-
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 - odd business policy - near point (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter OhWeh
- Start date
I am privileged to live on a hill immediately adjacent to a forest, with a view into the forest on one side and onto other hills on the other, and with a half acre backyard in which zero pestizides are used, there is plenty to observe at all distances, so I frequently have a dozen or more binos, magnifying glasses and and even a microscope on my garden table. But I am fully aware that this may be slightly weird behaviour
and I do behave more normally when away from home out in the fields or in the mountains ...
dries1
Member
Swaro
:t::t:
Andy W.
I am privileged to live on a hill immediately adjacent to a forest, with a view into the forest on one side and onto other hills on the other, and with a half acre backyard in which zero pestizides are used, there is plenty to observe at all distances, so I frequently have a dozen or more binos, magnifying glasses and and even a microscope on my garden table. But I am fully aware that this may be slightly weird behaviour
:t::t:
Andy W.
We'l have to agree to disagree then Lee, and that's fine. I could take a poll of the 160+ visitors I had in camps over the years and not one of them would be able to tell me what the close focus distance was on their binoculars. None.
I see that the 3 new Swarovski NL Pure binoculars are now listed with Allbinos along with the rest of the Swarovskis.
It makes it easier to compare them.
https://www.allbinos.com/1-Swarovski-binoculars.html
Bob
It makes it easier to compare them.
https://www.allbinos.com/1-Swarovski-binoculars.html
Bob
Last edited:
JG
Do you mean that none of your 160+ visitors was interested in anything that they would use close-focus for?
Lee
Absolutely, definitely not anything a yard or three away. My contention is that the vast majority of binocular owners see it the same way. I bet you they couldn't tell you what the FOV is of the binocular they're wearing either. This is not to be taken offensively by anyone, but only the really OCD personality types get all gloomy and depressed, or even excited over binocular specs. You pick one up, assess it as to what's important to you....ergos, sharpness, etc ( may or may not include FOV, etc) and compare it to another one or three until you find one that just works.
I've been in Cabelas, Bass Pro, Scheels, etc thousands of times and visited the binocular counter, and never heard the first guy, or seen the first guy (or gal) going over binocular specs with the salesman. I've also been to the massive SCI show, NRA show, DSC show, and SHOT once as a guest. I can't remember ever going over specs, even when new products were being introduced to the public. Once again, your eyeballs and brain love 'em, or not and it's not hard to determine. People's preconceived notions and biases very evident, and real.
That's the way I see it, and as I said before you and others may not, and that's fine by me.
Loddar
Well-known member
I think most of the birders who bought a binocular for 1500, 2000€ or more know the closest distance.
I have the Retrovid 7*35 and there is the closest focus distance 4m. In reality ist is about 3,5m.
This is the biggest disadvantage for me. I like to visit lizards in bushes and have to go often some steps back.
Then is the e.g.lizard gone or i wont be able to spot the lizard in the bushes.
I have the Retrovid 7*35 and there is the closest focus distance 4m. In reality ist is about 3,5m.
This is the biggest disadvantage for me. I like to visit lizards in bushes and have to go often some steps back.
Then is the e.g.lizard gone or i wont be able to spot the lizard in the bushes.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
If I want to observe butterflies and other insect I ususally carry a Zeiss 6x18 monocular, very fast and easy focus, and that works very well next to an 8x32 or 8x42. Moreover it has a very close focus range.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
temmie
Well-known member
As mentioned before, the problem is not those animals that don't allow closer approach.
The problem is when you are somewhere and a certain animal (butterfly, dragonfly, or even a hummer) approaches you this close that you cannot focus anymore, and you know that stepping back will result in said animal to fly off.
Loddar
Well-known member
I have a Nikon 5*15 Monocular and a Papillo as well. But i do not carry them always togeteher or put them out of a bag.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello,
I am late to this discussion but I would point out that close focussing became practical with roof prims glasses, as the spatial displacement of most Porro glasses made close focussing more practical but only with internal focussing. At close distances the a moving bridge might be wobbly. As I recall Dr. Merlitz thought that focus closer than three or so metres was rather unnecessary, something with which I agree. So if assembling close focussing a closed bridge is a bit difficult, it is an obvious place to cut costs to cheapen a model, without changing the remaining optical train. The alternative would be to drop the model hoping that sales of a newer model, with increased profit per unit, would make up. Actually, that might very well be the next step.
As someone who suffers from myopia, I can always improve close focussing by pushing my specs up, which I do with Porro binoculars, or with a Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt, a roof with an moving bridge, for a closer look.
Lastly, was not the open bridge design an attraction for hunters who thought they could hold their binoculars without letting go of their rifles? It has been more than half a century since I was forced to carry a rifle, so that was never an attraction for me.
