience".
It seems to me that you want Swarovski to manufacture the SV to your interpretation of perfection when they have clearly gotten it right for an awful lot of owners globally as it is, everywhere I visit Birding in the UK the most numerous Alpha hanging from necks is overwhelmingly the Swarovski, this may slowly change now as more people investigate the Zeiss SF.
I doubt any one looking to buy and reading your posts on this thread is thinking "ah ha, this guy`s switched on, you can`t beat user experience".
