What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (2 Viewers)

[tezz223]

wow factor

I guess some of us are more tolerant of QC problems. I have had a lot of binoculars and the only ones I have had any problems with have been Chinese and I have had A LOT of problems so naturally I am a little gun shy of them. Maybe some of you are luckier than I. When the Zen Rays first started coming out I naturally tried them because of their perceived value just like everybody else did. Besides the lack of QC I didn't really care for the armor which to me felt plasticky and there were a lot of little cosmetic defects on the binoculars which to me just spelled cheap. I always had some kind of problem with the focus on them being either too tight or rough. I didn't like how big and long they were either. They seemed cumbersome compared to the German, Austrian or Japanese binoculars. Allbinos reviews reflects these problems with the samples they tested also so I don't think it is an isolated problem. I tried the Chinese binoculars again with Frank's Bresser's and I was thrilled with the optics but again Chinese QC let me down when less than two weeks after not even using them the eye cup falls off. I bought the Vanguard Endeavors and they are very good optically but in my opinion they LOOK CHINESE or in my opinion cheap with their silver painted bridge they just don't ooze quality like a Zeiss FL or Swarovski Habicht. Sorry that is my opinion. The Endeavors are big and long just like I remember the Zen Rays were. Not my cup of tea. If you want optical value for the dollar the Chinese can't be beat but I don't care to put up with their shortcomings and I don't like the cheap appearance of them. The Japanese built binoculars too me are much higher in quality and they LOOK higher quality. The Japanese built Leupold Hawthorne to me looks higher quality even though it is a $300.00 binocular. I haven't had any problems with it so that tells me something. Anyway I prefer porro's because I feel they are superior in optics to roofs for the way I use my binoculars. They are generally sharper on-axis and clearer and present a more natural 3D image. I have 5 porro's. The Nikon 8x32 SE, Nikon 8x30 EII, Leopold Cascade 10x42, Opticron WRHP 8x42 and the Swarovski Habicht 8x30. But I like to have a value roof to carry around sometimes and right now it is the Hawthorne 7x42. I don't think it is worth spending $2K on the alphas anymore when the gap between the alphas and the value binoculars is narrowing all the time. These $300 dollar binoculars have 95% of the performance of the alphas. If the Stokes DLS 8x42 is better I will only keep one of them.

if $300 dollar binoculars have 95% of the performance of the alpha's for 15% off the price i for one are a very happy chappie:t:i read the prime HD is even closer..and you still only pay around 25% off the price you pay for the alpha's:hi:

 

[[email protected]]

if $300 dollar binoculars have 95% of the performance of the alpha's for 15% off the price i for one are a very happy chappie:t:i read the prime HD is even closer..and you still only pay around 25% off the price you pay for the alpha's:hi:

We will see . This will be the best the Chinese have versus a Japanese newcomer versus an older high end Vortex designed by birders. Who will win? Has Zen Ray got their act together or is their QC control going to be non-existent again. This will be the Hawthorne 7x42 against the Zen Ray Prime HD 8x42 against the Stokes DLS 8x42. Which one will I keep and which one will be returned in shame. Next week.

 

[cycleguy]

We will see . This will be the best the Chinese have versus a Japanese newcomer versus an older high end Vortex designed by birders. Who will win? Has Zen Ray got their act together or is their QC control going to be non-existent again. This will be the Hawthorne 7x42 against the Zen Ray Prime HD 8x42 against the Stokes DLS 8x42. Which one will I keep and which one will be returned in shame. Next week.

Should have compared them to the 7x43 ED3, otherwise really of little to no value.

CG

 

[Steve C]

I had several Zen Rays and I had a mechanical problem or optical problem with every one.

dennis

You have a long post history of your flip flops. That includes your ZR comments. Now you can like or dislike what you want, but keep to the truth. You were wild about how good the ZEN ED's were. What made you ditch them was a comment by I think, Kevin Conville. You were headed to Costa Rica and were bubbling about the prospect of using the ZEN ED 7x36. You even posted that it was so good you sold your Zeiss FL 8x32. Kevin popped in with the comment asking if you were willing to risk an expensive trip on an unproven binocular. Your ZEN bubble POPPED so fast and loud the sound reverberated.

I predict we can already hear you kissing off the ZEN Prime.

 

[[email protected]]

Should have compared them to the 7x43 ED3, otherwise really of little to no value.

CG

That is true to a certain extent but I wanted to try the best Zen Ray has now to see if they have improved on their quality. I almost bought the 7x43 ED3 and I am sure it is impressive but I wanted to test the best. Anyway I can compare the Stokes since it is the same magnification. I think I can come up with an idea of how the Zen Ray performs if I forget about the advantages that the 7x offers including DOF and eye placement. Also, the Bresser is still pretty fresh in my memory. I like the shorter length of the Prime versus the 7x43 ED3 also. The Zen Rays were always too long for me so If I keep it I wanted the shorter length of the Prime.

