The need for servicing of binoculars (1 Viewer)

Having read somewhere that the gas (usually nitrogen) which assists in waterproofing/anti-fogging dissipates over time, i got to wondering about servicing of binoculars: if moving parts needed re-greasing periodically, or re-gassing should occur, and if so, how often.
Obviously, if you have a problem, you would probably send them in - but what if you don't? Is it beneficial to a binocular's lifespan for the occasional service? Does anyone do this, or - like me - just keep on using them til something breaks?

Thanks for the question. Had not thought about it until now and I'm hoping the answer is NO. Will wait to hear from those in the know.

Hi,

I would not try to fix anything that is not broken.

Joachim

I agree.
I have a superb old Pentax 8x24 binocular with some internal fungus, which doesn't seem to be getting worse in good storage conditions.

I deliberately have not had it serviced as I think even the most expert repairer could not get it into such essentially perfect star images and superb focus action. Maybe if they spent a lot of time on it, but commercially it wouldn't be worth their time.

I have read than Canon IS binoculars are suggested to have 3 year check ups although I never had 15 year old Canon IS binoculars touched. I have not seen this advisement in Canon literature.

Minolta used to offer free servicing on their cameras, but my ten year old heavily used camera was judged to be almost as new and needed nothing.
I did buy a shutter speed measuring instrument and the speeds were not perfect but acceptable.
Cosmetically it still looks almost new. Always kept in its ever ready case, which takes about 1 second to open and camera ready for use.

How does a refill of gas in binoculars work? Does it need disassembling the bins? Might it be risk for getting an optically worse binocular back?

The nitrogen does not dissipate. Outside air is also 80% nitrogen so there is little incentive for the gas to disappear. The real question is what else has come in, notably water vapour. The gas filling does nothing against outside gases coming in, only the quality of the seal is responsible for that.

jring said:

Hi,

I would not try to fix anything that is not broken.

Joachim

Click to expand...

Hello Joachim,

That is good advice. However even roof prism binoculars do go out of collimation from regular [ab]use . Sometimes not enough to notice but enough to cause some eyestrain.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Pinewood said:

Hello Joachim,

That is good advice. However even roof prism binoculars do go out of collimation from regular [ab]use . Sometimes not enough to notice but enough to cause some eyestrain.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Click to expand...

Hi Arthur,

of course a pair which is out of collimation should be fixed.

This can be easily tested with a bright star.

- look at a bright star and focus with the center focus

- then use the diopter setting to defocus one barrel until you only see a fairly large disc with that eye.

- with both eyes you should then see the disc with the star in the center, if the pair is in collimation.

Explanation: the brain will involuntarily merge the offset images of a decollimated pair to a degree, but with one tube defocussed the brain will be fooled and you can see the problem.

Joachim

-

Vespobuteo said:

How does a refill of gas in binoculars work? Does it need disassembling the bins? Might it be risk for getting an optically worse binocular back?

Click to expand...

1) Remove the fill screws.
2) Place the bino in a bell jar.
3) Draw 27 inches of mercury, creating a vacuum.
4) Turn the inlet/outlet valve to seal the jar—WELL.
5) Remove the vacuum hose and replace it with a hose from the dry nitrogen.
6) Open the dry nitrogen valve.
7) Open the valve into the bell jar.
8) The jar is now filling with dry nitrogen ... along with the binocular.
9) With the vacuum released and the nitrogen filling the jar, the pressure is stabilized.
10) Remove the jar from its cushion.
11) Quickly replace the fill screws. There is no need to do this at break neck speed; the nitrogen is not going to RUSH out. It’s not under pressure and is not supposed to be.
12) If tiny “O” rings are around the screws; the job is done.

13) Now that you know HOW to do it, you should also know if your binocular was made well there is probably NO NEED. As Jring points out: if it ain’t broke ... don’t fix it. About 15 years ago, National Fisherman ran an article about a fellow who found a Swift Storm King that had been submerged for over a year. Filthy? Yes. Partially buried in sediment? Yes. STILLED SEALED? Also yes.

Also, at the request of most of my marine customers, I stopped purging and filling during my last few years with Captain’s. The number of binoculars that came back because of moisture issues? ZERO! :cat:

Bill

jring said:

Hi Arthur,

of course a pair which is out of collimation should be fixed.

This can be easily tested with a bright star.

- look at a bright star and focus with the center focus

- then use the diopter setting to defocus one barrel until you only see a fairly large disc with that eye.

- with both eyes you should then see the disc with the star in the center, if the pair is in collimation.

Explanation: the brain will involuntarily merge the offset images of a decollimated pair to a degree, but with one tube defocussed the brain will be fooled and you can see the problem.

Joachim

-

Click to expand...

QUANTIFIABLY? No.
ADEQUATE FOR MANY SITUATIONS? YES, unless attacked by the nitnoids. The caveat is that you should note the IPD setting at which the work is performed; after the work, other settings may be fine. In extreme cases, they might not be.:cat:

Bill

Hello WJC,

I usually check against a flat roofed building. Moving the binocular away from my eyes. If I see a ghost image appearing, I assume that collimation is required. Cory Suddarth has seen some business for me on this basis.
Is my method adequate? Is my method better or worse than Joachim's method.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Hi, Arthur:

I like his better. I think there are fewer places for human errors to creep in. But, I hurry on to say my BIGGEST BEEF with the wannabes all over the Internet is not in aligning to a MORE THAN ADEQUATE CONDITION for most single user binoculars; it’s the wannabe telling the reader that conditional alignment is really “collimation.” Onacounta ... it ain’t. Will it do the job? In most cases? It certainly will. It’s just not clinical 3-axis “collimation.” But, does that really matter? In most single—non-nitnoid—cases. NO! :cat:

And what is this “Hello WJC” stuff?

