Nobody's perfect... (1 Viewer)

chill6x6 · Aug 4, 2015

So… I purchased some 10x42 EL SV in February of this year. I've used them some…but not as much as some others, in particular the HT 10x42 and Vortex 8x32 Viper HD. I'd also venture to say that my Meopta Meostar HD 8x32 and the Zeiss Victory FL 8x32s have seen more use than the 10x42 EL SVs. Why? I have no idea other than I have a few other choices. LATELY I've been using the EL SVs a little more.

So, SUNDAY, I was taking a pictures of some binoculars and noticed something WEIRD about the left objective upon close examination. There is some sort of issue with the armoring between the front edge(objective end) and the actual objective lens itself.

Picture 1:

http://photos.imageevent.com/chill6x6/stuff/websize/image.jpg

As you can see…. Everything looks normal. PERFECT if you will. NOTHING wrong mechanically or function.

Picture 2:

http://photos.imageevent.com/chill6x6/stuff/websize/image_1.jpg

Picture 3:

http://photos.imageevent.com/chill6x6/stuff/websize/image_2.jpg

Here you can see the issue. NEVER noticed it until yesterday. Of course it goes without saying the lens covers are ALWAYS in place unless during use. Objective lens(both) are in perfect condition.

It looks to me as if this pair of binoculars slipped thru QC. No other real explanation. At any rate…I'm returning to Swarovski today. I don't really see how this can be "repaired."

Steve C · Aug 4, 2015

It took me maybe 15 seconds to duplicate that on my SV 50 and about the same to fix it. The rubber armor somehow just got folded around out of place, probably during installation. In that regard it may be QC related. Like your title says, nobody's perfect. Just take a small screwdriver wooden pick, or similar and just gently work around the lower edge of that fold. I bet it will pop back into place. Unless there is a missing piece in the ring in the armor where it folds under, can't really tell that. Just remember that the rubber armor is not supposed to be permanent. In some cases for service that armor has to come off to get into the binocular to fix the thing. I'd think of that as a skin tight spandex shirt whose shirt tail didn't get tucked in quite right.

Worst case scenario is the armor on that side will need to be replaced, but I don't think there is much of an issue here.

brocknroller · Aug 4, 2015

IOW, it's a "non-issue."

You might have a gremlin problem in your house, they like to make mischief just to mess with you.

Have you tried the 10x42 SLC (HD)? It might give you a different enough view from the SF, and it's more compact than either the SF or SV EL, so that it could be the right tool for the job when you want a 10x42 that has a warmer color balance and that's not as long as your thigh bone.

I tend to avoid 10x because of the shakes, but I could hold the 10x42 SLC HD fairly steady due to its excellent balance, compact size, and open hinge design.

10x42_slc_binocularl

Brock

Pileatus · Aug 4, 2015

Steve C said:
It took me maybe 15 seconds to duplicate that on my SV 50 and about the same to fix it. The rubber armor somehow just got folded around out of place, probably during installation. In that regard it may be QC related. Like your title says, nobody's perfect. Just take a small screwdriver wooden pick, or similar and just gently work around the lower edge of that fold. I bet it will pop back into place. Unless there is a missing piece in the ring in the armor where it folds under, can't really tell that. Just remember that the rubber armor is not supposed to be permanent. In some cases for service that armor has to come off to get into the binocular to fix the thing. I'd think of that as a skin tight spandex shirt whose shirt tail didn't get tucked in quite right.

Worst case scenario is the armor on that side will need to be replaced, but I don't think there is much of an issue here.

What Steve said! :clap:

Theo98 · Aug 4, 2015

brocknroller said:
I tend to avoid 10x because of the shakes, but I could hold the 10x42 SLC HD fairly steady due to its excellent balance, compact size, and open hinge design.

Brock

And for Me, I've found just the opposite (so did my son and wife)! The balance and added weight of my EL 10x50 SV "smooths out" the micro shakes of my SLC 10x42, almost as if they were image-stabalized! I can see more detail and resolution over the SLC 10x42 (which really are no slouch). Less shake also assist in a more relaxed view (along with their greater ER and a wider EP). I really like the SLC's, but Love the EL 10x50's!!

Ted

Uhu74 · Aug 4, 2015

Theo98 said:
And for Me, I've found just the opposite (so did my son and wife)! The balance and added weight of my EL 10x50 SV "smooths out" the micro shakes of my SLC 10x42, almost as if they were image-stabalized! I can see more detail and resolution over the SLC 10x42 (which really are no slouch). Less shake also assist in a more relaxed view (along with their greater ER and a wider EP). I really like the SLC's, but Love the EL 10x50's!!

Ted

Yup, I can second that. My wife also said the big50 Is easier to hold still than the much lighter SV32.

About the "issue", what Steve said

I wouldn't send it back for that.

chill6x6 · Aug 5, 2015

Steve C said:
It took me maybe 15 seconds to duplicate that on my SV 50 and about the same to fix it. The rubber armor somehow just got folded around out of place, probably during installation. In that regard it may be QC related. Like your title says, nobody's perfect. Just take a small screwdriver wooden pick, or similar and just gently work around the lower edge of that fold. I bet it will pop back into place. Unless there is a missing piece in the ring in the armor where it folds under, can't really tell that. Just remember that the rubber armor is not supposed to be permanent. In some cases for service that armor has to come off to get into the binocular to fix the thing. I'd think of that as a skin tight spandex shirt whose shirt tail didn't get tucked in quite right.

Worst case scenario is the armor on that side will need to be replaced, but I don't think there is much of an issue here.

Hmmm. It could be. I stared to mess with it but knew if I made things worse it would all be on ME! It kinda looked like it was CRIMPED even. Too bad I can't go look at it again! It was all ready on UPS.

chill6x6 · Aug 5, 2015

brocknroller said:
IOW, it's a "non-issue."

You might have a gremlin problem in your house, they like to make mischief just to mess with you.

Have you tried the 10x42 SLC (HD)? It might give you a different enough view from the SF, and it's more compact than either the SF or SV EL, so that it could be the right tool for the job when you want a 10x42 that has a warmer color balance and that's not as long as your thigh bone.

I tend to avoid 10x because of the shakes, but I could hold the 10x42 SLC HD fairly steady due to its excellent balance, compact size, and open hinge design.

10x42_slc_binocularl

Brock

I have not tried the SLC…RECENTLY. I have an old SLC 10X42. STILL a great binocular! I LOOKED and CONSIDERED the new SLC in 8X42. Ended up with something else!:eek!:

I don't DISLIKE the EL SV. At all. It was even growing on me a little. Though maybe not quite as absolutely the best binocular I have for low light(splitting hairs here), it may very well be the crispest image of all. I JUST had the EL SV all rigged up with the Swarovski Bino suspender and Bino Guard and all! :stuck:

brocknroller · Aug 5, 2015

Theo98 said:
And for Me, I've found just the opposite (so did my son and wife)! The balance and added weight of my EL 10x50 SV "smooths out" the micro shakes of my SLC 10x42, almost as if they were image-stabalized! I can see more detail and resolution over the SLC 10x42 (which really are no slouch). Less shake also assist in a more relaxed view (along with their greater ER and a wider EP). I really like the SLC's, but Love the EL 10x50's!!

Ted

Yes, weight helps. At 28+ oz. the 10x42 SLC-HD (the original) was more than 4 oz. heavier than the 10x42 SE and 6 oz. more than the 10x35 EII, so for me, the weight helped keep those bad vibrations from a' happen' with her.

But shape matters, too. I could hold the more compact 10x35 EII steadier than I could the SE.

The Megagog 51.8 oz 10x50 FMT gave even steadier views, that is, until the muscle fatigue set in and the DT's followed, and that didn't take long. And try to hand hold a 52 oz. 10x bin and try to set the diopter(s)!

So heavier helps, but everybody has a weight limit beyond which their muscles will start to fatigue with prolonged use and then the weight becomes counterproductive to reducing the shakes. For me, the 28 oz. 10x42 SLC is Baby Bear Approved ®.

