[Paul Godolphin]

Product Report: Swarovski Binocular Booster.
I was a lucky chap. Swarovski GAVE me this £186 item as a GIFT! They were most generous in dealing with my ongoing compliant about their compacts, and whilst sending me some ‘hand-picked’ compacts to try out, enclosed a free booster. Ungrateful swine that I am, I’m now going to slate the product ! (people like me should be shot, eh?).
In fact, the product was so bad, that I RETURNED it to Swarovski rather than keep it and make a lot of money selling it, like numerous other customers with service issues whom they’ve given them to! (try complaining a bit, maybe they’ll give you one, ha ha!)

The booster is essentially a 2x converter eyepiece tube that can be screwed onto the eyecup thread of EL and SLC binoculars. It converts the 8.5EL to a 17x telescope on one eye only, and saves weight carrying a small scope. The booster is supplied with a black padded case on a belt loop for easy access. It has a high quality eyecup like the one on the bins. Very nice in principle, and I was humbled to receive such a gift.

Alas, not to be. As I screwed it gently down onto the eyepiece of my EL’s, I was horrified to hear a ‘grinding glass’ tinkling micro-shattering noise. I felt sick. What the heck was THAT? On unscrewing the booster I found that it screws down, not onto the threaded housing surrounding the EL eyepiece, but bottoms-out against the delicate raised edge of the 8.5EL’s concave glass lens! All around the outer edge the glass was now chinked and roughened. I had only tightened it with the lightest fingertip pressure, and if there was any foreign matter on the mating surfaces, I certainly couldn’t detect it! Nevertheless, the damage was done.

On further research I found that the 8.5x has a larger diameter of eyepiece lens than the 10x EL. If used on the 10x model, the booster would presumably bed down metal-to-metal on the housing as intended. But since the 8.5’s lens is bigger, the base of the booster crushes onto the outside edge of the glass itself.

Swarovski now produce the booster with an ultra-light ratchet on the screw-down sleeve to limit how tight users can fit them. A bit late for me though!
Hope this review saves anyone else the same grief. Cheers Paul

[Paul Godolphin]

Swarovski Compact 8x21 and 10x25: A Review
Since I’ve had several of these models through my hands it seems fair to recount my experiences just as they happened.
The Swarovski 8x20 was not good. Although delightfully small and delicate (with no rubber armoured model available, and exposed lightweight object housings are very delicate) I was disappointed with the optics of this model. At £289 they seemed rather poor value when compared directly with my wife’s £4.99 chinese 8x20 bins from a local discount warehouse. In fact, neither of us were able to read a car number plate at the far end of the street that was clearly visible with the cheapies. Finding that none of the other stock in the Swarovski dealer was any better, they were discarded at once, in favour of the Swarovski 10x25 model.
In the store I tried half a dozen examples of new Swarovski10x25’s. Highly variable, and displaying assorted defects. Most noticeable were variations in image definition, differing tightness between the two barrel pivots and inaccurate compensatory dioptre assemblies.
Most examples tested were once more inferior to the wife’s five quid cheapies in reading distant number plates. Two were as good, or better. All the rest had varying degrees of one hinge being too loose, causing one barrel to fold-up whilst in use. Not one could be found where the dioptre ‘zero’ setting was in the middle. We employed the ‘turn em upside-down’ technique and gave them to several people to comment, and all agreed. I plumped for the ‘least bad’ pair in the shop.
Shortly I phoned Swarovski to have the loosest hinge screw tightened, and was told that they’d have to go back to Austria as they have no service facilities whatever here in the UK, and are unable to even tighten a screw. Later the lanyard crimping fell apart, dropping the bins off my neck onto the ground. Again Swarovski UK were unable to replace the strap without returning to Austria. I wrote to Swarovski to complain.
They very kindly sent me a free binocular booster and some ‘hand-picked’ compacts to try. Great service. But the booster broke my bins when I screwed it on due to a design problem, and the compacts they sent were looser than my own, even if a little better optically. I returned the lot along with video and photos of the faults.
By this time I was a laughing stock amongst my friends for having spent £300 on something that was less good than a £5 item in a novelty shop. I sold the Swarovskis at half price, and warn you here, they took two years to get rid of, despite £100 worth of advertising, not a single enquiry.
Hope my experiences are of use to potential buyers. Cheers Paul.

