EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (1 Viewer)

[etc]

I think the older Trinovids armour was tougher but it was much harder and not as comfortable in the hands.

I had an 90's Trinovid BN and really liked its armor for durability as well as comfort.

 

[SGBirder]

Hi etc,

According to the most recent known correspondence from SONA, from last month,
the RA formula and process were changed in 2018 (see the second last para):




John

The current armour is still problematic. According to a rep at a recent fair, they are testing some new materials now to address this issue, don't think it's on the market yet

 

[etc]

View attachment 1524709

 

[etc]

 

[etc]

The current armour is still problematic. According to a rep at a recent fair, they are testing some new materials now to address this issue, don't think it's on the market yet

I see. Thanks for the update. Was there an estimate when a new material might be available?

 

[SGBirder]

I see. Thanks for the update. Was there an estimate when a new material might be available?

Refer to this post by John Cantelo for more info

 

[42za]

Swarovski should just scrap the rubber armour and revert to covering their binoculars in the "old fashioned" way , but this will probably raise prices , and the buyers will no doubt raise Cain about this , can't have that now , can we

 

[chill6x6]

So here's the question....Do you recommend a Swarovski binocular any more? Do you give them a pass and still recommend them? Or do you recommend something else?

 

[Richard D]

So here's the question....Do you recommend a Swarovski binocular any more? Do you give them a pass and still recommend them? Or do you recommend something else?

I'd suggest buying on optical performance - if you're one of the unlucky ones who suffers casing deterioration Swarovski are re-armouring free of charge. In the UK postage to their centre is about £12, and you'd be without binoculars for about 6 weeks - yes it's an annoyance but a pretty minor one.

 

[SGBirder]

I'd suggest buying on optical performance - if you're one of the unlucky ones who suffers casing deterioration Swarovski are re-armouring free of charge. In the UK postage to their centre is about £12, and you'd be without binoculars for about 6 weeks - yes it's an annoyance but a pretty minor one.

US$160 for my location back to Austria, via my local distributor. Not as minor unfortunately

 

[Jos Stratford]

I'd suggest buying on optical performance - if you're one of the unlucky ones who suffers casing deterioration Swarovski are re-armouring free of charge. In the UK postage to their centre is about £12, and you'd be without binoculars for about 6 weeks - yes it's an annoyance but a pretty minor one.

If you don't have a second pair of binoculars, I'm not entirely sure that six weeks (or more) is pretty minor.

 

[Richard D]

US$160 for my location back to Austria, via my local distributor. Not as minor unfortunately

I agree that's a ridiculous cost for shipping, and have no idea why it's so expensive in your country.

 

[Richard D]

If you don't have a second pair of binoculars, I'm not entirely sure that six weeks (or more) is pretty minor.

I honestly don't know any semi-serious birders who don't have a second pair of some kind even if they're just compacts. I suspect the proportion of Swarovski owners and heavy users who don't have something is pretty small. It's not like you have to return them at any particular point in the year - they're still perfectly usable with cracked armour, you wouldn't send them off in the middle of migration.

 

[SGBirder]

I honestly don't know any semi-serious birders who don't have a second pair of some kind even if they're just compacts. I suspect the proportion of Swarovski owners and heavy users who don't have something is pretty small. It's not like you have to return them at any particular point in the year - they're still perfectly usable with cracked armour, you wouldn't send them off in the middle of migration.

Not really "perfectly usable"

In my ongoing experience, each outing involves the armour flaking off in pieces (resulting in environmental pollution if the errant piece is not noticed), and sticky fingers and palms from the armour surface leaving some sticky residue.

 

[Richard D]

Not really "perfectly usable"

In my ongoing experience, each outing involves the armour flaking off in pieces (resulting in environmental pollution if the errant piece is not noticed), and sticky fingers and palms from the armour surface leaving some sticky residue.

I think you've been exceptionally unlucky - most people seem to report that from the first sign of cracking to significant deterioration takes a good few months, giving time to get the armour replaced at a convienient time.

I'm certainly not saying that the armour doesn't need to be improved, just that for my local costs and estimated return time I wouldn't be put off buying Swarovski. Obviously if warranty return costs were exceptionally high I would look around to see if other companies were better, and what was covered.

 

[SGBirder]

I think you've been exceptionally unlucky - most people seem to report that from the first sign of cracking to significant deterioration takes a good few months, giving time to get the armour replaced at a convienient time.

I'm certainly not saying that the armour doesn't need to be improved, just that for my local costs and estimated return time I wouldn't be put off buying Swarovski. Obviously if warranty return costs were exceptionally high I would look around to see if other companies were better, and what was covered.

Yup, checked out some alternatives.

 

[Hermann]

Do ecommend a Swarovski binocular any more? Do you give them a pass and still recommend them? Or do you recommend something else?

I wouldn't recommend any Swarovski product with the faulty armour to anyone. I also won't buy any Swarovski product with the faulty armour. Just like I won't buy a car where the paint may wash off in some cases if you leave it out in the rain too often.

BTW, I am quite interested in the ATC. But I definitely won't get one as long as Swarovski didn't sort this problem out once and for all.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

US$160 for my location back to Austria, via my local distributor. Not as minor unfortunately

I'll hopefully be in SG this Christmas. Let's get in touch then. I'd be interested in any 10x50 or NL 10x42 with those armour issues (the worse the better) that their owners would like to sell.

 

[Paultricounty]

It’s a very good question Chuck. Reading some of the replies had made my answer a little more difficult. I for one who has not seen an issue on any of the more than dozen EL’s and NL’s , and owning four and only having to ship to SONA for maybe $35, would buy another one new or used, without question.

But the question is , would I recommend others buy. If someone was in my situation of easy return to Swaro, yes I would recommend. If your in a country where shipping is ridiculous and you only have one binocular, I’d say I’d recommend something else. The way Swaro is taking care of it, I guess that would equate to , I’d probably recommend to a large percentage of people. Now we have to see if this starts to get better or worse as the next year or so goes by.

Im sure others have tried , but I’d still try to get Swaro to pay all or part of the shipping , if I was in one of those countries that have ludicrous shipping costs.

Paul

 

[GrampaTom]

Nother thought. Not sure I'd box em up and ship them back at first sign of an armor failure. Swaro has a problem. The problem has a real physical basis and comes with reputational implications, alluded to here. We are told they are working on a solution. The problem mostly shows up over time. We guess determining a real fix then, will take time. We dont know when the clock started ticking. Think if it were mine, depending, I might be inclined to get out the band aids (duct tape) till there was some assurance the real fix was what they were delivering as repair. Till then fingers crossed Im happily using mine.