Those are your thoughts, and your words, not mine.
If you can find where I said anything evenly remotely approaching that, please feel free to post a direct quote.
Yes, those are my thoughts and my words. I know what I write. And I know what you wrote: I did post a direct quote, I will quote you again:
‘Twas ever thus …… with some of them pretty much fact-based, and others anything but.
If you stand by your post, then yes, it was directed at you as well. Your post is more than "anything even(ly) remotely approaching" that.
If you do not think so yourself, you need to look at what you have written before you post. Or be more clear in writing.
I think your posting definitely takes a stab at subjective findings in the thread. Which I think is uneccessary.
I just think that if anyone finds a thread "droning on" my simple advice is: stop reading. It is as simple as that.
No need to chime in and prolong the thread - make a positive contribution to another thread you find interesting.
As for the topic at hand:
People can "Labcoat" binoculars as much as they want and I can find that really interesting as it gives me more knowledge about optics.
But, measuring binoculars to the extreme and then claim "you can't tell the difference hand held between two great 8X binos" is a bit rich to me.
That implies that all the lab tests are more or less worthless for hand held instruments as you assume people can't see the difference anyway, totally disregarding other factors that perhaps make the difference in real life, actual use. I have so many experiences in life with optics that contradict that statement I think it is pure hyperbole.
For example I am happily touting the Meopta 12x50HD as the "sharpest" bino I have looked through, supported on tripod. On a Bino chart and louped on tripod it would probably be equal or perhaps the Meopta would even edge out the Swarovski Pure NL 12x42 by a very slight margin.
Handheld they should by that earlier statement by Henry Link be indiscernable.
But, the Pure NL 12x42 is so much easier to handhold than the Meopta that I was shocked when I revisited the Pure NL after quite some time with the Meopta 12x50HD. I only used the Meopta handheld for BIF but for anything else I could not steady it more than briefly, something I attributed to the magnification factor. So, monopod or tripod, always, and very happy with that. The Meopta 12x50 Meostar is a damn fine bino.
However, the Pure NL 12x42 is simply fantastic when handheld, and I can hold it steadier than most 10x binos and compared to the Meopta 12x50 I can see more distant (and close up) detail with the Pure NL 12x42 - and for a much, much, longer time giving my brain time to process the details. The Pure NL costs twice as much and I could not justify it at the time, considering the Meopta being far better bang for the buck. Also, when revisiting the Pure NL it still found that it occasionally washes out the contrast - like totally - on an overcast day whereas the Meopta is more or less immune to glare. It can be remedied some, by "Owling around" that glorious eye relief which is also world class on the Pure NL. I can use the Pure NL with or without glasses - with the same setting. Never been able to do that with any other bino.
So with some time I can now relate to the cost difference in a different way. For the vast majority the Meopta is far better than anything they've ever seen and for some the Pure NL is the pinnacle of 12x optics and some will never see the difference.
Maybe this is where we are at comparing the 8x40 SFL to other top end binos. It may - or may not - have that little thing to seal the deal and unload your three cherry picked 7/8/8.5 binos and be happy with the one. Or you could just be irritated by the girth of the SFL compared to the Pure NL 8x32/42 and that you can provoke some CA out of it at times. Or you can simply not see the difference.
For me the revelation has been that I no longer think about the SFL in use: it disappears when I put it up to my face. The Pure NL did that too, but not as well for me - though I think the eye relief of the Pure NL is unbeatable and the image more immersive. In practice I did get the occasional glare out with the Pure NL and for me the SFL is so much better in this regard that I feel that the very slight CA difference outside of the center/object in focus is such a small penalty over having the image washed out at times or occasional crescent flares or constant shielding the back oculars and front lenses.
I think it will be nice to hear from other people with some time with the SFL under their belt too.
I have grown to like mine even more over time. It does take time to get to know some binos. Since binos are different in many ways there is hard (for me) to find one to replace a few other excellent, but not perfect, binos. The SFL is the closest so far - but I have never stated it is
THE best.
Several people have written that one should be "happy with the bino they have" and I find this a bit conflicting.
I get the "never is not always better" but the "be thankful for what you've got" does not resonate with me, at all.
Slimming down the outfit to three binos to cover all bases is much harder than having five or six binos that overlap. I don't want that anymore.
Best thing about this forum is that it has helped me put things into perspective: some of you guys are more insane, most of you are more practical and there is nothing better than a reality check every now and then.