On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:18 AM, John Francis wrote: > > So what do $500 binoculars offer that $100 (or $50) ones don't? > > When I wanted something halfway decent I sprang for a pair of > Minolta 10x50, which set me back something around $80-$100 IIRC. > They're about as heavy as I'd like to carry around full-time, > so going for larger front elements wouldn't appeal to me. And > going for greater than 10x magnification makes for a darker > image, and more problems hand-holding for a steady view. > > Once you get away from obvious distortions, chromatic aberration, > and vignetting, the human eye is remarkably accomodating. While > you don't want a camera to degrade the corners of the image, that's > a whole lot less important for binoculars; they're a real-time > device, so you're practically always limiting yourself to using the > centre of the field of view; if you're interested in something off > to one side, you just point the binoculars at the area of interest. > Based on limited experience and what I have read (and heard from birders), some of what you get for more money is a more solid durable build (the very top end have 25 year or lifetime no-questions-asked warranties), waterproof fog free construction, multi-coating on inner as well as outer lens surfaces, superior ergonomics (comfortable to hold, smooth focus adjustment, solid diopter setting that doesn't accidentally move, good eye relief for those who wear glasses), less color distortion, less distortion of other kinds. With only brief experience with better binocs, I can easily tell the difference between the low-end casual user type and a more expensive pair, both in the feel and the quality of the image. I suspect that the difference between a $500 pair and a $2250 pair may be less dramatic.
stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
