| anweis wrote:|
i've been told by hunting store owners and workers, birders, hunters, and their mothers, that porro prism binoculars are more prone to being knocked out of collimation. It may be so, but only if they are poorly built.
I think we all have been told the same - which is exactly the crux of my question. I even read in a few different hunting magazines not so long ago how the Swarovski EL, because of its "ultra-strong open bridge design," is supposedly the "ultimate" rugged-use binocular - directly contradicting one of the the very principles that has been used for decades to lure people away from porro prisms.
If, as a basic principle, this age-old argument was true, then the current trend toward open-bridged roof prisms would be a very ill-avised move. Yet, so many different manufacturers (with a few notable exceptions) are jumping on that very bandwagon. Swarovski (EL), Bushnell (Elite, Infinity), Burris (Euro Diamond), Steiner (Peregrine XP), Vortex (Razor), and now even Nikon (EDG) each have their take on the same concept. In fact, it appears that most of the mid-level pack wants to have a Swaro-ish binocular.
It is notable that so far, niether Zeiss nor Leica - the other two members of the "Big 3" - have yet chosen to follow this open-bridge trend. They all follow pretty closely when new coatings, advanced glass, price hikes, etc. are incorporated in each other's designs. They even stick to very similar kinds of standard offerings (7, 8, and 10x models with 20, 25, 30-32, 40-43 and maybe 50mm objectives but, none of them really offers say, a 6x, a true 9x, or even an 11x model so as to stand out.) But, they have (so-far) remained basically true to their own styling - which suggests that these cosmetic differences really are just cosmetic and have nothing to do with actual ruggedness (or even *gasp* "ergonomic superiority.")
Leupold, Pentax, and Minox also seem to be sticking to their own styles, rather than following anyone's lead - at least for now. Though they too are largely sticking to pretty vanilla offerings as far as magnification and objective lens sizes. Kahles hasn't done anything new (with binoculars) for ages. Have I missed anyone important?
I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying that I'm a bit frustrated by how blatantly optics manufacturers contradict their own long-standing arguments and how easily we, the optics market, just follow them around shelling out praise and cash like a bunch of drugged-up groupies "worshiping" our favorite rock star.