Stay safe,
Arthur
I am late to this discussion but I would point out that close focussing became practical with roof prims glasses, as the spatial displacement of most Porro glasses made close focussing more practical but only with internal focussing. At close distances the a moving bridge might be wobbly. As I recall Dr. Merlitz thought that focus closer than three or so metres was rather unnecessary, something with which I agree. So if assembling close focussing a closed bridge is a bit difficult, it is an obvious place to cut costs to cheapen a model, without changing the remaining optical train. The alternative would be to drop the model hoping that sales of a newer model, with increased profit per unit, would make up. Actually, that might very well be the next step.
As someone who suffers from myopia, I can always improve close focussing by pushing my specs up, which I do with Porro binoculars, or with a Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt, a roof with an moving bridge, for a closer look.
Lastly, was not the open bridge design an attraction for hunters who thought they could hold their binoculars without letting go of their rifles? It has been more than half a century since I was forced to carry a rifle, so that was never an attraction for me.
Stay safe,
Arthur
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I agree with the others about close focus. There is not a big call for it, but the mfrs. have a need to compete and this stat seems to require special effort, that may create other issues in the design.
If someone did a survey, there is a very small need for very close focus so you can look at your shoelaces.
There are less than 10 people on Birdforum that express any real need, that I recall.
In all things, there are wants and needs. A very close focus is not a need.
For those inclined, they should have an optic like those mentioned for that task.
Jerry
If someone did a survey, there is a very small need for very close focus so you can look at your shoelaces.
There are less than 10 people on Birdforum that express any real need, that I recall.
In all things, there are wants and needs. A very close focus is not a need.
For those inclined, they should have an optic like those mentioned for that task.
Jerry
Hermann
Well-known member
If someone did a survey, there is a very small need for very close focus so you can look at your shoelaces.
But ... Isn't looking at one's shoelaces what binoculars are all about?
Seriously, (very) close focusing may have detrimental effects on the performance of binoculars, just like eyepieces that are suitable for people who need glasses. For instance, close focusing makes the focusing mechanism more complex and more prone to develop problems, and it makes it more difficult to cut out unwanted reflections because there's less space for baffles.
BTW, I really wonder if the NL could have been shorter and lighter if it weren't for the close focusing.
Hermann
I am one of the people that make use of the close focusing capability of my pre NL, EL Field Pro. I find it useful within my work as an Ecologist when doing surveys. Going down the route of carrying more than one pair of binoculars is not a practical option. I appreciate that that not everyone uses their binoculars in the same way. IMHO the naturalist out there are likely to enjoy and use the close focusing capability.
As has been said this decision is more a financial one made by Swarovski so as not to be producing two products in roughly the same price band. To quote part of the small print on the EL data sheet “We reserve the right to make changes regarding design and delivery”.I think most people assume this to mean improvements being made in performance rather than a down grade in features or performance.
Neil
As has been said this decision is more a financial one made by Swarovski so as not to be producing two products in roughly the same price band. To quote part of the small print on the EL data sheet “We reserve the right to make changes regarding design and delivery”.I think most people assume this to mean improvements being made in performance rather than a down grade in features or performance.
Neil
Last edited:
Well said Neil.
Sometimes there can be a hint on here that to enjoy the use of a close-focus capability is a kind of nerdy, specialist, esoteric kind of activity. Which seems odd to me when close focus can be used to examine not only the obvious insects such as butterflies and dragonflies but also subjects such as lizards and snakes, fish and newts, fungi and lichens, sea anemones and sea slugs, small mammals and frogs and flowers and much more too.
In the context of this breadth of subject matter and topics of interest, isn't it the case that having only an interest in birds is the narrowly-focused, specialist, esoteric activity? Nothing wrong with that and this is how I started out, and there is nothing wrong with binos being designed for this specialist activity. But it illustrates that binoculars with close focus are suitable for many more activities and far from being specialist instruments are general purpose instruments. I have seen binos being used to examine geological strata on loose cliffs just a metre or so above head height. Climbing would have been possible but only at the risk of boots damaging lower strata.
For me, a close focus capability of around 1.5m, or even up to 2.0m opens up so many avenues of interest, recent examples being: examining a Slow Worm (a legless lizard, looks like a snake) without scaring it away, examining bright orange lumps in the middle of a cascading brook that turned out to be a fungus called Bog Beacon, discovering a Sea Urchin on the west coast of Scotland that is more common in the Mediterranean. I could give many more examples.
If you have binos with a close-focus capability, use it. Give it a try, you've paid for it, why not get as much use and enjoyment out of your binos as possible?
Lee
Similar threads
