I've acquired a few more binos than I need the past two years. I have found discernible differences between the non-alpha, near-alpha, and alpha. E.g. My Trinovids were distinctly better than my Terras. The Ultravids better than the Trinnies (but not the Retros). But when comparing same-tier binos, even after having read the countless threads regarding all the qualities and failings, I often simply cannot see noticeable differences in-the-field. I suppose if was looking at views simultaneously side-by-side (e.g. a photo of the views showing color bias), I would see it. But even sitting on patio swapping binos back and forth, my brain just can't retain the critical info and I can only react with a 'gut' feeling of 'wow these are sharp/crisp/lovely' vs 'dunno why they don't inspire'. Perhaps its aging eyes?
I have been going back and forth between UV8x42's and 8x40SFL since yesterday midday, trying to decide if I need/want the SFL's and frankly I can tell no substantive OPTICAL difference. Not saying they aren't different (flat field, FOV, etc.) but nothing that is more important than just which package I prefer.
Bingo! I was going to post this.
Anyone can find a “defect” in almost anything, and some seem to search hard and obsessively.
I was not thrilled with the “rolling ball” in my EL SV, or the occasional “kidney bean” in my Victory SF. I accept them as part of the “deal” and realize that my ultimate choice would have been to simply not buy them. But buy them I did, and use them I do.
Truth.
I've found that price does (at least ballpark) correlate to quality tier (mid, almost-alpha, alpha, etc.). And within a tier, the discussions while true, are VERY fine nuances. I found a huge leap from 60's Trinovid to Terra and from there another step up to modern Trinovid HD. Then came Ultravids, again noticeably better than the Trinovids. When I say noticeable, I mean something my wife - not an optics nerd! - could see when asked to 'pick which one you think is a better view'. But when I compare my new-to-me SFL's to the UV's (8x40 vs 8x42), I really have to struggle to characterize what differences I see. Yes, I can
sort of speak to the color, eye-box, flat or pincushion field, sharpness, etc. but overall it's just an impression that they are in the same league and both have superb IQ.
OTOH, what DOES seem VERY apparent is the different mfg's philosophy and style. The haptics and ergos, the build, the location of focus knob, weight, center of gravity, etc. seem quite distinct and it's that 'personality' which ultimately leads me to pick one bino over the other. That a handful of folks occasionally see a ring/glare/whatever, seems of academic interest but FOR ME of little practical importance. Not saying it's not real - just that unless I suffer it, it makes no difference and clearly it's not the norm. Even CA, seems something that unless I look for it, I'm just not thinking about much. yes, I've looked at dark birds on a dark skyline and wished for more mag, less CA, etc. but it doesn't DRIVE my birding or choice of optics.
)
