What is the most faultless binocular brand/model?

[laika]

I wonder what is the most faultless binocular brand or model? I have been reading some american optics site,and some guys often says that Swarovsi bins are more exposed to failures as fogging. And that Leica has least failures.One guy who says he has inside information wrote:"..the Swaro's EL are known to corrode over time and loose their nitrogen charge"
I suspect this to be only rumours.

[Tim Allwood]

I've always found people who've had 7 x 42 Zeiss love them. I used them for 13 years incl very hot places, very cold places, very dry places and also in the tropics - once for two years). They are still mechanically excellent, in very good shape still and perform very well optically. Many of the newer bins haven't been round long enough yet for an objective view on their ruggedness in the field.......
I expect the Leica 8 x32 have a good record?
And yes I've heard of the fogging in the Swarovskis. I mentioned before a friend's had three pairs fog in Peru.

[Jane Turner]

Leicas for me.. on the optical quality.. I can handle a few ergonomics faults when the image is THAT good

[Tim Allwood]

and the Zeiss Jena 8 x 30 are a great standby

aren't they Jane?
(How many u got now?)

[Jane Turner]

Two pairs... for now.. I think I may yet becore a Jenoptem dealer!

[jpoyner]

Fogging in Swarovskis?...dear oh dear....you can buy a Rolls, but run it over a nail and it'll still get a flat tyre!

;)

JP

[Art Thorn]

I wonder what the difference in air pressure is up in those mountains that Tim's friend was in. A bit of research and some math, as well as some data from the manufacturers about maximum depth under water, might or might not explain that fogging. How many pounds per sq inch difference when you go underwater 10 feet compared to climbing in the atmosphere 5000 ft?

[Tim Allwood]

I wonder what the difference in air pressure is up in those mountains that Tim's friend was in. A bit of research and some math, as well as some data from the manufacturers about maximum depth under water, might or might not explain that fogging. How many pounds per sq inch difference when you go underwater 10 feet compared to climbing in the atmosphere 5000 ft?

final time was going from Puerto Maldonado (0m) to about 4,000m in 24 hours

would that explain it Art?

[Art Thorn]

My guess is that it will, Tim. Just out of curiosity I'm going to look up some numbers. I'll have an answer in a day or two.

[laika]

I have had a Swarovski Classic 7x42GA since 1990 (sold it last year) and have never had single problem with it.I used it in all sorts of weather and dropped it to the ground several times.

[Bubbs]

[QUOTE=laika]I wonder what is the most faultless binocular brand or model?

I bought my Zeiss 10x40b Dialyt's in 1983. They have been my constant companion ever since. They truly are like an old mate and I could never part with them. They now are very worn but optically excellent.

Had a look through the new Leica 8x42's a few day's ago...wonderful! Wanted to buy them but what's the point...if it aint broke!

I wonder who has got the oldest pair of bins that are still in regular use within our forum?...I'm sure my pair of 1983 Zeiss are just whippersnappers compared to some out there.

John Barclay

[Bluetail]

I bought my Zeiss 10x40b Dialyt's in 1983. They have been my constant companion ever since. They truly are like an old mate and I could never part with them. They now are very worn but optically excellent. Exactly my feelings about the Leitz Trinovid 10x40s I bought in '86! But let's not start that old war again! ;)

Jason

[jpoyner]

[QUOTE=laika]I wonder what is the most faultless binocular brand or model?


I wonder who has got the oldest pair of bins that are still in regular use within our forum?...I'm sure my pair of 1983 Zeiss are just whippersnappers compared to some out there.

John Barclay

My old DDR Zeiss Jena's are still on the go. They've been dropped, scratched, drowned, coated with endless falling sandwich fillings and now reside under my seat in the car. Those lenses have picked out some good birds in their time and were certainly built to last....despite the fact that they are about as light as a house-brick.

JP

[Art Thorn]

final time was going from Puerto Maldonado (0m) to about 4,000m in 24 hours

would that explain it Art?
I found a number of approximate formulas relating pressure to ft above sea level and ft below the surface. The pressure difference at 4000 meters amounts to about 9 lbs/sq in (inside and outside the binocular, if it doesn't lose it's seal). That is equivalent, approximately, to taking it 13 ft under water (what are binoculars rated at?). Of course the pressure differentials are in opposite directions and the seals may have been designed to operate one way better than the other. So it is quite possible that any binocular taken to 4000 meters will lose air/nitrogen (or blow up?? what is the surface area of a binocular multiplied by 9 lbs/sq in?). So on the trip back down, new moist air goes back inside.
Fun thinking about it!

