[Renze de Vries]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

The apologists who defend slow close-in focus are almost invariably folks who never really use it, except when they are playing around, or are folks who don't combine near viewing with far viewing.--AP

I'm afraid this is a pretty accurate description of my situation. And ignorance...
So thank you Temmie and Alexis, I'll have to think things over once again, and more carefully.
The main question now being why not more manufacturers do utilize variable ratio focus.

Renze

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by Renze de Vries

I'm afraid this is a pretty accurate description of my situation. And ignorance...
So thank you Temmie and Alexis, I'll have to think things over once again, and more carefully.
The main question now being why not more manufacturers do utilize variable ratio focus.

Renze

Thank _you_ for being open to giving the issue some consideration. I realize users like me are in the minority, so we don't have much market influence, but I do wish there were more options (and I wish a revised 8.5x42 SV were one of them!. Swarovski are you listening?). How hard is it to design a variable ratio drive? I imagine it is something that the design teams just haven't been tasked with, but that once they are they might never look back. When I was a teenager, very few bins had good eye-relief for glasses use, but now almost every model does (and, correspondingly, short eye-relief but super wide-field bins are unfortunately virtually extinct--isn't there room in the market for some of them???). Maybe the same transformation will happen with focus design. Designing bins for close focus is a relatively new phenomenon, as is using them for butterflying and dragonfy watching etc, so maybe there's just a bit of a lag in designers realizing how important a variable ratio focus is to making the close focusing abilities of newer models truly useful in the field.

--AP

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I suspect that there are thousands of satisfied Swarovski users out there who are satisfied with their focusers otherwise Swarovski would have changed it long ago. Their "free" repairs to the few unsatisfied users are factored into the original purchase price.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, or is it, the gritty wheel gets the grease? Works both ways I guess.

Bob

I suspect that many of those thousands of satisfied Swarovski users out there who are satisfied with their focusers either got good samples or are hunters or birders whose style of birding doesn't require them to focus a lot at close range, because after all the complaints I've read on these forums over the past few years since I first broached the subject of Swaro's "Achilles Heel Focuser," it certainly seems to be a common enough problem that by now Swaro should have sat up and taken notice. After all, not only does one of their reps (Dale Forbes) read this forum (or used to, haven't seen him post in quite a while), but with all the Swaros that have been returned because of focuser issues, including their latest offerings, somebody must surely be paying attention to this QC issue.

The fact that they still haven't addressed the issue suggests either they don't care OR they do care, but if they went back and tried to "reinvent the [focuser] wheel," as one poster put it, it would add more cost to an already very costly product. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter explanation.

<B>

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

I suspect that many of those thousands of satisfied Swarovski users out there who are satisfied with their focusers either got good samples or are hunters or birders whose style of birding doesn't require them to focus a lot at close range, because after all the complaints I've read on these forums over the past few years since I first broached the subject of Swaro's "Achilles Heel Focuser," it certainly seems to be a common enough problem that by now Swaro should have sat up and taken notice. After all, not only does one of their reps (Dale Forbes) read this forum (or used to, haven't seen him post in quite a while), but with all the Swaros that have been returned because of focuser issues, including their latest offerings, somebody must surely be paying attention to this QC issue.

The fact that they still haven't addressed the issue suggests either they don't care OR they do care, but if they went back and tried to "reinvent the [focuser] wheel," as one poster put it, it would add more cost to an already very costly product. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter explanation.

<B>

Brock,

Your use of the words "good samples" to describe Swarovski's focusers raises the implication that perhaps they are, to some extent, poorly made. I'm not sure you wanted to imply that.

And you also note that you read all these complaints after you "first broached the subject of Swaro's "Achilles Heel" focuser," it certainly seems to be a common enough problem that Swaro should have sat up and taken notice."

If the focuser was such a common problem and Swarovski had received all those complaints about it couldn't they have changed it with the new Swarovison models when they were designing them? If it was a QC issue it would have been corrected at that time I think.

Didn't Swarovski speed up the focuser on the old ELs after there were many complaints about it being too slow?

I'm not by any means a big Swarovski fan or owner but I don't think it needs much defending as a company based on what I have read here over the years. I purchased my first two Swarovski binoculars recently at good prices. The 8 x 30 SLC and the 7 x 42 SLC. Both are discontinued and the latter was a Demo. I have other Nikon 8 x 30/32s I like better than the 8 x 30 SLC and the 7 x 42SLC is very good and better than my Trinovid but it is as heavy as an anvil.

Bob

[stephen b]

My 8x32 Swaro SV has a focus wheel travel of right at, or less than a 1/4 turn to go from 50 feet to infinity focus. It is not only smooth- it is not a problem at all. Even if it were a bit tighter to go in the direction ( counter clockwise) of a closer focus than 50 feet- it would not bother me in the least. For me and my use, I do not use 8x binoculars to look at things closer than 50 feet.