 

[[email protected]]

dennis

You have a long post history of your flip flops. That includes your ZR comments. Now you can like or dislike what you want, but keep to the truth. You were wild about how good the ZEN ED's were. What made you ditch them was a comment by I think, Kevin Conville. You were headed to Costa Rica and were bubbling about the prospect of using the ZEN ED 7x36. You even posted that it was so good you sold your Zeiss FL 8x32. Kevin popped in with the comment asking if you were willing to risk an expensive trip on an unproven binocular. Your ZEN bubble POPPED so fast and loud the sound reverberated.

I predict we can already hear you kissing off the ZEN Prime.

The Zen Rays I had had quality problems and others have reported the same thing but they have had sufficient time now I think to have ironed out a lot of these. I know with Charles monitoring the customer feedback they are constantly trying to improve their line. Also, the fact that the Prime was designed entirely in-house intrigues me. I know Zen Ray is innovative and I know they have good optics for the money. The big question is have they improved their quality since I last tried their binoculars. Also, I think Zen Ray has been around long enough that they are going to be in the marketplace for a long time just like Vortex has so their should be no warranty or support worries. The Primes also interest me because they are aiming right at the Swarovsion with the field flattener lens and I want to see if they accomplished it without RB.

 

[Steve C]

The Zen Rays I had had quality problems...

Then they didn't, now they did. Typical. If we couldn't believe you then why should we believe you now, or tomorrow, or whenever you get whatever next binocular?

 

[tezz223]

a friend now has a set off prime..HD's and we both thought they had the wow factor..and were better than the 7 year old swaro's he had..so def a pair for me:t:

 

[[email protected]]

a friend now has a set off prime..HD's and we both thought they had the wow factor..and were better than the 7 year old swaro's he had..so def a pair for me:t:

Yes. I am sure the Zen Ray Primes are better than his 7 year old Swarovski's. The advantage of ED glass and the latest coatings probably gives you a clearer sharper view with less CA and more contrast. Zen Ray was targeting the new Swarovision with these so I would guess they are pretty close. The FOV is big so they should be WOW binoculars for sure. The Stokes is a question in my mind because some have said they are better than Swarovski EL's and Leupold Gold Rings but some say they aren't as good as Frank's Bresser so we shall see on those.

 

[[email protected]]

a friend now has a set off prime..HD's and we both thought they had the wow factor..and were better than the 7 year old swaro's he had..so def a pair for me:t:

I have no doubt they may be better optically with the combination of the latest coatings and ED glass but that really doesn't address the problem with Chinese binoculars.....their lack of build quality. Great optics are nice but if the quality of the mechanical components or the assembly and fitting of components are substandard the total package will be found wanting.....regardless of how good the optics are.

I usually keep all of my "pricey optics" in a large safe when not in use and my vintage binoculars are kept in a large cabinet. The vintage binoculars dating from the 40's-70's were manufactured in the US, Germany, Japan and of course they fall short of modern binoculars in respect to glass coatings and such but they are built and assembled to a quality level that far surpasses anything coming out of China today. To me a Chinese binocular that offers 95% of the optical performance at 25% of the cost of an alpha probably isn't such a great value when you consider the longevity/reliability factor.

Of course judging from the sales of Chinese binoculars I don't think many people are as concerned about the overall quality of a binocular as I am. I still find it troubling that a manufacturer would consider one defective unit in x amount of units produced to be acceptable. I know I'm in the minority but I don't think a defective unit should ever be allowed to leave factory under any circumstances.

Steve

 

[jgraider]

Then they didn't, now they did. Typical. If we couldn't believe you then why should we believe you now, or tomorrow, or whenever you get whatever next binocular?

Yep, this denco dude is a flip-flopping, insecure, dolt. Not sure why anyone would listen to what he has to say.

 

[Steve C]

I have no doubt they may be better optically with the combination of the latest coatings and ED glass but that really doesn't address the problem with Chinese binoculars.....their lack of build quality. Great optics are nice but if the quality of the mechanical components or the assembly and fitting of components are substandard the total package will be found wanting.....regardless of how good the optics are.

Steve

I understand your dislike of Chinese stuff. But you really do need to get your hands on a Prime or a McKinley. It might not do much good due to your overwhelming preconceived notion that you will see a piece of junk. The fact remains that with their faults aside (large oculars and fairly large size), these thing are built like a tank. Build quality is not an issue here. The Chinese have gotten very, very close to premium here. Both optically and structurally. That does not leave completely aside QC problems, but Leupold is inspecting every McKinley they get before it leaves their plant, so that should eliminate some issues. B

 

[pompadour]

... Leupold is inspecting every McKinley they get before it leaves their plant ...