Brock

Steve C · Aug 5, 2015

chill6x6 said:
Hmmm. It could be. I stared to mess with it but knew if I made things worse it would all be on ME! It kinda looked like it was CRIMPED even. Too bad I can't go look at it again! It was all ready on UPS.

Point is an expensive binocular like the Swarovski is not particularly delicate, and quite likely very easily repairable. Somebody at Swarovski is going to look at your binocular, place their thumb over the edge of the indentation, push outward with that thumb, pop the rubber armor back into place, box it and send it back. So far as I know rubber armor is not crimped in place.

On my SV, I created your defect, and fixed said defect several times with just my right thumb, which is why I think that is how it is getting fixed.

What you see there is nearly impossible to mess up. However, you may well have done the right thing in your case just sending it back. You should get it back good as new. B

Good luck!

HighNorth · Aug 5, 2015

Oh my Gawd! Looks like Swaro really flunked CQ on that one! The 10x42 EL SV should NEVER have been released with such serious flaws! *irony*

HN

Pileatus · Aug 6, 2015

HighNorth said:
Oh my Gawd! Looks like Swaro really flunked CQ on that one! The 10x42 EL SV should NEVER have been released with such serious flaws! *irony*

HN

You're assuming it was not caused by the owner or someone else playing around with the armor. Steve's easy replication of the "problem" is illuminating.

denco@comcast.n · Aug 6, 2015

HighNorth said:
Oh my Gawd! Looks like Swaro really flunked CQ on that one! The 10x42 EL SV should NEVER have been released with such serious flaws! *irony*

HN

I'll take that over rust and stains and fogged up oculars and plastic eyecups and broken hinges any day.

HighNorth · Aug 6, 2015

[email protected] said:
I'll take that over rust and stains and fogged up oculars and plastic eyecups and broken hinges any day.

My wallet just starts to open up for the EL SV and then it shuts again. Wonky focusers, rolling ball, poor glare control, and now the dented armour? Will the problems ever cease???

:-O

HN

HighNorth · Aug 6, 2015

Pileatus said:
You're assuming it was not caused by the owner or someone else playing around with the armor. Steve's easy replication of the "problem" is illuminating.

...apparently you didn't understand that I was trying to be ironic!

HN

Theo98 · Aug 6, 2015

[email protected] said:
I'll take that over rust and stains and fogged up oculars and plastic eyecups and broken hinges any day.

HighNorth said:
My wallet just starts to open up for the EL SV and then it shuts again. Wonky focusers, rolling ball, poor glare control, and now the dented armour? Will the problems ever cease??? :-O HN

Can't we just All Get Along, "Cum Ba Ya"..."Imagine" !!!:hippy:

HighNorth · Aug 6, 2015

Theo98 said:
Can't we just All Get Along, "Cum Ba Ya"..."Imagine" !!!:hippy:

Peace, love and free bins for everyone! :hippy::loveme::flyaway::-O

chill6x6 · Aug 6, 2015

Pileatus said:
You're assuming it was not caused by the owner or someone else playing around with the armor. Steve's easy replication of the "problem" is illuminating.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear….NOT let me repeat NOT caused by owner OR someone else playing around with the armor on said binocular. Comprende?

chill6x6 · Aug 12, 2015

So….
Swarovski received the EL SV 08/07/15. Estimated shipping date after repair or whatever will be 09/11/15. Maybe they'll install new armoring….

brocknroller · Aug 12, 2015

chill6x6 said:
Let me make one thing perfectly clear….NOT let me repeat NOT caused by owner OR someone else playing around with the armor on said binocular. Comprende?

Chilli, chill. Don't waste your time. The Woodpecker never believes anyone who has complaints about Swarovski binoculars. He's never met a Swaro he hasn't liked and doesn't believe a defective one exists unless somebody broke it. Best ignored.

Brock

Nobody's perfect... (1 Viewer)

Registered User

Well-known member

porromaniac

"Experientia Docet”

Eurasian Goldfinch

Well-known member

Registered User

Registered User

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Eurasian Goldfinch

Well-known member

Registered User

Registered User

porromaniac

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread