[Mnbird] Ferhnglasser

[Stephen Greenfield]

I don't understand why you lump www.allbinos.com (a Website from Poland) in
with "advertising rubbish". Why is, for example, their "use [of a]
spectrophotometer to obtain the transmission graph in the range of
wavelengths from 380 to 900 nm" not a quantitative measure? And while they
report that the expensive Nikon and Swarovski models do well on that
measure, they enthusiastically point out that Vanguard and Vortex binoculars
costing just over a quarter of the price do so also:
http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
(Note that I didn't find that source, and am not an owner or partisan of
expensive optics.)

But I have no interest in arguing; can you point us to ratings on the
additional measures you mention, e.g. "optical measurements of
multi-spectral resolution" that show conversely the lack of differentiation
between different binoculars?
Thanks,
Steve

Stephen Greenfield
Minneapolis
tapaculo47 at gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mnbird [mailto:mnbird-bounces at lists.mnbird.net] On Behalf Of Chuck
Cole via Mnbird
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:09 PM
To: 'Mark Boenish'; mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
Subject: RE: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser

Everything in the Swarovski 'reviews" you cite is advertising rubbish and
thus deserving of disrespect.
There is NO point of optical performance measure and none of comparison at
all.

Geometric measures of the external bodies are at most red herrings to make
folks think they have seen meaningful data when there is no MEASURED
information at all regarding OPTICAL quality.  Such optical measurements of
multi-spectral resolution are routinely used in professional circles, so
their absence is quite conspicuous.  Hobbyists may not know what they mean,
but can learn to spot their absence and maybe also learn a little.

The Swarovski optical claims for flint glass, dielectric coatings, field
flattening and so on have been common industry practice since the early
1970s and are in no way unique or better in their products.  Leica and Zeiss
are good, but are also over-priced and are outclassed by others that are
also more durable.  Measured performance is real and what counts!

These Swarovski reviews are largely author's hype and cite nearly trivial
measurements.  Lacking quantitative measures of center-to-edge corrections,
color fringing and so on merely supports my earlier statements that these
ads are hype, do not contain pertinent information.  Companies selling such
high-priced things merely pay writers more to build the hype that makes
folks buy without any real data and real tests.  Some of the Bushnell binocs
I've tested match the higher priced brands easily.  I've seen cases where
different units of the same brand and model differ greatly, and some are
truly bad.  I've seen others delivered with major defects in their factory
coatings.  The "Jupiter test" is always required no matter how much faith
and superstition a "believer" may have.

You seem utterly mesmerized and taken in by hype alone.


Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mnbird [mailto:mnbird-bounces at lists.mnbird.net] On Behalf Of 
> Mark Boenish via Mnbird
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:50 AM
> To: mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
> Subject: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser
>
> I have to put in a word for the Swarovski EL binoculars as others have 
> expressed some disrespect for these fine instruments. These are simply 
> optically the best binoculars on the market at the present time. A 
> similar amount of money can buy you very nearly as good of a product 
> from Zeiss or Leica, significantly less money will buy you a solid 
> product from Meopta, a modest amount of money will buy you binocs that 
> will get the job done from a variety of makers.
>
> Personally, I worked my way up over the decades from inexpensive 
> Bushnell 7x50s to Bausch and Laumb 7x50s to Zeiss 7x50s to Swarovski 
> 10x32 ELs about ten years ago. There is a difference as you work your 
> way up the price range. I just had my eyes examined and was delighted 
> to learn that my 53 year old eyes are still 20/20 with no sign of eye 
> disease (this was a concern as glaucoma runs in my family). I 
> celebrated by ordering Swarovski EL 10x50s. They should be arriving 
> this afternoon! I have tried these out several times and they are the 
> bomb for long range raptor viewing. Almost magical. If you don't 
> believe me check out these reviews:
>
> http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5
> x42_Swarovision.html
>
> http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Swarovski10x32ELSwarovisi
> on-116.htm
> _______________________________________________
> Mnbird mailing list
> Mnbird at lists.mnbird.net
> http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net
>