Zen Ray, in their website: It's mandatory for our trained staff to inspect every pair [of bins] through our 16-point inspection procedure before we pack them into the shipping box.

 

[[email protected]]

I understand your dislike of Chinese stuff. But you really do need to get your hands on a Prime or a McKinley. It might not do much good due to your overwhelming preconceived notion that you will see a piece of junk. The fact remains that with their faults aside (large oculars and fairly large size), these thing are built like a tank. Build quality is not an issue here. The Chinese have gotten very, very close to premium here. Both optically and structurally. That does not leave completely aside QC problems, but Leupold is inspecting every McKinley they get before it leaves their plant, so that should eliminate some issues. B

What a person likes/dislikes about a particular binocular is a very subjective matter and if you're happy with your binocular that is what is important. I do think comments on the build quality of current production binoculars (regardless of where manufactured) should be prefaced with "appears" or "seems" when talking about build quality/durability as only time will tell how a product lasts over the years.

If the Primes are still working great in forty or fifty years than I would agree with you that build quality isn't an issue. I will give the Chinese credit for build quality/durability where they deserve it......for instance they did a really great job on their wall.

Steve

 

[Steve C]

What a person likes/dislikes about a particular binocular is a very subjective matter and if you're happy with your binocular that is what is important. I do think comments on the build quality of current production binoculars (regardless of where manufactured) should be prefaced with "appears" or "seems" when talking about build quality/durability as only time will tell how a product lasts over the years.

If the Primes are still working great in forty or fifty years than I would agree with you that build quality isn't an issue. I will give the Chinese credit for build quality/durability where they deserve it......for instance they did a really great job on their wall.

Steve

Can't disagree with most of that. . However, any binocular still working after 40 years of use is bound to be kind of tired. That is a very long yardstick to apply.

Edit to add, Now that I think about it, I can't agree with the length of your yardstick. If we follow that line, then nothing made today is durable, not Swarovski SV, Zeiss HT...anything.

 

[Steve C]

Zen Ray, in their website: It's mandatory for our trained staff to inspect every pair [of bins] through our 16-point inspection procedure before we pack them into the shipping box.

Yeah, I forgot to say Leupold and ZR. but didn't, I have days like that now and again . I'll have to ask Charles, but I don't know if ZR does the same off the boat testing Leupold does.

 

[[email protected]]

Can't disagree with most of that. . However, any binocular still working after 40 years of use is bound to be kind of tired. That is a very long yardstick to apply.

Edit to add, Now that I think about it, I can't agree with the length of your yardstick. If we follow that line, then nothing made today is durable, not Swarovski SV, Zeiss HT...anything.

Steve

It wouldn't surprise me if many of the more modern binos I've purchased new in the last few years are still going strong in 40+ years, surely you don't think the lifetime warranty is merely an advertising gimmick.

I think the Chinese will start producing quality products but if and only if the market demands so. It just doesn't seem like the Chinese workers have the innate desire to "do their best" workmanship compared to workers in other countries. Some of the poor quality workmanship may be due to the workers subpar wages, but then again maybe the problem is management placing more importance on the quantity produced per shift than the quality of each individual unit, who knows.

Obviously the Chinese are doing much better as far as quality control and I hope they continue to improve because in a few years they may be the only country producing optics. I know that sounds farfetched but most don't realize that many of the products consumers buy are no longer made anywhere in the world except in China.

Steve

 

[Binoseeker]

I have returned two and waiting for my third prime. I hope Charles promise will keep this time :smoke:

The prime is so close to be a very good performer, if only the QC issues could be fixed I would recommend it to everyone...

Well, I will get back with a final review on the ZR section here, when i get the bin. Will it be a keeper or a refunder ?

Anders

 

[Steve C]

Steve

It wouldn't surprise me if many of the more modern binos I've purchased new in the last few years are still going strong in 40+ years, surely you don't think the lifetime warranty is merely an advertising gimmick.
Steve

The point is you bought them while ignoring your own durability standard. They were no where near being around for 40-50 years to "establish" their durability. I think they probably will be going OK too. Surely you don't think there is not a large part of advertising/marketing gimmickery in the lifetime warranty. But to answer that, no, they have to be serious. Like Vortex with their Chinese binoculars and their lifetime warranty, or Leupold with the McKinley.

As I said before, I think that a major reason that there is cheap chinese stuff, is because that is what the companies getting the stuff want. Cheap Chinese parts break, we have to get more cheap chinese parts...good for somebody's business.

I am also not fond of the fact China is getting to be the only place to buy some things.

 

[tezz223]

I understand your dislike of Chinese stuff. But you really do need to get your hands on a Prime or a McKinley.

just been looking at the Mckinley looks like a contender for the prime thanks to steve C for making me aware:t: which would you say is the better off the 2..thanks in advance:hi: