@ski otter 2@blikkem. What length version did you get? (Or did I miss you giving that info somewhere?)
I understand your starting point, having a flat pair of these skis to deal with. In this case, the heavier, and higher, the binding you choose, probably the more you would get the intended range of performance from this ski, matching the system binding in these ways. I'd guess that especially the 175 would be responsive to this solution. It does bumps and trees better, unless you are bigger.
I have both the 182 and the 175. The 182, for me, is an improved GS ski (the multiple radius), heavy and meant to be heavy, especially at the feet. It makes very pronounced, easy, GS type turns with power, no effort, in most all conditions but powder/deep chop - as powerfully, and more so unless one is at high angles, as a true GS ski, at GS length. Typically, the system binding was prototyped with the ski, to fit the ski, and visa versa. In such cases, the modifications and fine tuning of the ski from prototypes were in all likelihood done with the system binding, taking its basic characteristics into account experientially - even fine tuning the system binding to match the ski, occasionally. The 182 is not a bump ski, or tree ski: it is a front-side bias ski that can carve/handle some bumps, and some trees, some variable conditions wonderfully - especially chop. It carves groomers on corduroy or some variable conditions exceptionally - and is aided in doing this by the greater stand height of the system binding, the toe-heel angle, weight, and integration into the ski. That prototype package is very dialed in, amazing, in this particular ski.
With this typical proto development background, to me, what would make replacing the system binding make sense - if you had complete freedom about this - is if you intend to stretch the range of performance of the ski, into more bumps and trees, and more off piste gnarliness - what this ski was not necessarily intended for, but could handle. In that case, being closer to the ground, having less heel/toe angle, lighter weight at the feet, all would help this ski perform better outside its intended range.
I got the 175, trees (not much locally recently), variety in turn shapes were my reasons.
I like the idea that this is an 80/20 ski, that sounds good for me.
I've read your posts about the two sizes you bought, thanks for sharing. Always welcome insight from someone with has first hand knowledge.