[Paul Godolphin]

A number of other threads concerning Swarovski defects have led me to compile this short ‘Buyer’s Guide’ for anyone about to purchase some of their excellent binoculars. I love ‘em, and have owned many. When working right, these are the finest glasses, of outstanding quality, and my first choice. Unfortunately, they seem to be of very variable quality, and it is essential that buyers test EVERY PAIR IN THE SHOP before picking out the one that suits them best. Just follow these tips:
1). Buy from the biggest dealer you can. He’ll have several pairs of each size piled-up in the stockroom. Where there’s only one pair, you’ll have nothing to compare against, and any defects may not become apparent until it’s too late. Try them all.
2). Phone the dealer to say that you’ll want all models available before you travel. With a £1000 sale in prospect, he’ll be delighted to transfer plenty of different models in from another branch, just for you.
3). Take your time, and ‘get your eye in’ like sea watching. It won’t take long to eliminate the models you don’t want, but once you’re locked-on to one model, get several pairs of the same, and spend hours with them, if necessary.
4). I’ve found (confirmed with Managers of large Dealerships) that Swarovski bins often have one barrel that is of better optical quality than the other. Unlikely as this sounds, tip them upside down and look through them to check if any perceived ‘defect’ moves across to the other side. If it does, the bins should be rejected. If it doesn’t, get your eyes tested, it’s you that’s going blind, not the bins !
5). Check that the dioptre adjustment between the eyes is equal when set to ‘zero’. Use the same method as in 4. If equality can only be achieved with a couple of compensatory clicks, reject them. Both barrels should be at the same focus distance with the dioptre in the centre. Many pairs I’ve tried are highly variable by plus or minus three clicks.
6). What about that hole under the focus wheel? Can you live with it? See other threads on Birdforum discussing that matter, I won’t repeat them here.
7). Check the centre pivot friction. With some looser pairs you’re constantly re-adjusting them to your eyes. This repeated adjustment then loosens them even faster. Remember – Swarovski say that they have no service facilities whatsoever in the UK, your bins have to go back to Austria just for a routine adjustment.
8). Finally, have a good look over your chosen pair for cosmetic defects and decide if you can tolerate the ones you find. Defects I’ve had include crooked badges on focus wheels, lumps bulging through from under the rubber armour and uneven eyecup thickness Reject if this annoys you.
Then………..get out there and enjoy some superb images. After all that nitpicking, you should have the glasses that you deserve. Good luck! Paul.

[ND2000]

Nice post. Anyone looking for the best compacts would need to look no further than the Leica Ultravids. Both the 8x20 and 10x25 are outstanding for a compact.

ND2000

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin

Most examples tested were once more inferior to the wife’s five quid cheapies in reading distant number plates. Two were as good, or better. All the rest had varying degrees of one hinge being too loose, causing one barrel to fold-up whilst in use. Not one could be found where the dioptre ‘zero’ setting was in the middle. We employed the ‘turn em upside-down’ technique and gave them to several people to comment, and all agreed. I plumped for the ‘least bad’ pair in the shop.

If you were so unimpressed by these binoculars, why did you actually buy a pair? I would have thought the whole point of testing them so carefully was to make sure you were happy with them.

[chartwell99]

Originally Posted by ND2000

Nice post. Anyone looking for the best compacts would need to look no further than the Leica Ultravids. Both the 8x20 and 10x25 are outstanding for a compact.

ND2000

The Nikon 8 x 20 HGs are no slouch either, and an easy pick if you are a fan of having the focuser at the objective end (presumably, part of the appeal of the Swaros in the first place).

[hinnark]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

If you were so unimpressed by these binoculars, why did you actually buy a pair? I would have thought the whole point of testing them so carefully was to make sure you were happy with them.

I had the same question immediatly reading Paul´s story.

Steve

[Sancho]

I tested the Swaro compacts versus the Leica BR compacts when considering buying. I didn´t like the Swaros, they weren´t as bright and I didn´t like the focussing-wheel position. The Leicas cost a good bit more, but I got them in the 8x20 version and have been very happy with them. The other option were Nikon HGL compacts (I was basing my considerations on Kimmo Absetz´s review in Alula), but I couldn´t find a pair in Dublin to test. These are considerably cheaper than the Leicas, and although they have the focussing wheel at the "far" end, Kimmo Absetz rated them highly. Not trying to be smart here, but re. PostcardCV and Hinnark´s question, because I didn´t like the Swaros, I didn´t buy them.

[Paul Godolphin]

POSTCARDCV: I agree with other writers. It is becoming tedious repeatedly answering your questions about things that have already been dealt-with, and you've already acknowledged seeing on this or another thread. I KNOW that you're monitoring these other threads (They've got entries from you on them!), so you KNOW the answers to these spurious queries before you ask.
I refer to your questions on two threads: about why I bought the Swaro compacts, where I've already told you that it occurred because I was concentrating too much on the EL's I was buying at the time, and your totally absurd use of a quote from me on Ultravids where I said that they DEVELOP JUDDERY FOCUSSING SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASE, and then you commented why had I bought them if I didn't like the juddery focus at the time? Duh? Please mate, don't fog the issues with this nonsense. Read the letters properly before opening your mouth. There's people on here trying to have a constructive discussion.
IN ANY CASE - WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? THIS THREAD IS A REVIEW OF THE BINOCULARS THEMSELVES, NOT MY REASONS FOR BUYING THEM.
cheers Paul

[foxbo]

I too don't understand why you made the purchase after comparing them with your wife's cheapos and discovering that you liked the cheapos better.