Arty, Arty, Arty! So, there.

Have a great day.

Bill, to you and other friends

WJC said:

Hi, Arthur:

...

And what is this “Hello WJC” stuff?

Arty, Arty, Arty! So, there.

Have a great day.

BILL

Click to expand...

Hello Bill,

My apologies,
Arthur

Pinewood said:

Hello Bill,

My apologies,
Arthur

Click to expand...

Bless you!

Bill

WJC said:

QUANTIFIABLY? No.
ADEQUATE FOR MANY SITUATIONS? YES, unless attacked by the nitnoids. The caveat is that you should note the IPD setting at which the work is performed; after the work, other settings may be fine. In extreme cases, they might not be.:cat:

Click to expand...

Hi,

what work - I don't plan to touch the bins - just get an indication if collimation might be needed.
If it's ok for my IPD and maybe the IPD range where I can still get an (albeit non-optimal) binocular image, it's fine for me unless another user complains.

That is unless I have built a Mk5 collimator clone and learned to use it ;-)

Joachim

jring said:

Hi,

what work - I don't plan to touch the bins - just get an indication if collimation might be needed.
If it's ok for my IPD and maybe the IPD range where I can still get an (albeit non-optimal) binocular image, it's fine for me unless another user complains.

That is unless I have built a Mk5 collimator clone and learned to use it ;-)

Joachim

Click to expand...

Even if you did, it wouldn’t matter; you’re not a nitnoid or wannabe. :cat:

Bill

This was prompted by another thread on the improvements made to FL 8x32s over the years, and the discovery that my - second-hand - pair had been made in 2007. I assume the previous owner never did much with them, as they were pristine when i bought them 3 years back, and i (assume) there's nothing wrong with them now. However, i did muse about whether focus wheels ever needed re-greasing, or dioptres checking etc. More the mechanical aspects than any obvious or less obvious optical issue.
I guess the answer is 'no'......it just never occurred to me before.

WJC said:

Even if you did, it wouldn’t matter; you’re not a nitnoid or wannabe. :cat:

Bill

Click to expand...

Bill, what is the best way for us non-optical types to tell if we have a collimation problem?

oldfortyfive said:

Bill, what is the best way for us non-optical types to tell if we have a collimation problem?

Click to expand...

With all the stomping around I’ve done trying to convince people that the unadulterated crap on the Internet about how “easy” it is to “collimate” your binocular, when those making such statements are most assuredly clueless about what is actually entailed in clinical collimation, I may appear to be vacillating; I’m not.

However, if you don’t readily notice a problem ... there IS no problem—at least for you or others with nearly the same IPD. Only if a friend or family member sees a problem should you have a need to concern yourself. From my perspective, too many people can’t function without finding boogie men behind every bush and are continually coming up with complex solutions to non-existent problems. Every person has a degree of spatial accommodation, and if the collimation error is within that zone of accommodation, without causing discomfort or eyestrain, THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

I know how stupid that can be as I have participated in the lunacy myself. I’ve designed Houghton telescopes in which the rays of the visible spectrum—at the edge of a 1.5-degree field—would look like a pea lying in a platter, with that platter being the AIRY disc.

I was just trying to see what COULD be done; I was being a nitnoid (ssshhh! Don’t tell anybody). Either hands or machines would be hard-pressed to grind and polish to my Rx and the performance was several times better than the human eye could see. From a rational standpoint, it was a test of the THEORETICAL and a waste of time from the practical and financial.

BUT ...

Take your binocular and find a small, well defined, target at least a mile away. Then, hold your bino far enough from your eye for your observable field to get quite small, with your target in the center. Then while doing the best you can to just stare, alternate opening and closing each eye. If the images stay within that tiny field of view, there’s a good chance your collimation is “perfect” FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES. “Practical” is a very good word; I have never seen the “perfectly” collimated binocular so many people talk about.

More questions? Fire away. Just understand I might not be able to get back to you until Monday. My wife is a teacher and the honey-do list goes into affect about 7 a.m. tomorrow. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

WJC said:

1) Remove the fill screws.
2) Place the bino in a bell jar.
3) Draw 27 inches of mercury, creating a vacuum.
4) Turn the inlet/outlet valve to seal the jar—WELL.
5) Remove the vacuum hose and replace it with a hose from the dry nitrogen.
6) Open the dry nitrogen valve.
7) Open the valve into the bell jar.
8) The jar is now filling with dry nitrogen ... along with the binocular.
9) With the vacuum released and the nitrogen filling the jar, the pressure is stabilized.
10) Remove the jar from its cushion.
11) Quickly replace the fill screws. There is no need to do this at break neck speed; the nitrogen is not going to RUSH out. It’s not under pressure and is not supposed to be.
12) If tiny “O” rings are around the screws; the job is done.

13) Now that you know HOW to do it, you should also know if your binocular was made well there is probably NO NEED. As Jring points out: if it ain’t broke ... don’t fix it. About 15 years ago, National Fisherman ran an article about a fellow who found a Swift Storm King that had been submerged for over a year. Filthy? Yes. Partially buried in sediment? Yes. STILLED SEALED? Also yes.

Also, at the request of most of my marine customers, I stopped purging and filling during my last few years with Captain’s. The number of binoculars that came back because of moisture issues? ZERO! :cat:

Bill

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed info. :t: