<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.17801"></HEAD>
<BODY id="MailContainerBody" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-top: 15px; padding-left: 10px; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;"
canvastabstop="true" acc_role="text" name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">
<DIV><BR></DIV><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>Thanks to every one who reponded to my original post. I thnk Eric's
response below concerning personal fit and feel is good. If you notice,
several reponses talked about weight and hand size and even inter-ocular
distance which I can see could be a problem for some people.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I personally have a pair of nitrogen filled Nikon Action EX (10 x 50) (from
the National Camera Tent Sale), a pair of Olypus Exps I (12 x 50) (from my
brother's estate) and two pair of compact Nikon Travelite's that I keep tucked
under the seat in each car. All except the compacts seem to have enough light
gathering capability to safisfy my aging eyes. So to this point I am
perfectly happy with all of them. Note that these are all porro-prism
binoculars and for the most part open to wide enough inter-ocular distance
to fit my face. I notice that nearly all the Vortex binoculars are
roof-prisms. I didn't see that addressed in any of the posts.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What preciptated the original post was a telephone converstaion with my
son-in-law in TX. He is an avid hunter and building a 308 rifle for long
distance shooting and wanted to know if I knew anything about Votex
Optics. I tried to Google them but made the same spelling mistake as in
the original post (Vostex rather than Vortex) and came up empty so I
turned to MNBird. I also thought that I might upgrade myself depending on
what I learned.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am a mathmatician and retired engineer so I have been following the
evaluation posts with some interest.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But I realize it is time to cut it off. Again thanks to all who
responded. And a pair of Vortex are on my Wish List!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pete</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid;">
<DIV style="font: 10pt/normal arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="font: 10pt/normal arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><B>From:</B>
<A title="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net" href="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">Eric
Jeffrey via Mnbird</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="font: 10pt/normal arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><B>To:</B>
<A title="mailto:cncole@earthlink.net"
href="mailto:cncole@earthlink.net">Chuck Cole</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="font: 10pt/normal arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><B>Cc:</B>
<A title="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net" href="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">MN
Bird</A> ; <A title="mailto:tapaculo47@gmail.com%3E" href="mailto:tapaculo47@gmail.com>"><tapaculo47@gmail.com></A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="font: 10pt/normal arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><B>Sent:</B>
Friday, May 15, 2015 7:08 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="font: 10pt/normal arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [Mnbird] Ferhnglasser</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>In my view personal opinion, in particular my own, is the most
crucial element of purchasing binoculars. No pair of binos works equally well
for all. Over 40 years I have found that numbers, such as those produced by
Cornell, are secondary to how binoculars fit a particular individual. I have
repeatedly found that some highly rated pairs do not work for me, even if they
do for others. For many years I happily used Celestron ED binoculars, but they
were not waterproof and over time developed non-fixable mechanical problems.
To me, they provided an unsurpassed apparent depth of field, even if not quite
as crisp at the very edge. I have now switched to the Vortex Viper and
am thrilled with the image quality, as a are others I know. Others may find
them less impressive because the simple fact is that binoculars do not exist
and cannot be tested in a vacuum. The best binoculars are those that work best
for you, not those that rank best on any particular test. <BR><BR>Eric
Jeffrey<BR>Falls Church VA. <BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone<BR><BR>> On May 15,
2015, at 7:47 PM, Chuck Cole via Mnbird <<A title="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net"
href="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">mnbird@lists.mnbird.net</A>>
wrote:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>>> From: Stephen Greenfield
[mailto:tapaculo47@gmail.com]<BR>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 6:32
PM<BR>>> To: 'Chuck Cole'<BR>>> Cc: 'MN Bird'<BR>>> Subject:
RE: [Mnbird] Ferhnglasser<BR>>> <BR>>> I don't understand why you
lump <A title="http://www.allbinos.com/"
href="http://www.allbinos.com">www.allbinos.com</A> (a Website<BR>>>
from Poland) in<BR>>> with "advertising rubbish". Why is, for example,
their "use [of a]<BR>>> spectrophotometer to obtain the transmission
graph in the range of<BR>>> wavelengths from 380 to 900 nm" not a
quantitative measure?<BR>> <BR>> The mere fact that the glass has
transparency that compares similarly and<BR>> favorably with transmission
of a coke bottle is not a measure of imaging<BR>> quality.<BR>> <BR>>
What I saw in that link you provided was almost entirely the writer's<BR>>
PERSONAL OPINIONS, and stated as such.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>>
And while they<BR>>> report that the expensive Nikon and Swarovski
models do well on that<BR>>> measure, they enthusiastically point out
that Vanguard and<BR>>> Vortex binoculars<BR>>> costing just over
a quarter of the price do so also:<BR>>> <A title="http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html"
href="http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html">http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html</A><BR>>>
(Note that I didn't find that source, and am not an owner or<BR>>>
partisan of<BR>>> expensive optics.)<BR>> <BR>>> But I have no
interest in arguing; can you point us to ratings on the<BR>>> additional
measures you mention, e.g. "optical measurements of<BR>>> multi-spectral
resolution" that show conversely the lack of<BR>>>
differentiation<BR>>> between different binoculars?<BR>> <BR>> I
merely suggested<BR>> 1) the buyer should do a test of ability to resolve
Jupiter's 4 Gallilean<BR>> satelites, and<BR>> 2) THEY should look for
actual measurements and comparisins of optical<BR>> performance, not just
