# Call me cheap



## Hooty Hoot (Feb 19, 2006)

I own 4 sets of binoculars none of which cost more than a hundred bucks. I see optics that retail for nearly $1000.00 and better. I know they are suppose to transmit light better, but are they 10x better? What are the other advantages of owning a pair of expensive binoculars?


----------



## Jim Thompson (Feb 19, 2006)

Hooty Hoot said:
			
		

> I own 4 sets of binoculars none of which cost more than a hundred bucks. I see optics that retail for nearly $1000.00 and better. I know they are suppose to transmit light better, but are they 10x better? What are the other advantages of owning a pair of expensive binoculars?



You dont have to go that high to get a great set of binocs.  My Leupold wind river cascades run about $270 and are 10x better than any I owned before (all in the 80-100 range).  You must compare when outside though, in a sporting goods store they all look good.


----------



## Big M (Feb 19, 2006)

Hooty Hoot said:
			
		

> I own 4 sets of binoculars none of which cost more than a hundred bucks. I see optics that retail for nearly $1000.00 and better. I know they are suppose to transmit light better, but are they 10x better? What are the other advantages of owning a pair of expensive binoculars?


I have been there and done that with binoculars,and I found out the more you spend the better you get.So I would have to say yes.


----------



## 7401R (Feb 19, 2006)

Big M said:
			
		

> I have been there and done that with binoculars,and I found out the more you spend the better you get.So I would have to say yes.



The same thing applies to binocs that applies to riflescopes ...
cheap is not a bargain and as you age you need to spend more money.

   7


----------



## Timberman (Feb 19, 2006)

Glass is one thing you get what you pay for. Top line binos and scopes make a mockery of low end stuff under actual conditions....


----------



## Bruz (Feb 20, 2006)

*You get what you pay for*

I used to believe that there was little or no difference in scopes and binos other than the names...I was wrong.

As Jim said, they all look pretty good in the store...When you get outside with glare, UV and varying amounts of light...You really see a diffrence.

You can get some quality optics relatively cheap if you look around...I bought 2 Swarovski 6.5-18x TDS Reticle scopes for $800 each and Franklin's has my Zeiss Diafun 8x Bino's on sale right now for $300.00!!!! I absolutely LOVE these binos..Rubber armored, CRYSTAL Clear and light to carry on your neck all day...They don't break your wallet either.

Try'em...I promise you will love them.You will see detail you have never seen before in the woods. I was hunting last year and it was dark 30 when a deer stepped out..I put the Bushnell 3200 Elite on him (got it in a trade) and could only make out that it was a buck. I was about to pull the trigger on a hunch that it was the big 8 pointer I had seen a glimpse of the week before...I decided to check with my binos first and could clearly see a NICE 6 Pointer...No Brow Tines...illegal in Meriwether County...The Diafuns saved me some embarassment and money that night.

Bruz


----------



## NOYDB (Feb 20, 2006)

And from this century.....

Now in the beginning of the 21st century they  have these new fangled things called CNC machine robots. They mass produce parts by the 100 of thousands, millions, at tolerances that the older shops could only dream of. They do so with out potty breaks or harassing the secretary. Parts cost fractions of pennies on the old dollar. Then other robots assemble the parts, also with out harassing the secretary. This results in the same or most often better quality finished products for much less. But hey, pretend it's still 1950 and spend the money. 

Yes, the famous quality makers, still make a quality product. But there are others just as "good" if not better for less. 

Price does not any longer directly relate to quality or function.

You're sitting in front of a device that 30 years ago would be locked in a heavily guarded secret defense department facility. Now it's on your desk and when it's time to upgrade you'll have to throw it in the trash because no one will want something so out of date.

Sorry , just one of my buttons. I don't mind paying for quality, but I won't pay a dime for advertising or a "Name". There is a difference in results between a $10 pair of nocs and most $100 nocs. And maybe you can see a difference in *MODERN* $100 and $300 pairs. But I bet after that you can't tell a difference. The point of diminishing returns kicks in much sooner than it used to.

Ok, I'll get off the soap box now.


----------



## Hogtown (Feb 20, 2006)

I have a pair of 8x42 Leicas and a pair of 8x20 Swarovskis, so I like the high dollar binoculars. As has been said in the previous posts, you get what you pay for in optics.  HOWEVER,  in my opinion, once you get to the $500 or so range the differences are pretty small.  Said another way, a $500 pair is way, way  better than a $100 pair, but a $1000 pair may only be 15% better than a $500 pair.


----------



## Jorge (Feb 20, 2006)

I use to think the same thing until one evening I blew the chance on a nice buck because of poor optics. Here in GA, you can get by with optics in the middle price ranges. However, if like to sit on clear cuts and look through glass all day or you plan on hunting out west, you need to go ahead and step up to high quality glass.

