Swarovski Focusers: facts at last. (6 Viewers)

[brocknroller]

ON AVERAGE, 83% OF ALL STATISTICS ARE MADE UP!!! :h?:


Chosun :gh:

Welcome back! Hope you had a nice walk about and didn't suffer any serious crocodile bites along the way.

After reading Lee's post, I will need to amend your figure to 83.05% made up. :smoke:

Brock

 

[Hermann]

... but I am equally sure all the alphas could do better in the is respect if they tried a bit harder.

They'd undoubtedly do a lot better if they didn't build binoculars with fast focusers AND very short focusing distances.

Hermann

 

[Pileatus]

Would you accept it when you buy a brand new a Rolls Royce, and you find out the doors are squeeking and the steering wheel feels notchy, has play and is hard to drive in a straight line?

If you could feel the focuser of my little SV, I'm sure you would send it back in a heartbeat as well, and you wouldn't pretend if bad Swarovski focusers are non existent like you do now.
And when you would have experienced the same as what I have with Swaro service, I don't think you would make fun of it anymore as well.

We can just call it luck for you, or bad luck for me, but although I only own Swarovski binos and like them very, VERY much, if I have to name one weak(er) point, it surely would be the focuser. The focuser of my 50 is fine though, but it has a little bit of mechanical play in the focus knob. Fortunately there is no slack in the focus mechanism itself, so I'll take that for granted. The feel of this focuser (if it didn't have play) could be a perfect example for how a perfect focuser should feel. That's why I can't understand the sample variation is so big for a Alpha manufacturer. Some are almost perfect, some are totally $hit. I think I am the perfect example here.

Long story short, after forking out so much money for a bino, it's for each to his/her own to decide if the feel of the focuser is on the same level as the price.

Kind regards,

Gijs

I have never stated there aren't focus mechanisms that make people unhappy. My Leica Ultravid was very problematic yet I happily used it for many years. Our three SV's are all different and all perfectly functional. My wife's 8X32 SV is the stiffest of the three and she loves the fact that it stays exactly where she puts it. It might bother me but it's not mine to use so it doesn't.

In conclusion, I do not proclaim there aren't problems that make people unhappy. I think the issue is blown completely out of context, especially when I see so many dysfunctional binoculars in the hands of so many birders that are so much better than myself.

I purchased an original 8.5X42 EL and returned it because I didn't like it.
I ordered an 8.5X42 SV and returned it because the diopter immediately failed. Replacement has been perfect.
Ordered an 8X32 SV for my wife. Sent it in for cleaning after a few months to remove a faint spot somewhere inside that could only be seen against a blue sky. Her focus is rather stiff but she loves it that way. I guess she should read BF.
Purchased a 10X50 SV that is perfect for me, though I'm certain many would find something to criticize. The focus is not perfect but I can fine focus pinpoint stars with the greatest of ease...in both directions!

Happy Birding. :cat:

 

[justabirdwatcher]

All I know is that the one pair of Swaro SLC's I own would be traded for a replacement pair in a heartbeat if I thought I could get a smoother focus wheel.

 

[brocknroller]

I don't recall ever reading any complaints about the focuser on the late, lamented 8x30 SLC (other than the fact that one had to use one's ring finger to focus it) which focused by moving its two 30mm objective lenses and Swarovski made this binocular for about 30 years.

It focuses smoothly and precisely and even my wife has no trouble turning it with her ring finger.

It is clear to me that Swarovski can make smooth focusers and if the ones on other models are a bit "ratchety," like the one on my 7x42 SLC B is, it is probably because Swarovski has a reason for it.

Bob

We heard this story about your wife before. I think the weight from that big ROCK on her engagement ring helps offset the two different direction stiction levels. (I think we heard this joke before, too)

If you haven't read any complaints about the 8x30 SLC's focuser lately, it's probably because that model was discontinued five years ago! People who have had complaints with it already made them. Now we have Lee unable to keep up with moderately fast birds with the 8x30 CL, the 8x30 SLC's successor, because of its stiff focuser. New bins, new issues.

But FTR, Steve's (mooreorless) 8x30 SLCneu has a focuser that turns harder in one direction than the other. He uses it for hunting and "has no problem with it," I used it for birding and found it tedious to use (using my ring finger to focus certainly compounded the problem).

I think it should be clear by now that Swaro focusers vary from sample to sample. We know this from some members who have tried them by the batch and found variations from sample to sample

Then there were some who found a suitcase full all wonky, another found a suitcase full that all worked fine.

At least some of the above "variation" has to due with the person using the bins, some have higher tolerances for wonkiness than others.

A further difference is that some of those samples with stiff/harder to turn in one direction/squeaky focusers eventually got better and some didn't!

Further still, some that were sent to Swaro for repairs were returned turning smoothly, some were improved but still not smooth, and a few were returned just as they were sent!

Seems that there's just about every variation possible with Swaro focusers, hence, all the hubbub and cornfusion.

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing your theory about why Swaro would purposely produce a rachety focuser? Or don't you know, but have faith that they must have a reason?

Personally, I can't imagine any reason why a company, particularly a company that charges anywhere from $900 to $2,600 for its binoculars, to purposely make rachetly focusers, so I'm very interested in reading your explanation of the inexplicable.

Brock

 

[Uhu74]

I have never stated there aren't focus mechanisms that make people unhappy. My Leica Ultravid was very problematic yet I happily used it for many years. Our three SV's are all different and all perfectly functional. My wife's 8X32 SV is the stiffest of the three and she loves the fact that it stays exactly where she puts it. It might bother me but it's not mine to use so it doesn't.

