-
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.
Binocular cleaning (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lozninja
- Start date
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
"Leiker"? Yup, got me one of thems too. They's purty good, I reckon.
Are you sure you're not from America?
Just kidding. Seriously, though, I'm curious about that alcohol prohibition since I use Zeiss wipes pretty routinely and that's isopropyl alcohol. Could it possibly affect the hydrophobic coatings??? What's Leica thinking here?
Mark
You can order a lens care kit from Swarovski with those disposable moistened tissues in it.
http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/cleaning-set-c21040101/cleaning-set-p5034645
Bob
http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/cleaning-set-c21040101/cleaning-set-p5034645
Bob
WJC
Well-known member
Positive documentation; great; follow it. Normally I would say someone should stop drinking the cheap stuff. But, I'm sure I know their motivation. The big boys discourage anyone from doing almost anything serious to their product (the 1,3,5,4,2) that might void the warranty.
With being a Zeiss recommended repair shop for NON-WARRANTY repairs, I asked them about doing warranty repairs, since local repairs that would take less than an hour would have to fly across the country--twice--and sit on a shelf for days to be repaired. They said they couldn't do it. It would "open a can of worms" that might never be closed, allowing those who thought they knew about Zeiss binoculars to "tinker," void warranties, and cause Zeiss to have to go behind someone with a pooper scooper.
Thus, the Leica advice should be followed. They know that the coatings are harder than the glass underneath. They know it's only 4 millionths of an inch thick, too. They also know wannabes have various interpretation of "light pressure," and that acetone (for example) can seep into places water won't. Their advice to a SOME professional optical techs may be foolish, but in a brochure going to a million homes it is sound.
I still stand behind what I've said on the matter. If you don't think you could walk the tight rope over Niagara . . . you probably shouldn't try.
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
Heh...sometimes they hire some columnist 'expert' who says fairly wise
but very limited-context things. Condensed breath won't degrease makeup or skin oil, for example.
I saw someone quoting a BMW car manual once that had stern warnings about not running
the engine over 140kph for more than an hour, and a table about when to nap when touring
on alpine roads (???) and avoiding too much caffeine on switchback turns.
I think it's something like that. A recreational columnist rambling on about their own context.
I think it's time for a chuckle. And a packet of nice foil-sealed optical moistened wipes or something.
but very limited-context things. Condensed breath won't degrease makeup or skin oil, for example.
I saw someone quoting a BMW car manual once that had stern warnings about not running
the engine over 140kph for more than an hour, and a table about when to nap when touring
on alpine roads (???) and avoiding too much caffeine on switchback turns.
I think it's something like that. A recreational columnist rambling on about their own context.
I think it's time for a chuckle. And a packet of nice foil-sealed optical moistened wipes or something.
WJC
Well-known member
Oh, I have faith in what they have published.
I just know it was much more a commentary to the intellectual and skill level of the AVERAGE bino owner than a commentary on how to clean optics.
Case in point: A V-8 can proudly sports a label saying "100% vegetable juice with added ingredients." Well, how can it be 100% ANYTHING if it has ADDED ingredients!?
And Wendy's sells "Naturally Cut" French fries. But when was the last time you saw two potatoes in a knife fight? And, could they have been cut "naturally" any other way?
In the days of honesty and hard work, the B-17 was designed in one year with slide rules, adding machines, and people who knew how to use both, and flown the next. The 777 was all COMPUTER designed! It was delayed several times, was over budget, and still left the hanger with problems. But, hey, it was surrounded by elegant WORDS and technology. With an audience who believes virtually anything they see in print, it will always be so.
Me, I just fixed binos . . . thousands of binos. I did not have the luxury of sitting around SPECULATING. That takes time and costs money. The road I chose was paved with finding the right solution to a problem until there was a REASON to modify it. :cat:
Bill
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Sadly Amears, that happens with me too often. If I did not sincerely want to help my neighbor, I wouldn't come here; I certainly have enough other things to do. But I still maintain that if you don't beat around the bush, you can be taken wrong; I know I am. So, it is I who should take a hike.
I want all to know that I am not ashamed of the time I have spent in optics or what I know, first hand, about the industry. I am, however, very ashamed that I have not learned to "fit in," or that my desire to raise the bar on the understanding so many seem to want has caused grief for some I have cared about and tried to help.
At no time have I ever intentionally offended anyone! My time to sit at the computer is very limited and I am left with not enough time to to calculate how what I say might affect the various personalities.
So, please come back; it is I who will take a hike for a time.
Cheers,
Bill
mooreorless
Well-known member
I agree 100% with Bob!!:t:
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
Me also.
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Learned much about optics from you Bill, but still classified a "newbie", thus I need continued guidance and correction!
No doubt, I've ruffled feathers asking "ignorant" questions or making unsupported comments...gonna offend Somebody, Sometime, Someday...it happens! But BF members taking the necessary "time for absorption" really do need all of the great information offered by the seasoned and experienced optical nuts (pros in your case)...so, continue hanging around, sharing and educating!! :t:
I really admire your sincere heartfelt follow up with Andy...Yes, we can ALL get along, huh! :king: B
Ted
No doubt, I've ruffled feathers asking "ignorant" questions or making unsupported comments...gonna offend Somebody, Sometime, Someday...it happens! But BF members taking the necessary "time for absorption" really do need all of the great information offered by the seasoned and experienced optical nuts (pros in your case)...so, continue hanging around, sharing and educating!! :t:
I really admire your sincere heartfelt follow up with Andy...Yes, we can ALL get along, huh! :king: B
Ted
WJC
Well-known member
151005
Thank you guys:
You have been understanding and more than kind! I had not planned to stay away permanently, I just wanted to give all a reprieve from my supposed errant comments. I was not fishing for such kindness.
I have seen too many people take that tact to elevate themselves above the crowd. And, people who think they know everything are especially annoying to those of us . . . who do!
And now that I have offended another dozen people with that comment, we can move on. ;-)
Ceasar: You summed up what I have always TRIED to do. But, sometimes it just doesn’t work out as I would like—as my faith and philosophy would dictate. Make no mistake, the humble questions of an honest truth seeker ruffles no feathers on me (as Theo98 points out it might). The least of those, is far more important than the greatest quantity of the greatest binoculars ever made! Being here to help each other is what this whole ball of wax is all about. When we adhere to that principle, things move so much more smoothly and pleasantly. Yes, I attack folly; but NEVER the . . . FOLLICLES!
Yet, while that has always been my philosophy, it seems I am hampered by two things—a lack of understanding of my motives and humor and, sadly, some taking offense through not wanting their uninformed speculations and opinions derailed by anything: valid research, realities of physics, or empirical experience notwithstanding. Yet, for nothing more than trying to hold onto the realities of the situation, I am often taken to task by some who would pay homage to the prior thinking.
I am pushy, arrogant, self-serving, etc. Yes, it hurts. But, I try to consider the source. The newbies, who don’t know me, think I should take a couple of pages to explain what can easily and authoritatively be explained in two paragraphs. Is it my fault they haven’t invested the time to study the situation? I think not.
For example: The Internet has dozens of sites to tell observers how to “collimate” their binocular. Yet, they only take time to talk about the only “one-size-fits-all” convention. A convention that was largely ignored in the day when QUALITY meant something. Do they talk about the eccentric ring, push-pull, or three-point eyepiece convention? Of course not; most don’t even know those conventions exist!
Am I wrong, pushy, arrogant, self-serving, etc., to correct those who are long on reading and opinions and short on both knowledge and wisdom*, and who may cause hundreds or even thousands to really screw up their 3-axis collimation by following such “expert” advice that ISN’T? Should I not care just to keep peace and keep the speculators happy? I feel I have much more of an obligation to the “many” than to the “one.” Has our worldwide community become so politically correct that speculations are inherently more valuable than solid data?
[* It is “knowledge” that tells us a tomato is a fruit. It is “wisdom” that tells us not to put it in a fruit salad.]
There are sites with collimation techniques offered by well-known vendors. Should I just back down and let their advice go unchallenged? In my more kind moments I feel they are misguided. When, pushed over the top on some days I think, “These guys don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground; how many screwed up binos are they causing.” And, I have offered my SPIE paper (There I go, being showy, again) on Collimation vs Conditional Alignment to any who want. The paper, presented in 2012, addresses the issue in print (to the civilian world) for the first time since 1953. I went through months of trouble and hoop-jumping to help my neighbor. Or, was I just trying to be arrogant? And, how much money did I make on the deal . . . $0.00! Of course, the round trip plane ticket to San Diego (from Seattle) and the hotel stay near the convention center came out of MY pocket. That’s something I never would have done for myself—could NOT have done for myself. So far, In the last 4 months, I have had 4 takers.
And then, there’s the non-native English speaker. Is it incumbent on me to have various dictionaries at my side to try to figure out what I have to do to be sure my humor is properly translated into a plethora of languages?
I’ve heard that the name “Chevron” was created because its forerunner “ESSO” meant “bird poop” in some languages. Do you realize how much money it cost to change all those signs? And, who picked up the bill? The gasoline buying public—US—political correctness running amok—at least if the story is valid.
Finally, if my human side shows too much, it may be well caused by the 21 years I spent at Captain’s, where several times a week, I would be put in my place by some customer had “read” something in a magazine or on the Internet that had little to do with optics and everything to do with making money or passing the buck.
What I am about to present (from the ethereal bino book) is just the tip of the iceberg. You deal with this—and worse—several times a week for over 1,000 weeks, and I’ll bet none could walk away unaffected.
—————
THE MAGAZINES
Magazines are probably the greatest sources of misinformation regarding consumer optics in general and binoculars in particular. Ostensibly articles are written to help consumers decide which instrument would best fit his or her needs. More often than not, however, they’re written by writers who aren’t too familiar with the finer details of their subject and who often dispense less than factual information.
True, that can be done out of laziness and poor journalism. But, that’s not necessarily the intention.
For so many, “optics” is a mystical topic with particulars better left to the verbiage on the side of the box or in the owner’s manual. This can make it tough for those who want to have the information in hand as they head out to do their shopping. This is especially true since the verbiage on the side of the box often has its origin more in marketing than optics.
Unfortunately, some magazine editors are preoccupied with the part of Journalism 101 that says articles should be written for a 9th grade readership, which goes a long way toward explaining why the general public gets to read endlessly about certain features of binoculars while others get little or no mention. Again, your knowledge is controlled by dollars generated by those who want only sound-bite journalism.
From Wikipedia:
“In 1947, Donald Murphy of Wallace's Farmer used a split-run edition to study the effects of making text easier to read. They found that reducing from the 9th to the 6th-grade level increased readership 43% for an article on “nylon.” There was a gain of 42,000 readers in a circulation of 275,000. He found a 60% increase in readership for an article on “corn.” He also found a better response from people under thirty-five.
Wilber Schramm interviewed 1,050 newspaper readers. He found that an easier reading style helps to decide how much of an article is read. This was called reading persistence, depth, or perseverance. He also found that people will read less of long articles than of short ones. A story 9 paragraphs long will lose three out of 10 readers by the 5th paragraph. A shorter story will lose only two. Schramm also found that the use of subheads, bold-face paragraphs, and stars to break up a story actually lose readers.”
Thus, those who want to know more are consistently at the mercy of those who don’t!
Magazines that could be the most helpful and present an aura of fidelity often rely on their own stable of experts who, more than likely, are not experts when it comes to optics, writing instead about car stereos on Monday, fishing gear on Wednesday, and the best pizza in town on Friday.
Having opinions about what they like and what they don’t, with most of those opinions based on careful observation, is of some worth. Yet, when it comes to understanding more than a rehash of buzzwords and phrases that have circulated for 60 years, being a master birder, serious amateur astronomer, or seasoned sailor, makes a person no more of an expert on binoculars and optics than being a disk jockey makes one an expert on the design, manufacture, and performance of microphones!
Following are some examples found in influential sailing magazines.
1) “In the loosest sense, ‘marine’ binoculars simply means ‘waterproof,’ which means they have some sort of rubber armoring.”
Not so! Many inexpensive “marine” binoculars—with rubber armoring—have little going for them as far as waterproof / fog proof integrity. The overleaf of the first page of that article presented a comparative chart declaring a certain binocular was “nitrogen filled”—implying gas tight / watertight integrity. The binocular was, in fact, an inexpensive, center-focus model with two-piece body styling—not even touted as water-tight by the importer.
Another read:
2) “Center-focus models have a speed advantage over individual-focus models, but don’t compensate for varying eye strengths.”
This is so wrong, it should be an embarrassment to the writer! Of course they compensate for “varying eye strengths.” That’s what focus mechanisms do, whether on center-focus or individual-focus instruments.
Finally,
3. “Porro prisms are used in most marine binoculars because they provide greater depth of field than roof prisms.”
This example touches on a half-truth, but one that might sway you at the sales counter. Do marine binoculars employ Porro prisms? Yes, most do. Do those binoculars have greater depth of field than their roof prism cousins? Yes. The type of prism, however, is only responsible in a peripheral way.
