Santa has given me an assignment that I need your help with. Having finished this year’s presents, his elves are retooling for next year, and they want to prepare in case there’s another downturn.
It seems that today we’re seeing more “bells & whistles” added to birding binoculars each year that often add significant cost while adding only marginal value. For example, eeking out a few more percentage points of light transmission with HT glass or uber duper coatings that produce at most a 3% difference that many/most users won’t be able to detect except perhaps in the most critical lighting. Yet, some are willing to reach deep into their pockets for minor upgrades because it’s what’s trending.
From the simpler and gentler-on-the-wallet Trinovid with value added ED glass at a lower price than the previous model, it appears that even alpha makers could make bins simpler and less expensive if their engineers stopped listening to the marketing dept. and got down to brass tacks and made a bin with the emphasis on functionality rather than trend setting or in most cases, trend following.
We know from the new Trinny, Conquest HD, Nikon SE, and others that you don't have to spend a fortune to get quality optics and a very good quality build if you simplify the binoculars and emphasize what counts the most – image, ergonomics and focusing. It is how the view looks to the eyes, how the bins feel in the hands and against one’s face, and how smooth turning and precise the focuser is (neither “a turtle nor a roadrunner”) -- which seem to be the three most important features most buyers are looking for in birding binoculars.
The rest – 4 ft. close focus to check for navel lint, 95% light transmission just because we can, dual focuser/diopter monstrosities, field flattners for that last 5% sharpness to the very edge, proprietary alloy frames for lightweight bomb proofing, submarine waterproofing that allows you to fish out your bins from the bottom of a 19ft.-deep creek or pond if you can get to it time add cost for features that many birders neither need nor care about (perhaps you can add more to the list).
Plus, the mechanical complexity some of these features introduce make it more likely the parts will fail, and the more complex optics increase the need for more transmission to compensate for the light lost as a result of a dozen or so optical components. Then there’s the unwanted side effects such as the AMD from reducing pincushion to make lines stay straight until they go over the horizon of the globe (effect). Do birders really need all this shtick?
What’s essential and what’s not? Make a short list of essential items you absolutely must have so Santa’s elves can get to work on the Bare Essentials Binoculars after the effects of the spiked eggnog and rum cakes pass from their little bodies.
Buddy the Elf
Hey Buudd, I don't want to sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas, but your post seems more about personal preferences and an extract from the Flat Earth Society Almanac than any direction I want optics manufacturers taking!
To paraphrase the immortal words of former President Alfred E. Neuman,
"The end of your world came yesterday - too bad you missed it ....."
Some of the 2nd tier offerings I find quite bland and redundant - while plenty of folk have time for the Zeiss Conquest HD, I find it a bit blah ..... (little brother the Terra ED, totally meh ...... ). They seem to range from the optically quite good (but tank-like in weight), particularly some of the Japanese or Eastern Bloc built stuff, old Leica Trinovid etc, to things that actually have a logical basis for existence - such as the lightweight Vortex Razor HD. Most seem to exhibit various compromises to hit the target price point - reduced Fov's, and ER's, slightly less transmission, contrast, and absolut colour fidelity, and increased weight through less sophisticated mechanical engineering and less exotic material specification.
It seems to me that an enormous amount of resources are wasted in creating the broadly 3, but many and varied different levels of offerings - material, process, and duplicitous marketing grunt and copy. Wasted in the sense that with just two levels - alpha, and value, ...... vastly, vastly greater scale economies could be achieved thus bringing a substantial cost reduction for the two levels to around ~$1500, and ~$200-$400 (plenty of room to offer play in that value range), respectively. Of course that still leaves room for ~$100 and below entry level porros, and maybe even some 1/2 priced updated alpha type porros for the porrosaurs, and porromaniacs out there .........
Buudd, I think y'all hit two cost saving nails on the head with the greater minimum focusing distance requirement in practice, and the simpler diopter mechanism, unless of course a beautifully designed Leica-like centre mount fashion statement is called for. Most folk want something quality that works reliably - the simpler and cheaper the better - and if that means right eyepiece based, then so be it! But Buudd ...... the waterproofing thing? -
de rigueur at all price points - for the purposes of keeping condensation, dust, fluff, and grit out of the bin as much as depth pressurised water or catfish! And the lightweight thing? - can be done better - much better - enter the 'back to the future' (that should keep you porch rockers satisfied
CFRP .... lighter, stronger, cheaper!
What I can't fathom though is all the cr*pping on about flat field
"shtick", especially when it (room spinning levels of AMD) only affects a minority (~5-10%, quoting some reliably made up figures!
...... so the extra 1 or 2 elements per tube may cost ~<1% in transmission loss ....... sooooo ????? and ?????! It's hardly deal breaking stuff - I'm sure there's room in the stocking for both recipes of goodies :t:
I also find it a hard to believe fairytale that after 5 and a half thousand of your posts (and likely you reading through something like 5 times that amount), which may average some 500 words each (if you're being brief!) or nearly 3 000 000 words!!! that you still don't comprehend the concomitant benefits of increased transmission ????!!!!! :h?: :brains: :scribe: To the manufacturers I say 100% - go for it! You have open license!
Why deprive the world of the brightness Wow! of the
"up to and more than 95% tr" HT-type of kit?! ..... let the kiddies look, smile, rejoice, and sing and play in the yard! 3
What's needed is not some nihilist regression as you postulate - but rather aim for the skies and shoot for the stars!!! :king:
The full Xmas lights, bells and whistles alpha dawgs, pushing the boundaries of performance - but still at an economy of scale circa $1500-odd, and the trickled down, watered down, specification hobbled 'value' class in whatever optical prescription permutation that takes (reduced Fov's, ER's tr%'s, ED glass of a lesser god, less complex and less expensive coatings, etc, etc). Underpinning both classes can be a paradigm shift to E-glass, or Carbon Fibre reinforced plastic ....... HunTing snobbery be damned! :smoke:
Besides, you already have your perfect bin - the Swaro SLC - turn some of those 3 000 000 words into pennies, and go forth and enjoy! B
Bah Humbug indeed!
Chosun :gh:
