I repaired, or tampered with, depending on how you look at it (eh Bill) my Hawke Endurance 10x25 (approx£100) and now it's performing very well such that I'm starting to use it regularly and finding it a nice useful asset whereas before my tampering it wasn't much use and was left to the side and this was the 4th bin (third replacement) from Hawke and I'd pretty much given up on it so was spurred into tamper mode.
Anyhow when I was out with it a few times after the tampering it actually occurred to me that of all of the bins I have owned it most reminded me of the Leica 10x32 HD that I had. Of course not just as good but not really that far behind and much lighter and more compact.
So if you could actually manage to get a good one of these from Hawke (I tried 3 times, obviously they are good components but really cobbled together in China and Hawke seemingly incapable of noticing) it would be a very good little bin for a 10th of the price of a big brand bin such as the Leica. So just one example of how the cheap end is persuing - and catching - the top end at least in optical quality. You just have to fix them yourself.
Clive said: “I repaired, or tampered with, depending on how you look at it (eh Bill) ...”
Clive, while I think you know me well enough to understand my motives (you poor fellow), I will hurry on to say:
I HAVE NEVER HAD AN AVERSION TO PEOPLE REPAIRING THEIR OWN BINOCULARS ... NEVER!!!
In fact, I encourage it. People who can react faster than they can reason often get me wrong about this, leaving me feeling like Doc. Holliday in a room full of young guns eager to become corpses. But those of us who know the ins and outs of the craft (knowing how to repair OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS and not 2 or 3 models of one company’s binoculars) are dying off and we think it’s important enough to go on. That’s why I visit binocular forums and Cory holds 3-axis collimation classes. Hopefully, we do this to help a new generation.
Much of it can be learned by trial and error. However, the learning curve associated with the trial and error method of 3-axis collimation requires MUCH more in-depth thinking than most would-be opticians are willing to invest in. That’s why I get wrapped around the axle when I see someone who really doesn’t know what he’s talking about jump up and down and mislead others by saying he has “collimated” his binocular—when, in fact he hasn’t—and how easy it was.
Yes, if only the screws on the offending telescope (most people only know about the prism-tilt convention for alignment) are turned—and the other telescope wasn’t already misaligned—3-axis collimation can be restored without anyone knowing the techniques or mathematics involved.
More often than not that’s not the case and those following the simpish, “You just gotta turn these screws” method—with no clue as to which is the offending side—take their instrument ever farther away from clinical collimation. I have performed conditional alignment on some of my own instruments and for those who didn’t want to pay for having the job done thoroughly. At no time, however, did I call the work “collimation.”
Those with an adequate degree of spatial accommodation or an over abundance of the “I don’t cares,” may never realize the difference. But the science is easily damaged by those who think they know what they don’t.
“In matters of style, swim with the current. In matter of principle, stand like a rock.”—Thomas Jefferson
Repair is up for grabs. For collimation, I’m standing like a rock. The honest and humble truth seeker deserves that. :cat:
Bill