Because of the size and configuration of Porro prism clusters, the telescopes are required to be spaced farther apart creating a greater depth of field; the prism type has nothing to do with it! The greater the separation of objective lenses, the greater the depth of field. Even so, this 3-D effect can be enjoyed much more by the naturalist than the mariner, whose targets are usually at greater distances, and infinitely more than the amateur astronomer whose targets are—for practical purposes—seen at infinity.
*******************************
Photo, Illustration, or Comment Show two binocular styles illustrating the objective spacing
*******************************
So, how does this sort of thing find its way into our regional and national magazines? Mark Twain asked a similar question of his publisher William Dean Howells, who replied, “Because paper never refuses ink.”
Then too, there are other reasons.
THE OVER-WORKED EDITOR
A few years ago, I read an article so rife with misleading information, I contacted the magazine’s editor to advise him and was quickly passed on to the department editor responsible for writing it.
He told me about his background in optics; he had none! He had been a technical writer in the dental industry. He hurried on to say, however, that he had gleaned information for his article from “ten high-profile articles on binoculars.” This is how many articles are put together and hopefully justifies my aversion to poorly researched material. His efforts in the passing along of erroneous information could only be faulted in that he didn’t have the experience to assess what he had been carefully studying.
It’s often the misinformed of 50 or 60 years ago who are shaping the thoughts of today’s readers . . . and writers!
THE “I REALLY DON’T CARE” EDITOR
Editors are busy people and it is rare when one will chose to answer a query by phone. Yet, I received one rejection in which the editor wore his feelings on his sleeve.
His reason for not wanting an article on binoculars for his nature-oriented magazine: “Nobody cares about that stuff; it’s boring.” Perhaps for some. But, would it have been boring to the person who was a week away from spending over $1,000 on a binocular and needed authoritative information?
And what of other articles; how much time does this editor spend in fact checking or investigating the qualifications of authors? Do you suppose his lack of concern for “boring stuff” affects what he allows his audience to read?
Later that same day I spoke with one of the country’s leading master birders, venting on how intelligent, inquisitive people were constantly kept from information they need, while words that do “get ink” incessantly target those who are just beginning to dabble in binocular observing.
He responded that, “Many editors have heard the same material for so long, they think they have heard it all; they just don’t know what they don’t know.”
It seems that so many intelligent observers who have a singular interest in learning quantum physics, are forever being choked with mandatory training in the alphabet.
Factual or not, if something makes it into print, it takes on an authoritative life of its own.
IT MUST BE RIGHT . . . IT WAS IN A MAGAZINE!
Several months ago, a woman came into my shop wanting to see a binocular suitable for “bird watching and kayaking.” After showing her a series of instruments that would satisfy her needs, she began to rapidly fire off questions. It wasn’t bad enough she was into another question before the previous one had been answered; it was obvious she had many incorrect notions.
When she paused for a breath, I pointed out that she had covered a lot of ground and, before we moved on, it might be best to answer the questions that had already been asked.
Going back through her comments, I gingerly pointed out that much of her information was inaccurate. I was just trying to help. But at that moment, I lost her. Developing a self-assured smile, her eyes betrayed what she was about to do. Halfway through my next sentence, she whipped a magazine from under her arm, shook it in my face, and asked if I thought I knew more about binoculars than the person who had written the article. Seeing the title and author, I replied that I felt I knew at least as much.
Becoming incensed, she tucked the magazine back under her arm and stormed out of the shop.
The article had been written by a freelance writer I had been helping with optical pieces for years and not only was I the optician interviewed for the article, I provided the last edit before it was published. My firsthand experience wasn't good enough to help this lady. But then, she didn’t need any help . . . she had a magazine!
—————
Although it seems never to be seen this way, “arrogance,” as often as not, starts at the GROUND level. :cat:
Bless you all!
Bill
Last edited:
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Or, "It has to be true, I saw it on TV...read it on the Internet". Living in this consumable world, we are bombarded with tons of misinformation that skew knowledge and understanding or at worst, empower us in making poor choices.
Thanks Bill, for sharing freely with BF members the Realities from which have been garnered and earned through a successful optical career! :t:
Ted
Thanks Bill, for sharing freely with BF members the Realities from which have been garnered and earned through a successful optical career! :t:
Ted
Similar threads
