When I recently purchased the 2 pairs of Nikon SEIIs on a deal I was rather worried about the serial numbers being so low (0050xx and 0051xx) but Kevin Purcell explained to me (with references to one of the Starry Night or BVD web pages), that these serial numbers were right in line.
Is it really possible that so few pairs of great bins are sold? In the KC Astronomical Society all 50 or so regulars out of 450+ members, have high end bins like Nikon Prostars/Astroluxe or Fujinon 7x50 or 11x70 FMTRs, etc. But when I donate time to do the Audubon Soc bird counts I see many of the counters using binoculars I would have trouble looking through all day without eye strain. In fact my biggest contribution is loaning relatively better bins to folks who are having trouble sorting out the finches etc.
In reality it seems like there is a small populations of hard core astronomers and all of them get uber-bins. There is a huge number of hunters in this part of the Midwest USA and many of them get uber-bins (based on the sales numbers Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops talk about). But amongst birders there seems to be a somewhat larger number of persons involved (compared to amateur astronomers) but they most often buy low end or mid-price bins.
I read on this forum that there is a great deal of interest and many "tests" of bins to see which bin is best and which bin in the "Best" category is least expensive. There is also some interest in which low-end-priced bin is best. But based on my actual interactions with groups of read bird-counters (for a rather serious genus/species tabulation), birders don't spend much money to do what they do.
Amateur astronomers I know will lie on their backs in the freezing cold with waterproof IF bins to observe interesting phenomena (comets etc.) and if the bins die, well that's the price you pay to have been there and seen that with your own eyes. Likewise hunters often spend really high dollars on bins because the guns etc. are already costing big bucks, so the uber-bins aren't a really over-large expenditure. But for a group that really needs to have either bins or a spotter, birders seem to be the cheapest spenders, and that may be why the best birding bins get discontinued.
I find in the astronomical society and amongst hunters that old age cuts down on their involvement after 65 yo when conditions are harsh. But birders can be seen making trips and watching slide shows about birds well into their retirement years, at a time when most can actually afford that one great pair of bins. They are likely to avoid the harshest weather conditions, because of their age. So why are the number of uber-bins for birding sold, so low?
I am an avid birder, but also a total cheapskate and always go for "best bang for the buck" I had a budget of $900 for bins recently and was leaning toward the Minox HG, but then the Vortex Viper looked "better" to me, so I thought great, looks like I only have to spend $500. Then I noticed the Stokes DLS went on sale from $800 down to $450, so I bought those as their image was just as great as the Viper. (I also did not want to buy a chinese brand bin).
I am extremely satisfied with the performance of these bins. Their optics are great and they are a pleasure to use.
Anyway, that's the mindset of a cheapskate birder.
Interestingly, in my line of work, I run into a lot of professional consultant birders and a lot of them are using cheaper bins. However, I suspect they probably have a better "personal" set at home and use a cheaper set in their line of work. I do this as well. It doesn't detract from their ability to accurately conduct the necessary (and govt. protocol) surveys for which they are hired.
This sort of gets us into the old argument of just how much better are the high end binoculars. I will grant they are better, but I do not think they are enough better to justify the price they sell for, regardless of my long term, but not real serious, wish for one. It is sort of hard for me to think that a birder armed with a Vortex Fury or its equivalent is poorly equipped. I have read reviews where numerous serious birders have said there is no need to spend over $500. There are numerous respected hunting authorities who say the same thing for hunting. I actually do both, and as far as I am concerned there is precious little, if any difference between a good birding, or a good hunting binocular.
I agree that there are lot of people on birding outings who could use a binocular upgrade. There are always posts form some birder or another here who tells all how good their low end Bushnell Powerview, or Trophy is. However, it is the hunters seem to me to be the "Kings of Cheap" when it comes to binoculars. Not so much so with scopes, but many binoculars I see around the necks of hunters would be best used as targets.
Another thing I see common to both birders and hunters is that the purchase a better binocular, will make them better too. While this has a certain merit, good optics will not make up for poor technique.
The thing with birding is that people can get into it without having to spend a lot of money. And there are likely a good percentage who really don't have a lot to spend, so the attraction is somewhat natural.
As with any hobby, the hobbyist more or less expands their level of interest as they gain some experience, especially if they enjoy the hobby. They will thus tend to invest in optics, just what they need to fulfil their personal optics requirements. Some people are content with the view that is sharp enough to let them make a confident ID, others get to the point where they wish to compare subtle inter specific color differences. Or even just to seperate subtle differences in the color patterns of an individual bird.
So I think that the high end binocular always has, and will always continue to appeal to the high end hobbyist. I also tend to think that we all tend to spend what we can afford to spend. Also I think right now, that it is sort of natural to see economic conditions tend to mitigate against a $2,000 US binocular, especially when one can nowadays get a ZEN and get an oh-so-very-close-to-the-alpha image.