[Alexis Powell]

Oh come on, give the guy a break! We all do things in haste or for other reasons that don't make sense in hind-sight--he's just been open/honest about reporting what he did and his conclusions about the product. As for those conclusions--I haven't experienced the same. All the Swarovski pocket roofs I've ever handled (not so many, but maybe 10 or so over the years) have been beautifully assembled and mechanically and optically flawless. I never bought one, however, because they (at least in the past) were relatively very expensive and not as bright as some of the competition. I chose the Zeiss 8x20 Victory over the Swarovski in direct comparison on the grounds of better brightness, color rendition, closer focus, and nicer (for my right-handed grip) index finger controlled focus. But I was still plenty impressed with the Swarovski. Subsequently, the Leica Ultravid pockets were released. They are expensive, but are so astoundingly good they've replaced the Zeiss in use as my new favorites by a large margin.
--AP

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin

POSTCARDCV: I agree with other writers. It is becoming tedious repeatedly answering your questions about things that have already been dealt-with,

I can't beleive I've been acused of being tedious by the man who started three identical threads!

Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin

I refer to your questions on two threads: about why I bought the Swaro compacts, where I've already told you that it occurred because I was concentrating too much on the EL's I was buying at the time.

As for the question of why you bought the Swarovski compacts, being to busy concerntrating on the ELs was your reason for getting the 8x20s without a properly testing them. However you say you then went back and tested 6 pairs of 10x25s... why then did you pay ~£300 for a pair of them that you were not happy with.

Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin

and your totally absurd use of a quote from me on Ultravids where I said that they DEVELOP JUDDERY FOCUSSING SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASE, and then you commented why had I bought them if I didn't like the juddery focus at the time? Duh?

You were clearly unlucky, while there is some variation in the feel of focus on Ultravids in my experience the focus doesn't changed with time. As was pointed out by others you could send them to Leica and get this looked at. I know (and totally understand why) you feel that a £1000+ pair of bins should be perfect. But it seems to me that it would be worth the slight hassle of sending them to Leica if it ment you could have a pair you were happy with.

Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin

Please mate, don't fog the issues with this nonsense. Read the letters properly before opening your mouth. There's people on here trying to have a constructive discussion.

I did read the threads fully before 'opening my mouth', I'm not fogging the issue, just asking question that clearly others feel are relevant too. If you are going to give such a strong opinion you've got to expect people to ask questions.

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by Paul Godolphin

Product Report: Swarovski Binocular Booster.
I was a lucky chap. Swarovski GAVE me this £186 item as a GIFT! ........ As I screwed it gently down onto the eyepiece of my EL’s, I was horrified to hear a ‘grinding glass’ tinkling micro-shattering noise. I felt sick. What the heck was THAT? On unscrewing the booster I found that it screws down, not onto the threaded housing surrounding the EL eyepiece, but bottoms-out against the delicate raised edge of the 8.5EL’s concave glass lens! All around the outer edge the glass was now chinked and roughened. I had only tightened it with the lightest fingertip pressure, and if there was any foreign matter on the mating surfaces, I certainly couldn’t detect it! Nevertheless, the damage was done.

On further research I found that the 8.5x has a larger diameter of eyepiece lens than the 10x EL. If used on the 10x model, the booster would presumably bed down metal-to-metal on the housing as intended. But since the 8.5’s lens is bigger, the base of the booster crushes onto the outside edge of the glass itself.

Swarovski now produce the booster with an ultra-light ratchet on the screw-down sleeve to limit how tight users can fit them. A bit late for me though!
Hope this review saves anyone else the same grief. Paul

Incredible! That would mean they sent you some device for free to damage their own product! Usually, such damage is prone to happen with third-party products.

[Steve]

I have reached the conclusion that you are a serial whinger and have a serious grudge against swarovski, Your "warnings " to the forum about various products are becoming farcical.

[jtpowers1972]

Have you taken any pictures of the resultant glass etching?

[MikeDB]

Ok, I'm really new to the forum and have been following some of these bun-fights with interest and a huge amount of incredulity.

Paul, I really hope you haven't got into photography yet. I'm not convinced you should be around anything optical.

In the style of the old telegram service. STOP.

Mike

[PYRTLE]

Do not let this person into your premises, he'll pull out all your gear which means your pristine stock won't be that anymore. Also he's bound to come back with gripes. And all for a paultry £1000 of which gross profit for the harrassed salespeople will be a miserly few quid. I'm sorry Paul, but they won't be falling over or getting in stock with your suggestions in mind - probably put up the "CLOSED" sign.Best you divert him to the internet guys.

Good intentions I'm sure but poor delivery, still a few smiles here and there. Bye!

[edwincjones]

I am new here also, but am getting more irritated with the tone of these threads.

Paul stated an opinion with supporting reasons, and now is being personally attacked for his opinion. He may or may not be right, but shoud not we just focus on the binocular issues, not on the person stating them?

edj

[PYRTLE]

Hi Edwin

You are of course right in what you say, just occassionally a few feathers are ruffled and things get out of hand (for whatever reason) and sadly matters get personal. However, most forumers offer good technical and impartial proven advice and it can be very helpful. Hopefully we can then make up our minds and go from there.

[Leif]

I really do not believe that Paul knows what he is talking about. Okay, one item could be faulty, but all Swarovski gear? Oh for goodness sake.

I suspect the CEO of Swarovski ran over his pet Guinea Pig, and he is out to get revenge.

I own a Swarovski 8x20 and my experiences do not match Paul's. The idea that it could be beaten by a cheap Chinese 8x20 binocular is absurd. The latter is a budget instrument, usually not well collimated, poorly coated, no phase coating etc. They are superb value (if you get a good one), but better than a Swarovski? No. I also own a Zeiss 8x20 Classic. It is also rather nice.

I wonder if Paul knows that an inverted porro prism binocular costing £100 could match or even beat the Swarovski, or most if not all small roof prism binoculars.

I think Paul is what car dealers term a 'tyre kicker'.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by edwincjones

I am new here also, but am getting more irritated with the tone of these threads.

Paul stated an opinion with supporting reasons, and now is being personally attacked for his opinion. He may or may not be right, but shoud not we just focus on the binocular issues, not on the person stating them?

edj

Yes and no. There are plenty of people here who criticise products, and in all honesty fair comments are helpful. They keep the manufacturers on their toes. But Paul seems to be on a jihad to trash Swarovski. You just have to search the forums to get an idea of what most users think of Swarovski gear. I have owned several Swarovski items. He has made numerous criticisms, and as far as I know no-one else has noticed these 'problems'. It does not ring true. And I do not think it is rude to say that.

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by Leif

I think Paul is what car dealers term a 'tyre kicker'.

Hi Leif, I miss the gags. In fairness, I don´t think anyone on the thread is a tyre kicker, ´cos tyre kickers don´t actually buy the cars. Paul has bought a lot of bins - certainly puts my occasional episodes of manic binotytis in the shade.

[griffin]

Originally Posted by edwincjones

He may or may not be right, but shoud not we just focus on the binocular issues, not on the person stating them?

edj

That is difficult when the assertions he makes are ridiculous.

" I have a squint badge on my EL's"

" there is a slit on the focus knob of new faster focus EL's and this is a flaw........but I haven't actually tested to see if it leaks, therefore, er it might not be a fault"

As to the variation amongst samples of Swaro optics, well.

All of these points have been repeatedly refuted - don't let it get to you, your bins are great !

There is clear pattern developing here : Paul and Bins do not mix. Period. I suspect it is not just bins.


But then again maybe it is us thousands of happy Swarovski customers that are wrong. Then again, maybe not.


Linz

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Sancho

Hi Leif, I miss the gags. In fairness, I don´t think anyone on the thread is a tyre kicker, ´cos tyre kickers don´t actually buy the cars. Paul has bought a lot of bins - certainly puts my occasional episodes of manic binotytis in the shade.

Maybe my use of the term is not accurate, but I think the intended meaning sneaks through.

However, someone who has met the CEO of Swarovski informs me that she is not the type to inflict suffering on small furry animals, and I do not doubt that, so I hope that I have now made amends for that unwarranted slur on her exemplary character. I will now saunter away, and meticulously inspect my optics, smear them liberally with peanut butter for no good reason, examine them for holes, slits, and anything faintly iffy, and then feed them to a hungry pachyderm, and stand behind, hands outstretched, to catch the tested optics when they emerge in a day or two.

[Swissboy]

Originally Posted by edwincjones

I am new here also, but am getting more irritated with the tone of these threads.

Paul stated an opinion with supporting reasons, and now is being personally attacked for his opinion. He may or may not be right, but shoud not we just focus on the binocular issues, not on the person stating them?

edj

The various personal attacks have irritated me too. In addition to the fact that this had gone on on three different threads. Though there had been times of sheer amusement as well. Why get so upset? We are all entitled to our personal opinions. And we are all glad to hear about possible problems. So, it's the tone that irritates. And, with THIS many negative experiences, one must either be an extremely unlucky fellow, or else questions arise about whether what is written is true or not. It would have helped if we'd had photos here as attachments to resolve the second possibility once and for all.