Go for it! The BR compact series, in particular, gives particularly warm, rich tones if you drill six holes, rather like a slightly nasal set of Pan Pipes. I´ve been practising "I´d Rather Be a Hammer than a Nail", and it´s very popular with the local wildlife. Can be tedious, however, chasing the Condors and Llamas out of the garden every morning.
-
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.
Jerky Focus Wheels (similar threads combined) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Paul Godolphin
- Start date
Go for it! The BR compact series, in particular, gives particularly warm, rich tones if you drill six holes, rather like a slightly nasal set of Pan Pipes. I´ve been practising "I´d Rather Be a Hammer than a Nail", and it´s very popular with the local wildlife. Can be tedious, however, chasing the Condors and Llamas out of the garden every morning.
You have to play "El condor pasa" .... it will make them pass out.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
Mmmm, Pan Pipes. I haven't heard them since the last time I visited a gift shop. I can almost smell the essential oils ...
Regarding the Condors and Llamas: try a chorus of 'Leica Virgin'. That should shift the blighters.
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
matt green
Norfolkman gone walkabout
....I feel I have the advantage, my old bins came with a hole already provided!!
Not only that..they also have a natty plastic cover for stopping stuff getting in there, but can't help wonder if that defeats the purpose of having a hole in the first place??
Matt
Not only that..they also have a natty plastic cover for stopping stuff getting in there, but can't help wonder if that defeats the purpose of having a hole in the first place??
Matt
Attachments
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
Can somebody help please? I am attempting to modify my Swift Audubons but I don't have a cordless drill. I cut off the flex from my 1979 Black and Decker but so far I am making very slow progress drilling the hole. Any suggestions?
Swift Audubons are pretty hopeless. If you only had a Leica Trinovid - built like a tank, according to their owners - you could use TNT to blast the hole into them.
Paul Godolphin
Member
HI AGAIN, FROM PAUL. (I STARTED THIS THREAD WITH MY DESCRIPTION OF THE FAULTS).
Just wanted to finally thank those of you who responded – some usefully with their own experiences, good and bad, and some with their preferences and ‘feelings’ about these products. Delighted to share knowledge with you all, wether we agree or not – thank you! It is to be regretted however, that this factual and pragmatic exchange of information has been diluted by quite so much (admittedly hilarious and enjoyable) humour, and some unfounded adverse personal remarks and name-calling from one prolific writer.. I hope that you can one day come to terms with the fact that other people may have different experiences than yourself Griffin, and won’t feel the need to attack, contradict or spam their otherwise good natured correspondence. I notice that the one thing you never commented upon was the proof contained in the photos I offered you, apparently preferring to continue insulting other writers who agreed with the evidence.
In the end, the facts that we ALL agree upon, speak for themselves: 1). SOME LEICA BINOCULARS DEVELOP JUDDERY FOCUSSING SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASE, AND OTHERS DO NOT. 2). THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS, AND COMPLAINED ABOUT ON MANY FORUMS. 3). LEICA WILL FIX IT IF YOU RETURN THE BINOCULARS TO THEM. We all know these things. Our opinions vary, some (like me) feeling that this is a significant fault that should have been rectified at source, not after the binoculars have been sold, and others who actually like their focus wheel jamming, and don’t want it changed. Until I came onto ‘Birdforum’ I had never met any of these people who actually LIKE the phenomenon. Everyone else I had encountered had been complaining bitterly. I think that this demonstrates what a useful medium the Forum offers us.
I hope that my humble acceptance of these conclusions will now conclude the discussion, and I offer my SINCERE APOLOGIES TO LEICA OWNERS that so many postings about Swarovski products have also been brought-over onto ‘your’ pages as a result. Clearly there’s plenty more to be said about Swarovski, but that will take place ONLY on the Swarovski page from this point onward. See ‘HOLE IN EL FOCUS BRIDGE’ thread.
For myself, I’m off on a year-long birding trip to the South Pacific in three weeks’ time, and sadly my nice new £1100 stuttering Leicas will be left behind here in the cupboard. I’ve bought a pair of cheapo £300 Zeiss Conquests !! (and there she was all along – the girl next door…..)
Just wanted to finally thank those of you who responded – some usefully with their own experiences, good and bad, and some with their preferences and ‘feelings’ about these products. Delighted to share knowledge with you all, wether we agree or not – thank you! It is to be regretted however, that this factual and pragmatic exchange of information has been diluted by quite so much (admittedly hilarious and enjoyable) humour, and some unfounded adverse personal remarks and name-calling from one prolific writer.. I hope that you can one day come to terms with the fact that other people may have different experiences than yourself Griffin, and won’t feel the need to attack, contradict or spam their otherwise good natured correspondence. I notice that the one thing you never commented upon was the proof contained in the photos I offered you, apparently preferring to continue insulting other writers who agreed with the evidence.
In the end, the facts that we ALL agree upon, speak for themselves: 1). SOME LEICA BINOCULARS DEVELOP JUDDERY FOCUSSING SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASE, AND OTHERS DO NOT. 2). THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS, AND COMPLAINED ABOUT ON MANY FORUMS. 3). LEICA WILL FIX IT IF YOU RETURN THE BINOCULARS TO THEM. We all know these things. Our opinions vary, some (like me) feeling that this is a significant fault that should have been rectified at source, not after the binoculars have been sold, and others who actually like their focus wheel jamming, and don’t want it changed. Until I came onto ‘Birdforum’ I had never met any of these people who actually LIKE the phenomenon. Everyone else I had encountered had been complaining bitterly. I think that this demonstrates what a useful medium the Forum offers us.
I hope that my humble acceptance of these conclusions will now conclude the discussion, and I offer my SINCERE APOLOGIES TO LEICA OWNERS that so many postings about Swarovski products have also been brought-over onto ‘your’ pages as a result. Clearly there’s plenty more to be said about Swarovski, but that will take place ONLY on the Swarovski page from this point onward. See ‘HOLE IN EL FOCUS BRIDGE’ thread.
For myself, I’m off on a year-long birding trip to the South Pacific in three weeks’ time, and sadly my nice new £1100 stuttering Leicas will be left behind here in the cupboard. I’ve bought a pair of cheapo £300 Zeiss Conquests !! (and there she was all along – the girl next door…..)
Paul Godolphin
Member
OK, I STARTED ALL THIS…………MY FAULT.
Well guys, apart from a couple of very kind and supportive postings and some side-splittingly funny banter, I haven’t really succeeded in getting over the results of all my research and hard work here, have I? So let me tell you a little background to all this….
I retired at age 44 in 2000. With plenty of free time and lots of cash in pocket, I returned to birding after a 20 year absence. What a shock it was! No more grapevine, Nancy’s closed-down, and birders who no longer talk to each-other, preferring to keep their noses into their computers/mobile phones, it was a new world! As a lifelong Zeiss customer, I went to Bath, the biggest cluster of optical dealers in the UK. After a whole day comparing top-end optics, I came away with Swarovski’s 8.5x42 EL and 8x20 Compacts. At that time Ultravids hadn’t arrived, Zeiss Victory’s handling/quality weren’t good, and their compacts had been ‘ergonomically optimised’ so that left-handed people can no longer use them!
The EL’s became my great friends, more than 6 hours every day for three years.
Staggering optical quality, superb rugged build, great handling. Unsurpassed brilliance, fine and accurate focussing, and the positioning of the bridges at each end of the body gives massive strength. Wow! BUT – I had chosen a good pair. Of the dozen or so unboxed for detailed testing, EVERY ONE WAS DIFFERENT. At first, the manager and staff of the large dealership were sceptical. But after an hour shared at the test bench, all agreed. It was possible with the naked eye to see differences in quality between individual pairs. And each one had a different combination of faults! But no worries – I took the best one in the shop.
As for the compacts; godawful. A day’s closer testing revealed such poor definition that I returned them at once. I’d been so busy testing the EL’s that I hadn’t noticed how bad they were. I tested half a dozen pairs of Swarovski 10x25’s. Again, all different! I came away with the best in the shop, but was never impressed, and they were disposed-of at a big loss.
All was well until three years later when a burglar walked away with my EL’s. And that’s where this story began - because since then I’ve been trying to replace them with the same again. No can do !! Swarovski have changed the EL model, and I can’t get another pair the same. As a result I’ve been travelling the UK comparing glasses, been embroiled in a lengthy dispute with Swarovski, and purchased now a total of four pairs of their bins. In the end the dealer offered to refund all my money as he felt that …”Swarovski have really disgraced themselves over this, so WE will square the matter up with you at our own expense”….
This is only half the story. I reckon that the hundreds of hours of testing and research I’ve done, together with travelling all over the UK to examine and measure other users’ Swarovskis really DO qualify me to comment about this. Being retired with nothing better to do, the matter has become a lifetime preoccupation. I’ve owned and tested more examples of Swarovski glasses than everyone on this thread put-together. That’s probably why my first posting may have appeared dogmatic or presumptuous, I make no apology. I’ve got files filled with photos, measurements and letters from owners and Swarovski themselves. My statements are the product of four years of hassle and single-minded determination to simply own a pair of solid, reliable bins with nothing obviously wrong with them.
That’s a (too long) self-introduction. Later I’ll post separate straight-to-the point accounts of each model which I’m sure you’ll enjoy laughing at. Apart from the single abusive correspondent here, I’ve enjoyed all your hilarious postings. “Great crack”, as they say in Ireland. Sorry for the long waffle!! Cheers, Paul.
Well guys, apart from a couple of very kind and supportive postings and some side-splittingly funny banter, I haven’t really succeeded in getting over the results of all my research and hard work here, have I? So let me tell you a little background to all this….
I retired at age 44 in 2000. With plenty of free time and lots of cash in pocket, I returned to birding after a 20 year absence. What a shock it was! No more grapevine, Nancy’s closed-down, and birders who no longer talk to each-other, preferring to keep their noses into their computers/mobile phones, it was a new world! As a lifelong Zeiss customer, I went to Bath, the biggest cluster of optical dealers in the UK. After a whole day comparing top-end optics, I came away with Swarovski’s 8.5x42 EL and 8x20 Compacts. At that time Ultravids hadn’t arrived, Zeiss Victory’s handling/quality weren’t good, and their compacts had been ‘ergonomically optimised’ so that left-handed people can no longer use them!
The EL’s became my great friends, more than 6 hours every day for three years.
Staggering optical quality, superb rugged build, great handling. Unsurpassed brilliance, fine and accurate focussing, and the positioning of the bridges at each end of the body gives massive strength. Wow! BUT – I had chosen a good pair. Of the dozen or so unboxed for detailed testing, EVERY ONE WAS DIFFERENT. At first, the manager and staff of the large dealership were sceptical. But after an hour shared at the test bench, all agreed. It was possible with the naked eye to see differences in quality between individual pairs. And each one had a different combination of faults! But no worries – I took the best one in the shop.
As for the compacts; godawful. A day’s closer testing revealed such poor definition that I returned them at once. I’d been so busy testing the EL’s that I hadn’t noticed how bad they were. I tested half a dozen pairs of Swarovski 10x25’s. Again, all different! I came away with the best in the shop, but was never impressed, and they were disposed-of at a big loss.
All was well until three years later when a burglar walked away with my EL’s. And that’s where this story began - because since then I’ve been trying to replace them with the same again. No can do !! Swarovski have changed the EL model, and I can’t get another pair the same. As a result I’ve been travelling the UK comparing glasses, been embroiled in a lengthy dispute with Swarovski, and purchased now a total of four pairs of their bins. In the end the dealer offered to refund all my money as he felt that …”Swarovski have really disgraced themselves over this, so WE will square the matter up with you at our own expense”….
This is only half the story. I reckon that the hundreds of hours of testing and research I’ve done, together with travelling all over the UK to examine and measure other users’ Swarovskis really DO qualify me to comment about this. Being retired with nothing better to do, the matter has become a lifetime preoccupation. I’ve owned and tested more examples of Swarovski glasses than everyone on this thread put-together. That’s probably why my first posting may have appeared dogmatic or presumptuous, I make no apology. I’ve got files filled with photos, measurements and letters from owners and Swarovski themselves. My statements are the product of four years of hassle and single-minded determination to simply own a pair of solid, reliable bins with nothing obviously wrong with them.
That’s a (too long) self-introduction. Later I’ll post separate straight-to-the point accounts of each model which I’m sure you’ll enjoy laughing at. Apart from the single abusive correspondent here, I’ve enjoyed all your hilarious postings. “Great crack”, as they say in Ireland. Sorry for the long waffle!! Cheers, Paul.
Paul Godolphin
Member
NEW ‘FAST-FOCUS’ EL: A HISTORY. Part 1
Original EL’s had fine, accurate focusing. Approx 2.5 turns of the wheel to focus from end-to-end. My friends and I owned several pairs. Excellent!
A year or so later an optical review website in N.America carried out a comparison of the EL and the Nikon HG. The writer concluded that the Nikon was better because the EL was ‘imperfect’ due to the ‘slowness’ of it’s focus, and suggested it could be the best in the world if the gearing was changed to make it coarser. This web page still existed when checked recently.
In mid-decade, EL’s started to appear in the shops with coarser focus as suggested by the web review, with only approx 1.25 turns end-to-end. The dealers and most customers were unaware of this modification at the time. I bought one such pair. Until I pointed-out the modification, two main dealers knew nothing about it.
I also discovered a HOLE under the focus wheel on the pair I bought. There was inner silver aluminium exposed by the cutting-away of the centre-column cowling which had been completely covered-in on all previously seen ‘fine focus’ examples.
On return to the dealer he offered to replace this apparently defective pair, but found all his stock were the same. On examining the glass cutaway model in the shop he found that the HOLE through into the focussing mechanism led chamber-by-chamber along the wheel thread and push-rod/actuating lever assembly onward INTO EACH BARREL, where the optics themselves are of course moved by the other end of the actuating mechanism which is now exposed to the environment through the hole.
The dealer was so concerned that all EL binoculars were immediately withdrawn from sale whilst I was in the store, pending contact with Swarovski.
I then phoned Swarovski Service Dept in UK. During a lengthy conversation their staff examined some EL’s and found the same HOLE. They stated that they did not know the wheel ratio had been changed, and examined the hole closely, never having noticed one before. They agreed that internal components are visible through the hole, looking in with a strong light. They promised me an immediate written response…..
(continued in part 2)
Original EL’s had fine, accurate focusing. Approx 2.5 turns of the wheel to focus from end-to-end. My friends and I owned several pairs. Excellent!
A year or so later an optical review website in N.America carried out a comparison of the EL and the Nikon HG. The writer concluded that the Nikon was better because the EL was ‘imperfect’ due to the ‘slowness’ of it’s focus, and suggested it could be the best in the world if the gearing was changed to make it coarser. This web page still existed when checked recently.
In mid-decade, EL’s started to appear in the shops with coarser focus as suggested by the web review, with only approx 1.25 turns end-to-end. The dealers and most customers were unaware of this modification at the time. I bought one such pair. Until I pointed-out the modification, two main dealers knew nothing about it.
I also discovered a HOLE under the focus wheel on the pair I bought. There was inner silver aluminium exposed by the cutting-away of the centre-column cowling which had been completely covered-in on all previously seen ‘fine focus’ examples.
On return to the dealer he offered to replace this apparently defective pair, but found all his stock were the same. On examining the glass cutaway model in the shop he found that the HOLE through into the focussing mechanism led chamber-by-chamber along the wheel thread and push-rod/actuating lever assembly onward INTO EACH BARREL, where the optics themselves are of course moved by the other end of the actuating mechanism which is now exposed to the environment through the hole.
The dealer was so concerned that all EL binoculars were immediately withdrawn from sale whilst I was in the store, pending contact with Swarovski.
I then phoned Swarovski Service Dept in UK. During a lengthy conversation their staff examined some EL’s and found the same HOLE. They stated that they did not know the wheel ratio had been changed, and examined the hole closely, never having noticed one before. They agreed that internal components are visible through the hole, looking in with a strong light. They promised me an immediate written response…..
(continued in part 2)
Paul Godolphin
Member
NEW ‘FAST-FOCUS’ EL: A HISTORY. Part 2
After phoning Swarovski UK, I confirmed our findings in writing. The letter was acknowledged, but after two months the promised reply had not come. In a series of emails and letters I became most persistent. Many weeks into the matter I received a letter from Ludwig Pernstich, a senior member of the Design Team in Austria. He stated that the HOLE had been present IN EVERY ‘EL’ EVER MADE. In fact, he stated that he keeps a memento prototype (serial no.00000002) on his desk, and that too had the same hole.
At this point I started to get very angry. I’m not the sort of bloke to take being called a fool and a liar !! I set off on a personal mission to prove to Pernstich that he was wrong. I contacted many friends in the birding industry to examine their original fine-focus EL’s. Without exception, nobody had the hole. I then drove around (various reserves, observatories, conservation organisations etc) in the UK examining and photographing my old pal’s ‘non-holey’ EL’s and sent photographs to Swarovski UK’s Managing Director John Brinkley and to Ludwig Pernstich and Werner Trattner in Austria.
I had now PROVED that this was a defect which was not present before.
The result? From that point onward, the entire Swarovski organisation has totally ‘blanked’ me. I’ve had no reply to my letters, photographs or numerous emails and phone calls asking for a reply. Even confronted with the photos and statements of several senior figures in the UK birding/conservation industry, they do not acknowledge that any EL’s without the hole have EVER existed !
Why might this be? One can only surmise. But one wonders just how many millions of dollars, and how much reputation damage a manufacturer might suffer if they had to recall and modify tens of thousands of hi-tech products from the owners and shops? Enough perhaps, to justify ‘blanking’ one troublesome customer who just won’t let the matter drop? Maybe he’ll go away and everyone will forget?
…….OR MAYBE HE WON’T !
After phoning Swarovski UK, I confirmed our findings in writing. The letter was acknowledged, but after two months the promised reply had not come. In a series of emails and letters I became most persistent. Many weeks into the matter I received a letter from Ludwig Pernstich, a senior member of the Design Team in Austria. He stated that the HOLE had been present IN EVERY ‘EL’ EVER MADE. In fact, he stated that he keeps a memento prototype (serial no.00000002) on his desk, and that too had the same hole.
At this point I started to get very angry. I’m not the sort of bloke to take being called a fool and a liar !! I set off on a personal mission to prove to Pernstich that he was wrong. I contacted many friends in the birding industry to examine their original fine-focus EL’s. Without exception, nobody had the hole. I then drove around (various reserves, observatories, conservation organisations etc) in the UK examining and photographing my old pal’s ‘non-holey’ EL’s and sent photographs to Swarovski UK’s Managing Director John Brinkley and to Ludwig Pernstich and Werner Trattner in Austria.
I had now PROVED that this was a defect which was not present before.
The result? From that point onward, the entire Swarovski organisation has totally ‘blanked’ me. I’ve had no reply to my letters, photographs or numerous emails and phone calls asking for a reply. Even confronted with the photos and statements of several senior figures in the UK birding/conservation industry, they do not acknowledge that any EL’s without the hole have EVER existed !
Why might this be? One can only surmise. But one wonders just how many millions of dollars, and how much reputation damage a manufacturer might suffer if they had to recall and modify tens of thousands of hi-tech products from the owners and shops? Enough perhaps, to justify ‘blanking’ one troublesome customer who just won’t let the matter drop? Maybe he’ll go away and everyone will forget?
…….OR MAYBE HE WON’T !
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
I have a friend who owns an optics shop,and I am only too aware of how many swarovski's have to go back for repair. I have to say they fix them quick,BUT!!!
fiddler.
fiddler.
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
I e-mailed Leica asking ,why, if they had a problem with the coating coming away from the objective lens under certain circumstances in the televids?Instead of recommending the owner buy a filter to protect the lens,. one should be supplied with the scope.No answer was the reply.
fiddler.
fiddler.
matt green
Norfolkman gone walkabout
Good lord - don't take it seriously my friend
..but wouldn't you have prefered to have just gone birding instead??
Matt
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Paul,
I must say you are a very dedicated fellow, one there can be little doubt the company cringes to hear from.
However, armed with this evidence (see quote), why didn't you mention it in your earlier posts? If Swaro says a slot hole was always there, by design, then the issue reduces to whether or not such a hole makes a difference in the performance of the product, and whether or not being covered by a shroud is critical. Would you agree? One quick way to test the design, of course, is to submerge the instrument in water and see what happens. Did you do that with any of your samples, or did the dealer? If there is an open passageway to the lens cells, water would have entered soon enough. If not, ... what would you say then? Would it still be a problem without at consequence? By admission, it's not a good idea to have a crevice or hole that junk can collect in, but that's a lot different argument.
Incidentally, Swarovski is obviously proud enough of their EL's mechanism and build quality to equip dealers with cut-away displays. Sadly, then, this whole thing sounds a bit like "boiling the kid in the milk of it's mother," if you get my drift.
I hope my comments are not offensive.
Blue skies,
Ed
Last edited:
Thanks for the background to the story, hope you don´t mind the laughs we´ve been having, all good clean fun and all that - none of it is intended to be at anyone´s expense, any old excuse for a bit of undergraduate humour after a day´s work (and in my case, while Mrs. Sancho is out of town...it keeps me, a propos ThoLa´s warning, from bashing that Credit Card with a new pair of HGL´s or somesuch!). I´m intrigued about the fact that this slit didn´t exist in original EL´s, and perplexed as to why Swaro don´t simply tell you why the hole is in later versions. It would be so straightforward....and your persistence has meant that all of us have, indeed, checked our EL´s and found the hole. If there is really some access to the barrels via this hole, did they think that no-one would notice? I´m not taking sides here, but perhaps we should all e-mail Swaro simply to ask them what it´s for. Like I said earlier, their aftersales folk have always dealt more than efficiently with any request I´ve had. Strangely, my 8x32´s have a larger hole than my 10x42´s. One would expect the reverse. If one knew what the hole was for, that is. In any case, thanks for bringing it to our attention, and congratulations on managing to retire at 44 (I´m 44 now! What I wouldn´t give to retire and spend 6 hours a day birding....or doing anything that didn´t involve work!). Ah well, all good things must come to an end, and the Viz humour thing on this thread couldn´t last. But thanks for starting the thread too, ´cos I had a blast! I´m going to e-mail Swaro tonight to ask about the issue you´ve raised. I´ll let you know if I get a response! Thing is, you´ve had a serious effect, because as Elk Cub said, to test the integrity of the waterproofing, all one has to do is submerge the EL´s. So, why don´t I go and simply submerge mine? Because now I´m not so sure, that´s why! I had to give little Sanchito a bath tonight (Mrs. Sancho only took the two Sanchettas to China on holiday with her, leaving Sanchito to be looked after by me). Point is, I took my 8x32 EL´s to the bathroom with me......and couldn´t plunge ´em in! Just wasn´t so sure! Anyway, Welcome Back Paul, I´ll let you know what I hear.
Cheers, Éanna
Cheers, Éanna
Last edited:
After your lengthy and informative posts, you have my undivided attention. Could we see some comparison photos?
John
Paul,
I can´t see if this means anything. What you observed means nothing as long as somebody would find moisture inside his EL. And there has to be a greater number of EL users found this.
Was there any sealings along the wheel thread?
Steve
There have been a number of reports of the coating peeling. I presume this is the Quartz layer which has been incorrectly applied. Presumably they prefer not to discuss what I assume to be a small number of failures.
Paul Godolphin
Member
The photos are attached to the index page or this thread. Just click the paperclip symbol on the title square to see PDF file of the pictures. Many thanks to elkcub for posting them for me.
cheers Paul
cheers Paul
Last edited:
