• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Polycarbonate or Magnesium? (1 Viewer)

I've commented elsewhere on "...magnesium-alloy (rather than composite) body construction. I think I'd prefer to save a couple or three ounces with composite construction..." which I'd still stand by to the extent such weight savings are real (I'm no materials expert). I have bins built around aluminium and magnesium alloys and bins built around glass-fibre reinforced composites. They all work just fine for me. What I would reject is any sense that "unnecessary weight" is the same thing as "higher build quality". As long as the job is done right I'd prefer lighter over heavier, regardless of the material used.

...Mike
 
Let me put it this way. Would you rather have a plastic car or a metal one? What is so different about binoculars?


Today's airliners are flying with load bearing composite structures. To think that magnesium is superior in all applications is not correct, as to autos, I have no problem with automobile composite structural parts, just not an issue.
 
Last edited:
Here are four links describing the advantages of magnesium over plastic.
Dennis, you shock me :eek!: Who would ever have expected that people who's job it is to sell magnesium-based products would write that such products are superior? Clearly quite unusual behaviour in sales and marketing staff...

...Mike
 
Today's airliners are flying with load bearing composite structures. To think that magnesium is superior in all applications is not correct, as to autos, I have no problem with automobile composite structural parts, just not an issue.
Load bearing composite structures are not as critical for dimensional stability as the parts magnesium are replacing in the auto industry like dashboards. For example, magnesium has much greater stiffness and it will maintain it's dimensions much better than plastic. That means your glove box will always close precisely for the life of your car. Plastic can change in dimensions over time causing that glove box or ash tray not to fit properly.
 
Dennis, you shock me :eek!: Who would ever have expected that people who's job it is to sell magnesium-based products would write that such products are superior? Clearly quite unusual behaviour in sales and marketing staff...

...Mike
A lot what they are saying is true though. Read how magnesium is being used more and more in the auto industry. It is actually 70% lighter than titanium! It would make a great bike frame because it absorbs shock so well.
 
Any preferences for either polycarbonate or magnesium binos?
Magnesium is more expensive and plastic is cheaper to use in manufacturing binoculars. Regardless of which is better people expect a more expensive binocular to be built of magnesium. That is what the market dictates. Zeiss made an error in making the Zeiss FL's from plastic even though they performed satisfactorily a lot of people associate plastic with "cheap" so Zeiss must have gotten a lot of negative feedback from it. Zeiss corrected their mistake with their new SF's and HT's which are made of magnesium. I don't think there is any higher end binocular now made from plastic.
 
Let me put it this way. Would you rather have a plastic car or a metal one? What is so different about binoculars? They are using magnesium more and more in automobiles because of it's advantages especially cars like the new Z06 Corvette. ......................

One plastic car please, and I think I would rather pass on the car with magnesium ...........

http://www.midsouthrescue.org/id21.html

Composites at work .....

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/B787-inflight.jpg

http://www.roger-wilco.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/First-barrels_Alenia_ip.jpg
 
Let me put it this way. Would you rather have a plastic car or a metal one? What is so different about binoculars? They are using magnesium more and more in automobiles because of it's advantages especially cars like the new Z06 Corvette. Not only is magnesium the best metal with the strength to weight ratio, but it is also 100 times better than plastic for heat dissipation. A lot of industries are switching from plastic to magnesium because of tit's superior dimensional stability. Dimensional stability is very important in binoculars where you need the lenses to remain in alignment obviously Here are four links describing the advantages of magnesium over plastic.

http://www.meridian-mag.com/magnesium-die-casting/magnesium-vs-plastic/

http://www.meridian-mag.com/magnesium-die-casting/magnesium-faq/

https://cdiichinadirect.wordpress.c...etal-of-the-future-for-a-reason-lillian-wong/

http://www.magnesium.com/w3/data-bank/article.php?mgw=173&magnesium=204


Magnesium Vs. Plastic:
Stronger
Superior stiffness
Greater energy absorbing capabilities
Higher temperature applications
Large thin-walled near net shape casting




And what does all this discussion of Chevy Corvettes have to do with building Alpha binoculars at a price where people will purchase them at a fair profit to the international corporation which designed and produced them which in turn will determine whether or not it will continue to remain in this little niche business?
 
Last edited:
The metal is wearing on my Zeiss

Hello all,

I have had my 10x32 FL, for almost a decade. The only part that is exhibiting wear is the blue and white metal Zeiss logo.

The 8x32 Victory FL was a big advance over the 8x30 Dialyt Classic, even the last models with phase coatings, that Zeiss seems to be in no hurry to replace it. On the other hand, the Conquest, with metal construction, seems to be rather popular.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinwood :hi:
 
Graphene or Composite metal foam (CMF) binoculars maybe.

You've been at the cider again haven't you?

Can you get precision mounts for components like lenses and prisms out of CMF?
Or would you cast the optical tubes in CMF and glue fixtures in to mount the optical components?

Or would you just go down the road to the shops and buy a pair of bins?

Lee
 
Lee,
Yes, its the cider.

It doesn't matter what material a binocular is made from to me.
Brass will do if its not too heavy.
Some telescopes are made from zero expansion material, maybe carbon fibre?

The 18x50 Canon I did not refocus for ten years of fairly heavy use. It was only used for astro work.

What is the 1955 16x56 Hensoldt made from? It is unbelievably light. I don't know how strong.
What about E IIs and Conquest HDs?

I think that manufacturers know their materials in general.
 
Zeiss corrected their mistake with their new SF's and HT's which are made of magnesium. I don't think there is any higher end binocular now made from plastic.

AFAIK the body of the Zeiss 20x60S is a modern polycarbonate over a metal frame.

And that's a high-end binocular if there ever was one.

Hermann
 
I prefer magnesium. It feels more quality, has more structural rigidity, is stronger for equivalent densities, absorbs energy better, can withstand higher temperatures(like if you leave your binoculars in the car) and is not prone to thermal expansion like plastics. Thermal expansion in a plastic binocular could actually throw your focus off because a binocular is actually a tube if you think about it. Plastic is less expensive in general and is used in lower end cameras ,whereas, higher end cameras use a magnesium body. If you drop plastic it could shatter while magnesium might just dent. Magnesium can be made thinner walled to the same strength as plastic also.

Nice list. The only trouble is that most of the points you're making are just myths.

Hermann
 
I have not had problems with either. If someone has a story to share of either of these two materials failing as a bin body under normal use, I'd like to hear it. Please share...

CG
 
The Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk 1 was preferred to the Mk 11 because it was metal.
But the Mk 111 seems fine.
The Pentax 110 camera leaked light through the black body.
Some aircraft composites began to fail because water got between the layers.
Aluminium bodied cameras and poor alloys have failed in the past.
Jaguar cars went over to aluminium with great weight savings.

But whether binoculars fail because of materials I don't know.
 

Bruce,

:t: Thanks for the interesting read, particularly the magnesium hazards now faced by firies! It seems that the binocular industry is a bit backwards when it comes to the use of advanced materials, no CFRP as yet (Honda used it on the early 90's production NR750 .... fascinating read here: http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Honda/honda_nr750.htm ) and the 'plastic fantastic' Corvette has now arrived at a similar destination - another insightful read here: http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/.../Pages/news/us/en/2012/Aug/0816_corvette.html

Further, Honda has plans to introduce a production CFRP monocoque floorpan by the end of the decade: http://www.motoring.com.au/tokyo-motor-show-lightweight-bodies-for-honda-from-2020-40087/

Of course, over at Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Boeing, etc, these things have been happening for quite some time ......
Cost factors are purely a matter of scale economies, and when you consider the Billions and Billions of $ invested in traditional Unitary Steel Monocoque research, design, learning, processes and facilities and supply chains to get to the current point, then any cost imposts of CFRP are a spurious nod to the past at best. o:)

The amount of actual material that would be used in a binocular chassis is so infinitesimal in comparison that the expense could easily be absorbed within existing profit margins and ROI. As I have often mentioned before, the Zeiss 8x32 FL would be an ideal candidate to get the CFRP ball rolling (no optical carnage intended Brock! :) :eek!:

AFAIK Leica is the only mass market company to be using Titanium hinge shafts in their UVHD+ binoculars at least, again, considering the small amount of actual material involved, you would think that such an innovation would be de riguer in the industry ..... :cat:

Perhaps less money spent on all the completely useless marketing guff, and a bit more spent on actual materials and performance innovation would see superior products actually selling themselves ..... what a radical (though hardly original or CrAzY :) concept! :brains:


Chosun :gh:
 
Binocular construction can be in many ways. And one kind is not better than the other.

It does come down to a mfrs. decision, and there are many things that may determine that.

The list of chassis component types, include: Aluminum, fiberglass reinforced polycarbonate,
carbon fiber, and magnesium. Some older types may include some other metals.

The carbon fiber models are not very common, but Nikon offers models, in all 4 types mentioned
above, and Ferrari, a car company that uses carbon fiber, in their F1 race cars, and also
in their production cars.

Here is one carbon fiber binocular model that I own, the Nikon Travellite 5 8x25, and a Ferrari model
I would like to own some day. The binocular may be just as allusive as
my getting the car.;)

Jerry
 

Attachments

  • DSCN1000.JPG
    DSCN1000.JPG
    136.3 KB · Views: 74
  • Ferrari Carbon Fiber Binocular.png
    Ferrari Carbon Fiber Binocular.png
    16.1 KB · Views: 635
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top