Is it as smooth as Nikon's?- no. Is it to me a better over all focus mechanism- yes- it is less finicky and works very well. Is it ( the Swaro) an over all better binocular?- yes.

[username]

I am sure that Swaro are well aware that their focuser is not the best....
and I feel equally sure that there is nothing that they can do about it with their present design...

I am now lead to believe that their focuser operates on a 'lever' system....[perhaps some of you knowledgeable folks already knew that]...?...and that under their bridge design they simply cannot get the focuser any better....[i'm sure they have tried]...!

Only a complete costly re-jig would sort 'the problem' out and Swaro obviously do not want to do this....understandably..!

I know that to many a less than smooth focuser is not a deal breaker when considering the high quality of their optics and wish i fell into that category of birder who's not 'that fussed' about it....

But i...[and other local birders i know]...do not consider it a minor issue as it is to us a 'fundamental' issue....

Optically things have traveled far from the days of my first Leitz black spot trinovids...but focusers...? Well...'things' seem to have gone backwards...[in some cases]...!

Still...at the end of the proverbial day and from a birders perspective...its what birds you actually see through your bins that actually counts regardless of what little niggles you may have with the optical instrument itself...

ps....not that i tried many brands of bins at my local Birdfair the other day i was however impressed with the new Zeiss 8x32 conquests...the pair i handled had a perfect focuser. Well balanced...good optically and fair priced little bins they were..most impressed...!

http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

[Kammerdiner]

Originally Posted by username

I am sure that Swaro are well aware that their focuser is not the best....
and I feel equally sure that there is nothing that they can do about it with their present design...

I am now lead to believe that their focuser operates on a 'lever' system....[perhaps some of you knowledgeable folks already knew that]...?...and that under their bridge design they simply cannot get the focuser any better....[i'm sure they have tried]...!

Only a complete costly re-jig would sort 'the problem' out and Swaro obviously do not want to do this....understandably..!

I know that to many a less than smooth focuser is not a deal breaker when considering the high quality of their optics and wish i fell into that category of birder who's not 'that fussed' about it....

But i...[and other local birders i know]...do not consider it a minor issue as it is to us a 'fundamental' issue....

Optically things have traveled far from the days of my first Leitz black spot trinovids...but focusers...? Well...'things' seem to have gone backwards...[in some cases]...!

Still...at the end of the proverbial day and from a birders perspective...its what birds you actually see through your bins that actually counts regardless of what little niggles you may have with the optical instrument itself...

ps....not that i tried many brands of bins at my local Birdfair the other day i was however impressed with the new Zeiss 8x32 conquests...the pair i handled had a perfect focuser. Well balanced...good optically and fair priced little bins they were..most impressed...!

http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

Not sure what you mean by "lever system." Swarovski has excellent cutaways of the SV online if you want a look. Looks pretty normal to me, except for the diopter, which isn't quite "cut-away" enough so I really don't know how it works. Clearly, disengaging the focus engages another set of gears, but the cutaway leaves that part out.

Near as I can tell, the "uneven" focusing has to do with a spring that's used to tension the focusing. Compressing the spring is a little stiffer than loosening it. Cry me a river.

Let's face it, some of these "achilles heels" disputes are simply the result of one person with a lot of time on his hands who has never yet--not even once--looked through an SV.

I'm bored with it all, I've got work to do, and after that I'm gonna look at some birds.

Mark

[temmie]

Originally Posted by Kammerdiner

Near as I can tell, the "uneven" focusing has to do with a spring that's used to tension the focusing. Compressing the spring is a little stiffer than loosening it. Cry me a river.

Let's face it, some of these "achilles heels" disputes are simply the result of one person with a lot of time on his hands who has never yet--not even once--looked through an SV.

I'm bored with it all, I've got work to do, and after that I'm gonna look at some birds.

Mark

I didn't buy a Swaro because of that focus. I like the ergonomics more compared to others (Zeiss, Leica), and I would say the view is not leaving much to desire.
I held one of the cut-open swaro's and it's clear that, because of the very small focus parts, the focus is prone to getting 'rough', uneven (and it's slow but that's their choice). They can do it better but they don't.
Every time I bring up this design flaw it seems like it's easier to blame to messenger than Swarovski.

[username]

Originally Posted by temmie

I didn't buy a Swaro because of that focus. I like the ergonomics more compared to others (Zeiss, Leica), and I would say the view is not leaving much to desire.
I held one of the cut-open swaro's and it's clear that, because of the very small focus parts, the focus is prone to getting 'rough', uneven (and it's slow but that's their choice). They can do it better but they don't.
Every time I bring up this design flaw it seems like it's easier to blame to messenger than Swarovski.

Needless to say i agree with you Temmie...

But hey..if its not a big deal to some then fair enough...but i expect more from top priced bins...

I always try out the latest top brand binoculars...[that's due to the fact that i visit an optic supplier every week as i'm always interested in new stuff]....

All the best...!

http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Brock,

Your use of the words "good samples" to describe Swarovski's focusers raises the implication that perhaps they are, to some extent, poorly made. I'm not sure you wanted to imply that.

And you also note that you read all these complaints after you "first broached the subject of Swaro's "Achilles Heel" focuser," it certainly seems to be a common enough problem that Swaro should have sat up and taken notice."

If the focuser was such a common problem and Swarovski had received all those complaints about it couldn't they have changed it with the new Swarovison models when they were designing them? If it was a QC issue it would have been corrected at that time I think.

Didn't Swarovski speed up the focuser on the old ELs after there were many complaints about it being too slow?

I'm not by any means a big Swarovski fan or owner but I don't think it needs much defending as a company based on what I have read here over the years. I purchased my first two Swarovski binoculars recently at good prices. The 8 x 30 SLC and the 7 x 42 SLC. Both are discontinued and the latter was a Demo. I have other Nikon 8 x 30/32s I like better than the 8 x 30 SLC and the 7 x 42SLC is very good and better than my Trinovid but it is as heavy as an anvil.

Bob

"Good sample" as in the focuser turns smoothly. "Bad" in that it does not. I wasn't implying that Swaros are poorly made but that they have a singular QC issue with some sample focusers turning stiff/coarse or turning smoothly in one direction but harder in the other. Everything else seems to work fine.

You are a regular reader of these forums, so you must have seen at least some of these complaints, and they are not all from the same buyers. That's what surprised me. It's like I opened Pandora's Box. Once the problem was identified, more and more Swaro owners began to come forth with the same issues. And it continues today.

However, some of those buyers don't care about the issue. I know in two cases, it's because they use their Swaros mainly for hunting, and focusing at a distance is quite different than trying to follow birds in your backyard where you're focusing close-in and much more frequently.

As to why Swaro didn't address the problem earlier, that's anybody's guess, but as I already speculated, it could be because hunters, who over the years were the main staple of Swaro's customers didn't find it to be a problem (the close focus on the 7x42 SLC and 8x30 SLC tells you they weren't designed for birders).

But now that more birders are using Swaros, in particular the ELs and new SLC-HD, the problem is beginning to surface. I think that might be part of the explanation.

The other reason I speculated above why they hadn't corrected the problem might be due to the increased cost of redesigning the focuser. Just like the EDG focuser redesign (and body redesign) added "production costs" so would "reinventing the wheel" for Swaro.

It's apparently cheaper for them to deal with the repairs on bins sent in by those more fussy buyers who aren't satisfied with the smoothness of the focusers than to redesign the focuser, which might be difficult to do since it also incorporates an internal diopter.

Plus, so far, it seems focuser stiffness is less of an issue with the 8x32 EL than with the 8.5x42. Even the SV EL model seems to be bearing that out. Curious as to why that is. Even the focus of the 8x32 EL WB I tried was smooth, but the other two Swaro models' focusers were not.

Whatever the case, I think this problem should have been addressed long ago before costs went up, because at this price point, you should expect and get a smooth focuser right out of the box and not have to return it to get it "tweaked".

If as Henry said, Swaro could retro engineer Nikon's smooth focuser, why hasn't it? Well, for one they already sued Nikon to stop production on its EDG I because they thought it was too close to the EL. So that would be hypocritical!

Plus, up until the EDG I, which had major issues with loose focuser knobs and drifting diopters, Nikon had not made a focuser that had both an internal focus and internal diopter so there wasn't an internal focus/internal diopter design to copy. They aren't going to "borrow" from Leica, whose focuser is purposely stiff because of its lack of grease. The only other manufacturer they could borrow from is Zeiss, and being that they are manufactured in Europe, that would definitely cause patent issues.

So they'd have to start from scratch and go back to the drawing board (engineers love to hear that phrase, of course, but management hears it as "Ca-Ching, Ca-Ching," the sound of the company's profits draining away....).

The SV EL already costs $2,400. I don't think too many customers are willing to pay much more for basically the same bins with consistently smooth focusers, particularly if they got a "good 'en" to begin with.

So it's also less costly for buyers to return their bins for repairs. That's the way it is and will probably remain.

<B>

[ceasar]

Swarovski can and has built a smooth focuser if my 8 x 30 SLC is a typical example. It's a slight bit stiff but it is smooth as silk in both directions and it is moving the objective lens to accomplish the focusing. Of course you have to use your ring finger to focus. But that doesn't bother my wife when she uses it and she has thin fingers.

My 7 x 42SLC has a slighty gritty feel in the extreme closeup region but it smooths out very quickly as it turns to infinity. I don't know if this is what others complain about but it is insignificant to me.

I'm right handed and it takes just slightly more effort with my right index finger to push the focus wheel toward close up than pull it toward infinity. (Closest focus on mine appears to be about 7 feet.) I think this is deliberate on the part of Swarovski and I also think it is a good idea if one wants to quickly focus out to infinity from closeup.

Additionally one doesn't have to turn the focus wheel on my 7 x 42 SLC very far. The focus wheel on it turns almost exactly 360 degrees from dead stop closeup to dead stop past infinity. There is no play at all in the focus wheel.

Bob

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ceasar

Swarovski can and has built a smooth focuser if my 8 x 30 SLC is a typical example. It's a slight bit stiff but it is smooth as silk in both directions and it is moving the objective lens to accomplish the focusing. Of course you have to use your ring finger to focus. But that doesn't bother my wife when she uses it and she has thin fingers.

My 7 x 42SLC has a slighty gritty feel in the extreme closeup region but it smooths out very quickly as it turns to infinity. I don't know if this is what others complain about but it is insignificant to me.

I'm right handed and it takes just slightly more effort with my right index finger to push the focus wheel toward close up than pull it toward infinity. (Closest focus on mine appears to be about 7 feet.) I think this is deliberate on the part of Swarovski and I also think it is a good idea if one wants to quickly focus out to infinity from closeup.

Additionally one doesn't have to turn the focus wheel on my 7 x 42 SLC very far. The focus wheel on it turns almost exactly 360 degrees from dead stop closeup to dead stop past infinity. There is no play at all in the focus wheel.

Bob

Bob,

Now I see why you made me repeat myself, you wanted to do a double take too.

Read your theory before about Swaro purposely designing their focusers to turn harder in one direction than the other, because it gives "righties" an advantage. I don't think "south paws" would like that very much.

Extrapolating from your theory, the fact that other Swaro focusers turn smoothly in both directions must meant that those samples were designed for ambidextrous users.

I think the reality is that you are willing to live with Swaro focusers comme ci, comme ça, while others who are more demanding cannot.

Those who expect more will return them for repairs, and from what I've read so far, most focusers will be returned working smoother than they were, but not to everyone's satisfaction. If I ever do buy an 8x32 EL, I hope that I'm lucky either right out of the box or after repairs.

<B>

[ronh]

I am a Leica Man. L blows S away here, sorry. Leica invented and perfected the jumpy focuser. Swaro merely reverse engineered it. That's why Leica knobs are hard to turn in either direction.

"In the field" you don't notice it. Rough place. It actually has an advantage though. You focus quickly, because the knob has only two speeds, fast and stopped.

But, nobody's perfect. Out of the four Leicas I've had, there was one "QC sneakthrough", a Trinovid with a smooth easy focus. I miss a lot of birds with it, marvelling how slowly I can turn the knob.
Ron

[temmie]

Originally Posted by ronh

I miss a lot of birds with it, marvelling how slowly I can turn the knob.
Ron

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Bob,

Now I see why you made me repeat myself, you wanted to do a double take too.

Read your theory before about Swaro purposely designing their focusers to turn harder in one direction than the other, because it gives "righties" an advantage. I don't think "south paws" would like that very much.

Extrapolating from your theory, the fact that other Swaro focusers turn smoothly in both directions must meant that those samples were designed for ambidextrous users.

I think the reality is that you are willing to live with Swaro focusers comme ci, comme ça, while others who are more demanding cannot.

Those who expect more will return them for repairs, and from what I've read so far, most focusers will be returned working smoother than they were, but not to everyone's satisfaction. If I ever do buy an 8x32 EL, I hope that I'm lucky either right out of the box or after repairs.

<B>

Brock,

I wrote, "slightly harder."

As a matter of fact, the focus wheel in my 7 x 42SLC is easier to turn in either direction than the focus wheel on my Nikon 8 x 30 EII is, although the EII is silky smooth. And the 7 x 42 requires less turning to go from close up to infinity.

Believe me, you would like it although you would probably grumble that it could be smoother.

Bob

[Brian2]

My SLC 8 X 42's arrived tonight....focus is sharp thankfully after reading all the posts about being pot luck etc..Tested them against my old Nikons and I have to say they are just what I thought I was buying...well pleased with them at this early stage...they'll get a road test tomorrow.

[JohnnyH]

Nice one Brian, I'm going up to Cley Spy to compare the SLC HD's with the SV's on Sunday, which one will come home with me??

Cheers,

John.