[Ragna]

Have just changed from Zeiss 7x42 to Leica 8x42 ultravids.Had the 7x42s for 15 years they were still in very good condition,dont somehow think the Leica bins will be as robust as the Zeiss and in such good condition in 15 years time.But opictally they are suberb and handle very well.

[Adey Baker]

My old 1976-vintage Zeiss 10x40 Dialyts are not a patch on modern optics for light-gathering but they are superbly engineered - the focus-wheel, for instance, is still as smooth in operation as the day I bought them

[POP]

My early 1970 Jenoptem 10x50s were at the time excellent until i could buy the Leitz 8x40b trinovid again in the 1970s,which did me well and i still have these,but now have the Swarovoski El 8.5 x 42,in between having a pair of Bush and Lomb and 10x40 pair of Leicas.I have to say for me the Swaro bins are the best I have ever owned,but having said that I would trade the lot in for a good pair of eyes and make do with a cheap pair of bins.

John

[Brian Stone]

Quick vote for my Leica 8x42BA which were loose in my car as it rolled down a bank last year and were found outside in the field afterwards. The armouring is slightly grazed in places but otherwise they are as terrific as ever.

[Jane Turner]

I fell off a cliff ... yes silly me... wearing a pair for Zeiss 10x40 Dialyts. I got a compression fracture in a prism...but they still worked. Unfortunately my cruciate ligament didn't!

[dacol]

[QUOTE=Tim Allwood]final time was going from Puerto Maldonado (0m) to about 4,000m in 24 hours

Hi, my name is Dalcio and I justed joined Birdforum. This experience is of interest to me because something similar happened to a friend of mine, his binoculars where the new waterproof Swifts (a Us brand). Howeveer he suspects that it might have been the flight from Lima to Cuzco that damaged his binos since when he was boarding an airline employee yanked his carry-on (with binos and camera) and puit it in the unpressurized luggage compartment. Since the plane would have gone above 10000 m this would have caused an even greater pressure differential accros the sealed lens.
So my question is: did your friend fly up from Puerto Maldonado or did he go by land?

Thanks, Dalcio

[Tim Allwood]

Hi Dalcio

he flew but kept bins in the pressurised cabin

I think it was just too much to go from tropical sea level to 4000m and very cold in such a short time....

I did the same with my Zeiss and they were fine!

[dacol]

Hi Dalcio

he flew but kept bins in the pressurised cabin

I think it was just too much to go from tropical sea level to 4000m and very cold in such a short time....

I did the same with my Zeiss and they were fine!

Thanks for your reply Tim. Interesting that the Zeiss were fine. My friend told me that all the 3 guides that he met during his trip also had Zeiss binos.

Mine are made by Leica (8x32 BN) and this discussion cast a bit of doubt on whether they would be able to withstand those altitude changes since they are rated, as far as waterproofing goes, for 5 meters (ie should not leak if submerged down to 5 meters) which is pretty close to the pressure differential pointed out in another message in this thread.

Dalcio

[IanF]

I have a pair of Zeiss 80x30's (the early ones) which still compare favourably to my Leica 8x30's.

Both are superb optically and far better than the other binos that I own save for the Opticron 10x42's which are a close match.

The Zeiss cost £30 albeit a few years ago now whereas the Leicas are now £600.

Anyone staring off now, I know which I'd recommend, even if they are £100+ nowadays!

[Colin]

I have worked off and on at WWT over the years as well as with the RSPB and SWT. There are lots of people that I have met who use their binnies and scopes virtually everyday and I would say the make with the most problems are Leicas. However, not with the optics which are superb but with the mechanical bits, some of which are only trivial such as loss of the logo bit, but which shouldn't really happen with kit that expensive.

[Den]

I've used various Leicas for the past 20 years and found them to be fault free. Recently changed to Nikon HG's to get better eye relief as I wear specs all the time. I hope the Nikons are as reliable as the Leicas have been!

[Birdbrain]

I second Den i've used Leica for about 15 years also found them fault free recently brought duovids great bins what will thay come up with next.

[James]

Reading this thread has suddenly made me worry. When travelling by air I have kept the bins in hand luggage but put the scope (Leica) in a suitcase in the hold.

It seems OK after several trips. Is this the wrong thing to do??????? Help???

James

[postcardcv]

I changed my bins a while ago and shopped around before buying any. The three retailers I spoke to all said that whilst there was little to choose in quality they got few Leicas come back with problems than the other top brands.

