Long term quality...Leica or Swarovski (2 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

You use the bins you're carrying. Not long ago I was able to enjoy a toad with my SLCHD 42 (possibly Woodhouse's but I'm no expert) that would never have allowed me to approach any closer. Last year (with HD+ 32) I was amazed by a Cecropia moth. Reptiles, insects, who knows what may be found along a trail. Close focus matters.

That’s why I said almost. If close focus observing is something done often, then the recent EL’s may not be a good choice for those individuals. if 3 feet shorter focus makes or breaks their use for that purpose , then I’d assume that would rule a whole lot of binoculars. When I know I’m going to be doing lots of close focus observing I usually pick the tool for the job, and for me that may be smaller lower magnification binoculars. Or if not, I could just take a step back, that might cover the 3 feet. 😏

Paul

 

[Nottabird]

There are days when the birds go into hiding, but the dragonflies, butterflies and rhino beetles are stepping out to play. Ever look at a Mantis close up? Frightening! The close focus can keep one fully engaged until the birds reemerge.

 

[Maljunulo]

I’m glad I bought my EL before Swarovski jumped with both feet into the “See how progressive we are!” pond.

It was a disastrous mistake, and I would not buy Swarovski again.

(just my opinion)

 

[Nottabird]

Please clue me in on the pond!

 

[Maljunulo]

Demonstrating how progressive the company was jumping into the current pond where companies are trying to out do one another.

Also known as “jumping on the bandwagon” and many other colloquialisms.

 

[Gabor1973]

I have had the rubber covering and rubber eyecap surrounds on my Swarovski CL 8 x 25 become sticky and very unpleasant to use.
The glass optics are top notch , but I feel that Swarovski's use of "biodegradable" materials is not acceptable to me , after all they are expensive binoculars.
I will not be buying any Swarovski binocular in the future.
My Leica 10 x 32 UVHD+ on the other hand has not shown any signs of stickiness on the rubber whatsoever.
My few 1960's vintage Japanese Poro binoculars do not have this problem of sticky rubber either.
Leica appears to be the only modern manufacturer that build their products to last , but I am not wholly convinced that a modern Leica has superior build qualities to their vintage binoculars.
We live in a "throwaway" world , I suppose that we will have to adjust our expectations of quality accordingly.

My SLC is sticky too! Welcome to the new age!

 

[tenex]

My SLC is sticky too!

Sorry to hear that. This would be your 10x42? What year of manufacture? (Add first two digits of s/n to 1930)

 

[Scott98]

Of course Leica has deficiencies of its own, sans greenwashing. The greenwashing does seem to trigger certain individuals though.....IMO the covering on the entire Zeiss FL line was horrible. It turned hard and slippery over time. No greenwashing, just a bad covering. Who knows what Swaro is actually using and whether it's less toxic than Nikon or Zeiss or Swaro. At least you know they'll replace it if something does go wrong. Leica was unable to fix or replace the focuser I didn't like on my UVHD.

My rule of thumb is, ignore the marketing, focus on the products. But then engineers never like the marketing guys

 

[Elkhornsun]

Bino purchases are mostly an emotional decision. A bino from Nikon or Vortex is going to perform as well over the years as ones from Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica, but these less expensive binoculars will not be good as status symbols.

It surprised me at first just how willing people were to spend more than $3,000 on a binocular. I was used to spending more than $5,000 on a digital camera or more than $10,000 on a telephoto lens, but could not see the value added by spending 3-5 times as much for an expensive binocular from a European manufacturer. Binocular optics are relatively simple and the designs have changed very little over the past 40 years. Optical coating have also not really changed despite the marketing hype. But then men will buy a Rolex watch that provides poorer time keeping than a $20 watch from Casio.

 

[Maljunulo]

Bino purchases are mostly an emotional decision. A bino from Nikon or Vortex is going to perform as well over the years as ones from Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica, but these less expensive binoculars will not be good as status symbols.

It surprised me at first just how willing people were to spend more than $3,000 on a binocular. I was used to spending more than $5,000 on a digital camera or more than $10,000 on a telephoto lens, but could not see the value added by spending 3-5 times as much for an expensive binocular from a European manufacturer. Binocular optics are relatively simple and the designs have changed very little over the past 40 years. Optical coating have also not really changed despite the marketing hype. But then men will buy a Rolex watch that provides poorer time keeping than a $20 watch from Casio.

Hardcore watch freaks loathe quartz watches, but I had a Japanese wristwatch that was easily better than one second per month, and took months to drift that far.

For those folks, it isn't about knowing the time, but I'm not sure that is a good comparison to optical things.

 

[Gabor1973]

Sajnálattal hallom. Ez lenne a te 10x42-es? Milyen gyártási év? (Adja hozzá az s/n első két számjegyét 1930-hoz)

 

[Gabor1973]

Bino purchases are mostly an emotional decision. A bino from Nikon or Vortex is going to perform as well over the years as ones from Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica, but these less expensive binoculars will not be good as status symbols.

It surprised me at first just how willing people were to spend more than $3,000 on a binocular. I was used to spending more than $5,000 on a digital camera or more than $10,000 on a telephoto lens, but could not see the value added by spending 3-5 times as much for an expensive binocular from a European manufacturer. Binocular optics are relatively simple and the designs have changed very little over the past 40 years. Optical coating have also not really changed despite the marketing hype. But then men will buy a Rolex watch that provides poorer time keeping than a $20 watch from Casio.

"Szegény ember nem teheti meg, hogy olcsó dolgot vesz magának." In the past few years I had several middle class or entry level binoculars and they all were awful mainly out of collimation. They cost me a lot of money. If you want to save money, buy a good one. But I agree partially.

 

[Rg548]

Hardcore watch freaks loathe quartz watches

Not so sure there..... 7c46 !!!

 

[Maljunulo]

Gabor;

I like your proverb.

Richard

 

[grackle314]

Thanks, I don't like how Swarovski "downgraded" the EL, with now 10.8 feet close focus and NO more field bag, what a shame!

Swarovski on the US webpage show a storage bag included with the EL series, e.g. see the EL 10x42 W B at EL 10x42 W B - SWAROVSKI OPTIK. You may also wish to consider the FSB functional sidebag and/or the FBP field bag pro which are sold in various sizes according to customer needs. I use an FSB functional sidebag along with BSP bino suspender pro and the FRP forehead rest NL Pure. I like this corporate style of offering accessories according to customer taste.

 

[Gabor1973]

Sorry to hear that. This would be your 10x42? What year of manufacture? (Add first two digits of s/n to 1930)

SLC 10x42/2017

I'm going to have replaced the rubber armour next year.