Absolutely brilliant deconstruction of the psyche of certain Birdforum members! 😸
Oh hell yeah - for some folks (but not all)...
Brilliant deconstruction of the psyche of certain Birdforum members, like I was saying... But in all seriousness, assuming you can afford the SF or whatever you want, go for it. Peace of mind is something you can't put a price on (well - I suppose you can!).
I absolutely do see what you're saying though, as in my own birding I know there's a certain level of optical performance I need for demanding tasks. I've learned through experience that anything below that will cost me opportunities. With what I call my "no excuses" binoculars, I know that if I miss something, it's down to me and not the equipment. But not all situations demand that kind of performance. There are still times when the targets I'm after are closer in, when I don't mind taking off my glasses to put binoculars to my eyes (or have enough time to do so), when it's warm enough that the eye lenses won't fog. Then I choose my binoculars based on how enjoyable they are to use, and - speaking only for myself - yes, there is indeed a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment when using a classic 1950s/60s 8x30 porro that has a field of view only recently surpassed by modern binoculars, so light you hardly know it's there, and is beautifully made. But to get to that stage you have to know your birding and your optics well enough to know which suits what.
------------------------
PS. was reading your posts asking about 8x40 SFL vs 8x42 SF and thought I'd bundle my thoughts here. Just my opinion here, but I think the two binoculars have slightly different niches - the SFL smaller, lighter, for users whom those qualities are important (when travelling, etc) or simply prefer a smaller binocular. The SF on the other hand is Zeiss's stab at offering maximum performance (wide field of view etc) which translates into a larger unit than the SFL - wide field of view means large prisms. When looking through them the thing that stands out immediately, I think, is the SF's wider field of view. The more subtle improvements you have to look hard to see (or at least I have to). The SFL seemed a little more pleasing than the Conquest HD (which I thought was already an excellent binocular). Colour rendition is very alpha-like. I suppose the SF image is a little more pleasing yet, but at that level it gets hard to tell - it would be really interesting to do the resolution and aberration tests etc so beloved of folks like Henry to see just how close they are. But the wide FOV is immediately obvious, useful, and impressive.
PPS. if I needed an alpha 10x42 and my local optics shop was flogging a new SF for £1400, I'd be on it like a Cornish seagull on a unwary tourist...