In the end I got a pair of Leica Duovids - stunning optics but they packed up on me last week...

[scampo]

Saw my cousin today - he has Zeiss 10x42s which are pristine and yet fifteen years old. What a view they give!

[alan_rymer]

Reading this thread has suddenly made me worry. When travelling by air I have kept the bins in hand luggage but put the scope (Leica) in a suitcase in the hold.

It seems OK after several trips. Is this the wrong thing to do??????? Help???

James
I think holds are pressurised!. If they wern't, just think of all the animals that wouldn't survive the flight!.

[Leif]

I think holds are pressurised!. If they wern't, just think of all the animals that wouldn't survive the flight!.

Doesn't the pressure drop during flight? This could cause outgassing from the scope during ascent, and an intake of air on descent.

[henry link]

Doesn't the pressure drop during flight? This could cause outgassing from the scope during ascent, and an intake of air on descent.
I hate to even mention this, but what about all the bins and scopes that have already been shipped by air from manufacturers to dealers before they are even purchased?

How about this idea; resealable nitrogen ports (perhaps with a safety valve that fails before the binocular seals). You simply buy a can of pressurized nitrogen from your bin dealer and recharge your own binocular or scope. Resealable nitrogen ports were actually used in some British military bins in WWII!

Or how about this (more likely) possibility. Hard cases with high pressure seals for transporting bins and scopes by air. Henry

[Mickymouse]

I don't know if it's worth mentioning but it can depend on the type of seal, lip seals only work one for instance, so they could be brilliant down to 500 meters depth but hopeless at lower pressures, just a thought.
Mick

[Doug]

Has anyone asked Leica or Swarovski about this reaction to changes in pressure - I am sure they know?

[JonMartin]

The Rolex Submariner saturation diving watch has some kind of nitrogen valve, if they can do that with a watch.........

[sduncan]

Fyi,

If the barometer-altimeter function on my watch is any indication, commercial flights generally have a cabin pressurized to 4000 to 6000 ft. I've seen that range, anyway. I thought it kind of odd that it changes by a few thousand feet pretty often during the flight, but it seems to take a change of about 3500 for my ears to be bothered.

Baggage holds are pressurized for lots of reasons. If they weren't, pets & other livestock would die, lots of unexpected things would happen to containers half-filled with liquids (they still do, to a smaller extent), various devices (not just optics) that happened to trap air and were unable to release it quickly enough when exposed to lower pressure could be damaged, all of which would make for unhappy passengers and complaints/claims/lawsuits/etc. Not to mention that if the hold wasn't pressurized then the floor of the cabin (a flat structure) would be holding in the cabin pressure - not a very good idea from an engineering standpoint.

Various high-end diver's watches have helium purge valves designed to allow helium (which, being very small from a molecular standpoint) which makes it's way past the water seals during time spent in underwater high-pressure diving bells (remember those old Cousteau TV programs where the guys sounded like the chipmunks? They're breathing an oxygen-helium mix) to be released during ascent. It's a one-way - out - valve. Looks like an extra crown, usually at the 11 o'clock position. Without the valve, when divers left the bell to ascend the watche's crystal would pop off due to pressure from the helium.

Regards,

Steve

[mordoff]

New to birdforum.swar 8.5X42EL V leica 8x42 ultravid. which is the better buy.

[scampo]

I have the Swaro and it is an excellent binocular in every way. My brother has the Nikon HG and that is the equal of the Swaro to my eyes. The Ultravids are less easy for my large hands, but many report them to be excellent.

If I were buying today, I would think very hard about the Nikons as so may people swear by them. But... around the corner are the new Zeiss FLs and they are going to be the lightest pair on the market as well as the sharpest, widest, brightest and most colour corrected. So... if you do a lot of birding, a bit of patience might be worthwhile.

[POP]

and probably the most expensive.

John

[Andy Bright]

Hi Mordoff, welcome to birdforum from all the staff, we hope you enjoy the site.


New to birdforum.swar 8.5X42EL V leica 8x42 ultravid. which is the better buy.The one that feels most comfortable in your hands, try them out for as long as a dealer will let you and get a real feel for the binos. For most, optically it's going to be very difficult to seperate the top binos, so 'feel' becomes more important than some would imagine.
As I said, try before you buy.

Regards,
Andy

[Ragna]

I use Ultravids but found no difference in optical qaulity between any of the top optics So as Steve and Andy have already said try before you buy it really comes down to the pair your most comfortable with. Both pairs are superb bins .

[pduxon]

On a side note I see the Ultravid x32's will be at Birdfair