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!
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Long term quality...Leica or Swarovski (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter raptorbfl
- Start date
IMO the 10.8 ft CF is completely inconsequential. I think of all the great birding binoculars I have used with a similar CF....SLC 7X42 B, SLC 8X42 WB, Meopta Meostar 7X42, all Leica Ultravid 42s, etc, etc. NEVER an issue except on paper. Now not including a binocular case is tacky. But several cases are available for $20 or less and I certainly wouldn't pay Swarovski's price for their case.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Chuck,
Don’t want to hijack the thread but being you have all four together I was wondering your thoughts about the differences (more optically) and of what you like and dislike of the group. It’s nice when you have both companies 8 & 10’s in 42. So as not to take over the OP If you want to get into detail you could PM me. thx.
Paul
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I’m going to offer a thought for reconsideration on EL’s. Although the short focus capability has been shortened , let’s consider two facts, one is , most users really don’t use 42mm binoculars to observe objects under ten feet, so that change is almost irrelevant. The second thing is , they lowered the price by $500 and these binoculars are optically the same as before, which puts them in the top four best binoculars made in the world. Some users rate them better than than some of the other three and yet they are the least expensive by a good margin. These EL’s at this price , optically ( and build quality) are bargain , if we can call $2000 binoculars a bargain, but optically they compare equally or better than binoculars costing $500-$1000 more.
I know this topic about accessories comes up a bit with binoculars, especially expensive ones, my thinking is it’s a shame considering what we pay for these toys, but ocular covers , objective covers and storage bags are inexpensive and sometimes there are better aftermarket options.
Paul
Where are you getting this stuff? If a Bentley was the same price as the Ford it would be a different car than what they are now, and again, you don't know what others will do when it comes to choosing between your new line of cheapified alpha cars and the expansive lineup of Fords.
Instead of stand in alternatives it would be better to talk about Leica and Swarovski for the purposes of this thread.
lilcrazy2
Well-known member
Hmmm. Ford GT40, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby edition, Bentley. Bye Bye Bentley
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
I think it depends on the model really, I'd suspect some habichts GA's are probably tougher and longer lasting than most leicas but maybe a Leica uvhd 8x32 is tougher than a cl 8x32, who knows.
If it's very important to have a very tough binocular choose one designed for in the field durability, i.e well recessed objectives, simple mechanics, well sealed and waterproof, long single hinge or double hinge as opposed to a narrow single hinge with fold down eye cups instead of twist up and possibly a focuser that's recessed in behind the tops of the barrels?
Will
If it's very important to have a very tough binocular choose one designed for in the field durability, i.e well recessed objectives, simple mechanics, well sealed and waterproof, long single hinge or double hinge as opposed to a narrow single hinge with fold down eye cups instead of twist up and possibly a focuser that's recessed in behind the tops of the barrels?
Will
Loud Green Man
Well-known member
I find this ironic as the only issue I had with my Duvids was the oh so frustrating focusing wheel and in particular it’s tendency for notched-like over-travel.
Had them rebuilt a number of times c/o Leica Mayfair and finally sold them immediately upon return from the Portugal servicing HQ after their 3rd visit.
But back to the Op’s question:
If you are truly indifferent to the view through both models referred to go for the Swarovski based on their after sales customer service that is legendary.
LGM
Paultricounty
Well-known member
You know it’s funny when we talk about these quality binoculars, and everybody has their preferences based on multiple factors, but they’re all so nice. It’s such a pleasure to have these incredible choices available to us. I really like the Leica Ultravids and love Noctivids and grab for them most of the time, but every time I look through one of my EL’s , I’m blown away equally yet differently , If you know what I mean. I consider this , like what am I in the mood for, caviar or filet mignon. Do I take the Bentley or Rolls this morning 🤣
Btw, the OP could’ve included Nikon in that question, EDG, SE , HG etc. etc. , these have been going strong for 20 to 30 years. Some of us have these binoculars since the 1990s and early 2000s without a hitch and still going strong.
Paul
Btw, the OP could’ve included Nikon in that question, EDG, SE , HG etc. etc. , these have been going strong for 20 to 30 years. Some of us have these binoculars since the 1990s and early 2000s without a hitch and still going strong.
Paul
I have never owned Swarovski but based on my experience with Leica: binoculars (Trinovids 10x42 new production), spotting scope (Televid 82 manufactured in 2010), surveying total station (TC1800 manufactured in 1995) and surveying theodolite (Wild T2 manufactured in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s); I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Leica equipment having never experienced a problem or malfunction of any kind.
It is partly how careful and sympathetic the user is.
Some people are hard on their equipment, some treat optics well.
I took delivery of a Bentley and it had been destroyed by a well known user, who shouldn't have been allowed a driving licence.
The car was a death trap.
The brakes destroyed and generally the car had been badly mistreated.
The owner then proceeded to destroy the new Bentley.
I was offered a senior management job with him, I politely refused.
B.
Some people are hard on their equipment, some treat optics well.
I took delivery of a Bentley and it had been destroyed by a well known user, who shouldn't have been allowed a driving licence.
The car was a death trap.
The brakes destroyed and generally the car had been badly mistreated.
The owner then proceeded to destroy the new Bentley.
I was offered a senior management job with him, I politely refused.
B.
You don't have to do too much searching to find problems posted with Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski - there will always be the odd pair that develops a fault. Generally the service and warranty with the big three are good though. I really don't think you'll find enough of a difference between them for it to be such a significant difference that it should be considered more than how the binocular looks to your eyes and how it feels in your hands.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
And you’re not gonna drop her name😆
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I for one would really be interested to know the number of repairs or defects per hundred or thousand the big three have to deal with.
Paul
I think the chances of the manufacturers publishing that are beyond slim. Even if they did provide figures sorting out what was a repair due to a manufacturing defect, what was a repair from accident/misuse, what was a general service after year's of heavy usage etc. would be nigh on impossible.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I know, I know, I was thinking that as I wrote my post. It would be nice in someway to know how many binoculars come in and go out in general, maybe even broken down within a cost range. Most likely cheaper binoculars would have a higher ratio of being repaired or replaced.
But like you said there is so many variables and parameters as to why the binoculars go back in. I don’t want to do what if‘s too much, but it’s possible that if one manufacture has a larger demographic of hunters then those binoculars might get more abuse than a nature observer. That’s if we can determine if a hunter or a nature lover has a preference of brand.
not too long ago I had a conversation with an Optics dealer , telling him how I baby my Optics, he had said to me that Swarovski Binoculars were built for tough work and that’s one of the reasons Swarovski has such a good warranty and service. He was kind of relaying use them hard and if they don’t hold up Swarovski will take care of it. I thought that was interesting 🤔
Paul
tenex
reality-based
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.
Close focus capability is one of those little perks I seldom use, but always appreciate when being able to look at things of interest without having to lay on the ground or step into muskeg.