"I liked that.." reports., and<BR>> 3) I did not offer to research or teach
optics to anyone, but shared some of<BR>> my experiences with tests and so
on.<BR>> <BR>>> Thanks,<BR>>> Steve<BR>>> <BR>>>
Stephen Greenfield<BR>>> Minneapolis<BR>>> <A title="mailto:tapaculo47@gmail.com"
href="mailto:tapaculo47@gmail.com">tapaculo47@gmail.com</A><BR>> <BR>>
YOU can research more and learn on your own. The data may be hard to
find<BR>> and is likely to require that YOU do tests,<BR>> such as the
very simple Jupiter test I recommended.<BR>> <BR>> Happy
hunting!<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Chuck<BR>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: Mnbird
[mailto:mnbird-bounces@lists.mnbird.net] On<BR>>> Behalf Of
Chuck<BR>>> Cole via Mnbird<BR>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:09
PM<BR>>> To: 'Mark Boenish'; <A title="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net"
href="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">mnbird@lists.mnbird.net</A><BR>>>
Subject: RE: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser<BR>>> <BR>>> Everything in the
Swarovski 'reviews" you cite is advertising<BR>>> rubbish
and<BR>>> thus deserving of disrespect.<BR>>> There is NO point of
optical performance measure and none of<BR>>> comparison at<BR>>>
all.<BR>>> <BR>>> Geometric measures of the external bodies are at
most red<BR>>> herrings to make<BR>>> folks think they have seen
meaningful data when there is no MEASURED<BR>>> information at all
regarding OPTICAL quality. Such optical<BR>>> measurements
of<BR>>> multi-spectral resolution are routinely used in
professional<BR>>> circles, so<BR>>> their absence is quite
conspicuous. Hobbyists may not know<BR>>> what they
mean,<BR>>> but can learn to spot their absence and maybe also learn a
little.<BR>>> <BR>>> The Swarovski optical claims for flint glass,
dielectric<BR>>> coatings, field<BR>>> flattening and so on have
been common industry practice since<BR>>> the early<BR>>> 1970s
and are in no way unique or better in their products.<BR>>> Leica and
Zeiss<BR>>> are good, but are also over-priced and are outclassed
by<BR>>> others that are<BR>>> also more durable. Measured
performance is real and what counts!<BR>>> <BR>>> These Swarovski
reviews are largely author's hype and cite<BR>>> nearly
trivial<BR>>> measurements. Lacking quantitative measures
of<BR>>> center-to-edge corrections,<BR>>> color fringing and so
on merely supports my earlier<BR>>> statements that these<BR>>>
ads are hype, do not contain pertinent information.<BR>>> Companies
selling such<BR>>> high-priced things merely pay writers more to build
the hype<BR>>> that makes<BR>>> folks buy without any real data
and real tests. Some of the<BR>>> Bushnell binocs<BR>>> I've
tested match the higher priced brands easily. I've seen<BR>>>
cases where<BR>>> different units of the same brand and model differ
greatly,<BR>>> and some are<BR>>> truly bad. I've seen
others delivered with major defects in<BR>>> their factory<BR>>>
coatings. The "Jupiter test" is always required no matter<BR>>>
how much faith<BR>>> and superstition a "believer" may have.<BR>>>
<BR>>> You seem utterly mesmerized and taken in by hype
alone.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> Chuck<BR>>>
<BR>>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>>> From: Mnbird
[mailto:mnbird-bounces@lists.mnbird.net] On Behalf Of<BR>>>> Mark
Boenish via Mnbird<BR>>>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:50
AM<BR>>>> To: <A title="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net" href="mailto:mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">mnbird@lists.mnbird.net</A><BR>>>>
Subject: [Mnbird] Ferhngldsser<BR>>>> <BR>>>> I have to put
in a word for the Swarovski EL binoculars as<BR>>> others
have<BR>>>> expressed some disrespect for these fine instruments.
These<BR>>> are simply<BR>>>> optically the best binoculars on
the market at the present time. A<BR>>>> similar amount of money can
buy you very nearly as good of<BR>>> a product<BR>>>> from
Zeiss or Leica, significantly less money will buy you a solid<BR>>>>
product from Meopta, a modest amount of money will buy you<BR>>> binocs
that<BR>>>> will get the job done from a variety of
makers.<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Personally, I worked my way up over
the decades from inexpensive<BR>>>> Bushnell 7x50s to Bausch and
Laumb 7x50s to Zeiss 7x50s to<BR>>> Swarovski<BR>>>> 10x32 ELs
about ten years ago. There is a difference as you<BR>>> work
your<BR>>>> way up the price range. I just had my eyes examined and
was<BR>>> delighted<BR>>>> to learn that my 53 year old eyes
are still 20/20 with no<BR>>> sign of eye<BR>>>> disease (this
was a concern as glaucoma runs in my family). I<BR>>>> celebrated by
ordering Swarovski EL 10x50s. They should be arriving<BR>>>> this
afternoon! I have tried these out several times and<BR>>> they are
the<BR>>>> bomb for long range raptor viewing. Almost magical. If you
don't<BR>>>> believe me check out these reviews:<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> <A title="http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5"
href="http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5">http://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5</A><BR>>>>
x42_Swarovision.html<BR>>>> <BR>>>> <A title="http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Swarovski10x32ELSwarovisi"
href="http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Swarovski10x32ELSwarovisi">http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Swarovski10x32ELSwarovisi</A><BR>>>>
on-116.htm<BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>> Mnbird mailing
list<BR>>>> <A title="mailto:Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net" href="mailto:Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net</A><BR>>>>
<A title="http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net"
href="http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net">http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net</A><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Mnbird mailing
list<BR>> <A title="mailto:Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net" href="mailto:Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net</A><BR>>
<A title="http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net"
href="http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net">http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Mnbird
mailing list<BR><A title="mailto:Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net" href="mailto:Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net">Mnbird@lists.mnbird.net</A><BR><A
title="http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net" href="http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net">http://lists.mnbird.net/mailman/listinfo/mnbird_lists.mnbird.net</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>