Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72
But you CAN get reasonable optical quality and "OK" build quality for MUCH less than the price of premium equipment, and that's a perfectly acceptable compromise in my book! It means that the joys of astronomy have been opened up for me and many others in ways unimaginable just a few years ago.
Sure, premium Optics are a joy to own, if you can afford them, but I believe most users can get at least 80% of the pleasure for 20% of the price. If you look after them, they will continue to give pleasure for many years. If you drop them, you can buy another pair and still be well in front. If you decide that you want to move up to premium Optics, give the cheaper pair to a child, and give them the gift of the love of astronomy for life.
|
Hi Julian,
Yes Julian, I do agree with all you say, it is always a
trade-off, price vs quality.
Of course you
can get a good binocular for a
reasonable price, and I might add, some binoculars are optically quite good for the price, however, the trade off is often the construction, which you cannot actually see or clearly determine, without the requisite knowledge.
Not much point buying a really cheap binocular that goes out of collimation easily. Some binoculars are very poorly constructed. And the caveat there, as you mentioned is that they need to be carefully looked after, very carefully in some circumstances. Leaving them in a ute, to bounce around doesn't do them any good, even when they are in a case, as I found out on the farm.
But then, that is where I needed them the most. But, in those days, I simply didn't know any better about quality construction. That didn't come until much later.
I also agree that it may be cheaper to just throw them away and buy a new pair, I used to do that myself, as you are definitely in front financially, as collimating binoculars costs a fair bit and isn't worth it on cheap binoculars. However, that doesn't help when you actually go to use them
only to find that it is out of collimation. I found that particularly annoying.
In choosing a new binocular, I faced this very dilemma last year. I had decided to buy a premium compact binocular and my budget was set at a grand, thinking that I could get a premium binocular for that price. How wrong I was, in checking out the market I just couldn't find that
happy medium between quality and price. That is, I could easily get the quality of optics, but not the rugged and water proof construction, which I needed, as I was travelling extensively. They also needed to be waterproof, as there is nothing worse than a binocular that fogs up internally due to rapid temperature changes. Most waterproof binoculars are also nitrogen purged to prevent this moisture transfer.
To get the quality construction and quality optics I had to spend over twice the amount in the end. And that hurt, at the time.
I made the difficult decision to get what I wanted, rather than what I could afford.
And, I do realise not every one can do that. At the time, I would rather have had the extra money for my trip.
Since I already owned a premium 7x50 binocular, the real problem with all this is that once you have owned a premium binocular, it is hard to go back to something less.
Although, both times I bought binoculars, I couldn't really afford to spend that sort of money, but I have never regretted doing so.
So, whilst all binoculars, more or less look the same, there are vasts differences in what you are buying.
Caveat Emptor still applies.
As for giving children cheap binoculars, and although I essentially agree with you, I would not advocate doing so now, as poor quality optics or misalignment can cause eye strain and headaches, and that is an important consideration. As a child I was given a poor quality 8x30 binocular, from memory and used to get headaches when using them, but I slowly realised that if I closed one eye, that didn't happen. In the end, I sawed it in half and used it as a monocular, and took it everywhere with me. I had no idea, not an inkling, about collimation then. It was, very much, trial and error.
Cheers Peter