Quality Control (1 Viewer)

I thought it might be a good time to start a general discussion on the issue of quality control. I have two pet peeves that surround my experiences with optics over the last half decade or so. The one is quality control. Quality control at almost every price point is significantly poorer than what I would expect without knowing anything about the industry.

To point out one particular example, a few months ago I bought a demo Leupold Cascade porro from the local sporting goods store. It was in perfect condition optically, mechanically and cosmetically. I enjoyed using it thoroughly for reasons I have mentioned elsewhere. I was subsequently forced to sell it but eventually decided to purchase another. The second unit, though as nice from an outward perspective just did not offer me as relaxed of a feeling as I did with the first unit. I tinkered with a variety of different settings to see if it was possibly just me (allergies for example) or whether it was something with the bins. Eventually I took them out one evening and attempted to focus on some of the stars. What I noticed was an issue with focusing those stars in the right barrel. I could never seem to get that barrel to star test well. My thoughts were obviously that there was some sort of alignment issue with the lenses/prism within that barrel.

I subsequently returned it and bought a third pair from a different retailer. This pair is just as consistant optically, mechanically and cosmetically as the original. It is a pure joy to use and I really hope to keep it for some time.

I guess my point is that this is just one example of what I see as being probably the most significant issue facing the sport optics industry today. I sincerely wonder how many binocular purchasing choices were the result of poor experiences with a unit that suffered from quality control issues.

Thoughts or experiences anyone wants to share on this issue?

I am not surprised. When Bushnell E2 first came out, I went to sporting store to check them out. Out of two pairs on the demo counter, one suffered significant edge blurry on the right barrel (6 o'clock position). I guess there must be a lens coating unformity issue. The other pair was perfectly fine.

This seems to be somewhat of an issue and seems that it exists across the price spectrum. I remember a thread here some time ago where Zeiss was getting blasted for quality control. The way the posters were going on it might have been assumed that the discussion was aimed at bubble wrap samples off the shelves at the local Cheap-Mart discount rack. FrankD has even commented on finally getting a cherry Zeiss FL unit after six or so tries. I recall other threads by experienced optics optics folks who have commented on product variability. I can tolerate that, even expect that on the less expensive binoculars, but it seems to be pretty prevalent.

My really pet peeve is diopter adjustment. Often a relatively inexpensive binocular with a decent image will show disconcerting diopter creep. Focus normally and then go through the range of focus movement and the diopter adjustment moves somewhere in the process. Another for example is some potentially decent binoculars will show some really good specimens and the next will be junk. So it does seem that there should be better uniformity
through the specifications in a particular price class.

I think somebody should actually look through the binoculars before they are put in the box and sealed for shipment to customers. I don't know how prevelant that is or how difficult it would be to get people copetent to do that. At some price point, that should be part of the standard package.

Steve,

You hit on some further observations that I have noticed as well. Diopter creep is most certainly a major problem for some models and even some price points! I have been quite enamored with a binocular's performance only to find the diopter creeping and my attitude toward it go right down the drain.

I did make a comment about recently selling a "cherry" 7x42 FL. Out of the other 5 there was only one that I would say had a "problem". The others performed optically well withint the standards I would expect from that price class. The cherry unit just performed a bit better than all of the others.

...and I most certainly remember the Zeiss thread you are making reference to but must assume it was addressed because none of the units I have owned in recent years seemed to suffer from finger print problems, etc....

...and I agree. Granted it would be a headache but you would think there would be some way to consistantly check the individual units, or at least every so many individual units, before they go out the door.

Falcondude,

Nothing is worse then picking up a display model (one would think the retailer would only display acceptable units) to find that there are quality control issues with it. Instant turn off for me.

I had an opportunity to try two pairs of Nikon HGL 8x20 in the same enviroment, both inside and outside, although not simultaneously.

The first example offered very relaxing view and not to get into deep was a great binocular. It had one cosmetic and one optic flaw but both pretty insignificant for the general view. Cosmetic flaw was small spot of rubber not glued under one barrel. Optical flaw was in the right tube, in its lower half starting 50% away from the centre. The view was less clear there and had some astigmatism I believe(was less clear and there was some shape aberration visible).

The second example I saw was a pain to look through. AFA I can tell it was miscollimated both horizontally and vertically. Plus, which was even more dissapointing, when I focused on an object it was in focus only 50% away from the centre in every direction. When I observed it with outer 50% part of the field without changing focus My eyes couldn't adjust(which was not the case with the first example) and 'shape aberration' was visible. I did a test similar to star test to see this. I used a small point of light which was not round but became more of a blurry wide disc away from center.

I hope my ramblings are understandable |:d|. I wrote all this to share my experience. It showed me that two examples of the same high-end model can be very different which is pretty dissapointing. I agree with Frank that this is a very important issue for optics manufacturers to solve. I'm waiting for a small Leica ultravid now and I feel it's like a russian roulette8-P.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. One would think that such an expensive compact would have slightly better quality control but, in this limited sample, that does not appear to be the case.

What I wouldn't mind seeing, as the next marketing point for optics, is a blurb about how each and every binocular is tested for quality control.....it would be something that I think would sell alot more binoculars....though is probably too impractical to truly consider.

FrankD said:

Thank you for sharing your experiences. This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. One would think that such an expensive compact would have slightly better quality control but, in this limited sample, that does not appear to be the case.

What I wouldn't mind seeing, as the next marketing point for optics, is a blurb about how each and every binocular is tested for quality control.....it would be something that I think would sell alot more binoculars....though is probably too impractical to truly consider.

Click to expand...

I have a Leica Trinovid 10x32 which I bought new and I believe it came with a piece of paper signed with his name by an inspector. I assumed he was a quality inspector. Of course at their price point, a few minutes checking by an experienced worker would not subtract much from the profit, I would think.

I also have the signed cards from the inspector(s) at Leica that came with my bins. Talking about testing, I have always had a laugh when, on older, lower price bins, the phrase "Triple Tested" is shown on the cover plate. Did an employee put them up to his eyes three times in rapid succession possibly never actually looking though them?
Regards, John

jimtrader11 said:

I have a Leica Trinovid 10x32 which I bought new and I believe it came with a piece of paper signed with his name by an inspector. I assumed he was a quality inspector. Of course at their price point, a few minutes checking by an experienced worker would not subtract much from the profit, I would think.

Click to expand...

You would expect that kind of commitment from Leica, I think.
Funny thing is, I received a handwritten and signed little document when I bought my Minox BL 8x32 BR's for € 380.- That's a nice gesture at that price point that will tell you nothing, but I don't rule out the possibility that QC by Minox is excellent.
My 8x32's are excellent, too, BTW.

Regards, Ronald

Hmm, well it is good to see a few companies taking up the call. Now if we could get it more "across the board" in terms of the different price ranges.