I'm constantly amazed at how hunters will spend $400 or more on a scope but gripe about spending more than that on binos even when they will spend far more time looking through those binos that the scope.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Feb 20, 2006)

Hooty Hoot said:
			
		

> I own 4 sets of binoculars none of which cost more than a hundred bucks. I see optics that retail for nearly $1000.00 and better. I know they are suppose to transmit light better, but are they 10x better? What are the other advantages of owning a pair of expensive binoculars?


I was exactly the same.  I JUST bought a pair of Leupold River Katmais.  About $250.  The difference is simply unreal.  If the difference between some $75 and those is the same as between those and some $1,500 ones, we'll, I can't even imagine.


----------



## shadow2 (Feb 20, 2006)

I have a set of Nikon Buckmasters and love them for the money...they are not the most expensive but they do a great job.  I do not want to spend to much on binos becaue they will get beat up a bit while walking through the woods.


----------



## NOYDB (Feb 20, 2006)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I was exactly the same.  I JUST bought a pair of Leupold River Katmais.  About $250.  The difference is simply unreal.  If the difference between some $75 and those is the same as between those and some $1,500 ones, we'll, I can't even imagine.



It's not, again, it's called the point of diminishing returns. An exaggerated example. The first step from 0 to 75% you can do for $10.

To 85% for $100.

To 90.25% for $250

To 93.175% for $500

to 94.88125% for $1500

to 95.905% for $3000

to 96.51925% for $5000

to 96.867325 for $10,000

After that the fraction of increase may be too small to measure and the price starts jumping by 100's of thousands even millions. Then it's just not physically or fiscally possible. After the first couple of iterations the difference is not discernible to 98% or more of the population.

Depending on the process there is often a "hump" in the curve that represents the best possible ratio of price to performance. Just spending more money will not get enough of an improvement to be able to be detected by the human senses.

The articles in Field & Stream et al about the worth of spending $1000+ to get sufficient quality were true, 30 years ago.


----------



## NOYDB (Feb 20, 2006)

Shadow2, makes a very good point.

The only nocs that matter are the ones you have with you. If they're locked in the truck or left at home because of the replacement cost, you might as well not own them.


----------



## Nitro (Feb 20, 2006)

Jorge is right on.  There is a BIG difference.

Here in GA , you may spend minutes looking through your cheapies. 

Try that out West or in any situation where you are looking through your Binoculars for hours and you will have eye strain that will make your head hurt. 

High quality optics for me are a must.  When I am glassing- 

SWAROVSKI. Nothing less will do.






Price be danged.


----------



## SmokyMtnSmoke (Feb 21, 2006)

WEll then why don't everyone bring their bino's to the gig in March so we can just see the differances for ourselves. 

Or we need a gathering and pass around our bino's so we can judge if we can justify spending big $$$ for our use.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Feb 21, 2006)

SmokyMtnSmoke said:
			
		

> WEll then why don't everyone bring their bino's to the gig in March so we can just see the differances for ourselves.
> 
> Or we need a gathering and pass around our bino's so we can judge if we can justify spending big $$$ for our use.


Now THAT would be interesting.  Cover up the brand/label and do a 'blind/sight test' if that makes sense.  
And then have people guess what they cost or put them in order of most expensive to least.   

I'm telling you though, I didn't believe it, but the difference is VERY noticeable.


----------



## Bruz (Feb 21, 2006)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Now THAT would be interesting.  Cover up the brand/label and do a 'blind/sight test' if that makes sense.
> And then have people guess what they cost or put them in order of most expensive to least.
> 
> I'm telling you though, I didn't believe it, but the difference is VERY noticeable.



Very noticeable is an understatement...I went from mid grade 10x Nikon's to Low end Zeiss glass and the difference is incredible. I can say the same for my Swarovski Scopes...

You just don't get it until you're in the woods and NEED to see into the shadows....More than worth the price of admission.

Bruz


----------



## NOYDB (Feb 21, 2006)

Like the song says "If it makes you happy...".

Would be neat to have a true blind test. (Blind test  ).

That's ok because those of you that pay high dollar, suppport the R&D that works it way down to the less expensive models.

Bottom line: get whatever nocs you can afford and TAKE THEM WITH YOU. (and use them!). Nocs in a day pack don't accomplish much.


----------



## Jim Thompson (Feb 21, 2006)

NOYDB said:
			
		

> Bottom line: get whatever nocs you can afford and TAKE THEM WITH YOU. (and use them!). Nocs in a day pack don't accomplish much.



good point.  the best you can afford and have them with you


----------



## Bruz (Feb 21, 2006)

My favorite hunting rifle cost $329.99 the scope on top of it cost $1200.00 and my binos cost $400.

You can't shoot what you can't see...Especially with Trophy Club Regs to worry about and now the GA 2nd Buck Reg. Shooting at any "Deer" can cost you more than the binos these days.


----------



## edge (Feb 22, 2006)

Here's my thoughts....

Years ago when I began to "mature" a little bit, I decided that using a cheap pair of binoculars was not only safer and smarter than using the scope, I could also see better and it was certainly easier to move them into play than a rifle. (Of course it is irresponsible to use a riflescope to look at anything you wouldn't shoot!!)

Then I got a lower mid-range pair of Brunton Lite Tech 
8x32 binoculars, and a whole new picture opened up. A decent pair of binoculars will let you see much longer and later than the best scope will.

Finally, I recently was given a pair of Leupold Golden Ring 
8x42 glasses. (by my wife) The color, contrast, edge to edge clarity, and brightness are SO much better. I took the two out on a hunt to compare, and switching to the Leupolds was really like turning a light on in a dark room. No comparison.
Less eye strain, much clearer and much brighter. There is a difference between $50, $150, $500, and $1000 glass.
At some point you do reach a level of diminishing returns...somewhere over that $1000 mark. As many have said before, the best glass one can afford is recommended. That may mean $100, but those will be better than the $49 walmart glasses.

JMHO


----------



## slightly grayling (Feb 23, 2006)

Hooty Hoot said:
			
		

> I own 4 sets of binoculars none of which cost more than a hundred bucks. I see optics that retail for nearly $1000.00 and better. I know they are suppose to transmit light better, but are they 10x better? What are the other advantages of owning a pair of expensive binoculars?




So you may have maybe up to $400 on 4 pair of medocre binoculars.....I've seen Steiner's in Sierria Trading Post for 200-300 range......that would be something I would consider....


----------



## PWalls (Feb 25, 2006)

erifle said:
			
		

> (Of course it is irresponsible to use a riflescope to look at anything you wouldn't shoot!!)




Please explain.

A scope is a monocular up until the point you take your gun off of "safe" and put your finger in the trigger housing.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Feb 25, 2006)

*Though I wouldn't have believed it, I guess you are serious?*



			
				PWalls said:
			
		

> Please explain.
> 
> A scope is a monocular up until the point you take your gun off of "safe" and put your finger in the trigger housing.


PW,
I guess I have to assume you're serious.  PLEASE don't do that!  Are you telling me you'd let me put my crosshairs on you as long as my gun is on safe and finger outside the guard?  I value YOUR life more than that, please value mine and your fellow hunters equally.  A scope is used for KILLING, not spotting.   
Rule #1:  ONLY AIM AT WHAT YOU PLAN ON SHOOTING.


----------



## Bruz (Feb 25, 2006)

PWalls said:
			
		

> Please explain.
> 
> A scope is a monocular up until the point you take your gun off of "safe" and put your finger in the trigger housing.



Now where is it exactly that you hunt? I just want to make sure that I don't get spotted!!!

As Phil said I hope you were not serious. Using a scope to to identify movement is beyond hazardous.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Feb 25, 2006)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Rule #1:  ONLY AIM AT WHAT YOU PLAN ON SHOOTING.


I'm sorry, I mispoke slightly.  I think the subject had me a little shaken.  
From the NRA's website, top 10 rules of gun safety.


> 1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
> This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.


----------



## edge (Feb 25, 2006)

Looks like you guys handled that pretty well......

reference the words "mature" and "responsible" in my post ....


----------



## PWalls (Mar 1, 2006)

Please refer to my post again and tell me where I said that I look at an individual through a scope. Please find it. Guess what, you want. Only idiots do that. I have never looked at someone through my scope and would never do that. So, you can take the mature and responsible comments elsewhere.

I took ER's post to mean that if I scoped a deer on a food plot without using my binoculars and had no intention of shooting it that I was being irresponsible. As far as "game" goes, my scope is a monocular and I can and will use it to determine if a buck is a shooter or if I want to shoot the littlest doe or the biggest doe. 

Thanks


----------



## GeauxLSU (Mar 1, 2006)

PW,
He said it's irresponsible to look at anything you wouldn't shoot with a scope.  I took that to mean non-game.  Obviously a misunderstanding.  If nothing else, a good reminder to all.


----------



## Bruz (Mar 1, 2006)

*Oops*



			
				PWalls said:
			
		

> Please refer to my post again and tell me where I said that I look at an individual through a scope. Please find it. Guess what, you want. Only idiots do that. I have never looked at someone through my scope and would never do that. So, you can take the mature and responsible comments elsewhere.
> 
> I took ER's post to mean that if I scoped a deer on a food plot without using my binoculars and had no intention of shooting it that I was being irresponsible. As far as "game" goes, my scope is a monocular and I can and will use it to determine if a buck is a shooter or if I want to shoot the littlest doe or the biggest doe.
> 
> Thanks



PWalls,

I apologize for the misunderstanding....It just sounded like you were saying that a scope could be used like a pair of bino's to identify potential targets.

Have a good day,

Bruz


----------



## edge (Mar 1, 2006)

PWalls,

I apologize also....I as well took it to mean that you were using the scope as a general tool to look over game. My bad......

er


----------



## PWalls (Mar 1, 2006)

No sweat.

Back on topic.

I own a cheaper pair of binocs. Under $200 I think. I borrowed a set from a friend of mine (nice Leopold pair) and the difference was definately noticeable.

I think you do get what you pay for. Of course, based on how your hunting conditions are would justify the pair you buy.


----------