In conclusion, I do not proclaim there aren't problems that make people unhappy. I think the issue is blown completely out of context, especially when I see so many dysfunctional binoculars in the hands of so many birders that are so much better than myself.

I purchased an original 8.5X42 EL and returned it because I didn't like it.
I ordered an 8.5X42 SV and returned it because the diopter immediately failed. Replacement has been perfect.
Ordered an 8X32 SV for my wife. Sent it in for cleaning after a few months to remove a faint spot somewhere inside that could only be seen against a blue sky. Her focus is rather stiff but she loves it that way. I guess she should read BF.
Purchased a 10X50 SV that is perfect for me, though I'm certain many would find something to criticize. The focus is not perfect but I can fine focus pinpoint stars with the greatest of ease...in both directions!

Happy Birding. :cat:

Well, I wouldn't consider myself a birder, but I like to look at birds every now and then
I don't know if it is blown out of proportion, there seem to be a lot of folks who don't like or are having issues with Swaro focusers. In general, if I could change only one thing in Swaro binos, without hesitation, it would be the focuser.
I think it's a bad thing for an Alpha manufacturer that there is such a big sample variation in the same model binos.
My SV32 felt like winding a watch in anti-clockwise direction, clockwise it was so light it almost turned by itself. My 50 is even in both directions and very smooth.
Only complaint is that the focus knob itself has a bit of slop. Well, I guess for 2400€ one can't have it all:smoke:

Could be that your standards or expectations are lower than mine, but for top money, I expect a top performing bino as well. I also think I have the full right to do so. When I hear the words "ratchy focuser" I instantly get the itch and a rash.
Well, I guess everybody's different

No happy birding possible for me with the current feeling of my 32's steering wheel8-P

I'll stop right here, my story has been told, the rest is irrelevant and doesn't add anything to this thread.

 

[Inquisitor]

The post by Tynedale is quite similar to my own findings.

I am working up to buying a HT or SLC soonish. I have tried a few different samples of each ( sadly so far only in stores/settings where I can't really test them much other than a first reaction of the feel and ergonomics). I have seen a HT that was simply too darn tight and a couple that were very satisfying. Every? (about 4 I think) SLC has had a focuser that was gritty and cheap feeling to me. None were sticky or seemed harder in one direction than the other. In fact, all had a light touch to them that I appreciated pressure wise. It is just that they all had an odd vibration/gritty feeling to the focusers that I did not like. Sure there are weight savings but I am old school enough that I want something that feels and functions like a well timed and oiled revolver.

In short, everytime I am at one of these big chain outdoor stores and handle a SLC, I will compare it to a Razor or Conquest, or even a Viper or Monarch 7 and I will almost always prefer the focuser on the "cheaper" bin. I am starting to expect to be dissapointed by the SLC focuser when I go out on bino gazing/trying trips. There is no way around it, it simply doesn't feel like a $1700 professional tool or luxury item in that particular area. That overly plastic, hollow gritty feeling catches me off guard everytime.

Naturally, I realize that I don't have experience with a broken-in SLC of recent make and that there are a hundred other points to consider in making a final choice.

I am not a fan boy/ basher...if I were I would not be having such a terrible debate with myself over which is better for me. My experience level is probably a joke compared to you guys but as a consumer with an opinion and money that is accepted at stores I honestly feel that even if the SLC focusers are "in spec" and thus a problem can be denied, that there is still room for improvement.

 

[brocknroller]

Lee wrote: I am sorry to hear about your problems and would not dream of making fun of them. I have had focuser problems myself (it is the one thing about binoculars that I am obsessive about) and for me it spoils using the binoculars that are affected. Indeed I had an EL myself many years ago that started life with an excellent focuser but within a few months it developed free play and a horrible roughness. I sent it to Absam and it came back much improved but not as good as it had been or should have been.

Believe me, nobody is saying Swaro does not produce some binoculars with bad focusers, but the conclusion I have reached is that they produce about the same number as the other two alphas and that it really is not many units. Of course you can say that the alphas should not produce any at all, and I think we would all agree with this.

I wouldn't totally agree, ideally, yes, for the price point, every unit should go through a full battery of QC checks so that nobody receives a bad unit, be that the focuser or speck in the objective or a floppy eyecups, etc. But even Honda, which this year retained its status as the most reliable used car manufacturer in the UK for the ninth consecutive year, has an occasional lemon. As somebody titled their recent thread: Nobody's perfect.

Your own example above showed that your Swaro focuser issue began months after you bought it, much too late to return it to the dealer! So that wouldn't even made the sales manager's 0.05%!

It's not about being perfect, it's about being consistently good, and Honda cars are consistently good. I owned a Civic for 14 years, so I'm not talking out of school.

You may choose to ignore the many reports of wonky Swaro focusers, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many more of them than there are for focusers made by the remaining Big Three, and if you had done what I suggested, and re-do the research that I had started but lost when my computer fatally crashed, and searched for those reports, I think you might have come to a different conclusion.

As it is, I think your conclusion is made on a priori assumptions that have no real life evidence to support it, so instead you relied on sales manager to tell you what you wanted to hear.

I came to the conclusion that there are many more wonky Swaro focusers than Zeiss, Nikon, and Leica (of course, Leica is a special case, due to their greasless design), not from salesman's figures, but rather from BF members' posts (salespeople are rated among the most untrustworthy professionals in the U.S., elected officials and salespeople dominate the bottom half of most such lists).

Who are we to believe, owners or testers of binoculars (except obvious trolls) or a sales manager? Assuming BF members are representative of those who participated in the trustworthiness polls, I'd have to conclude they would be more likely to trust their fellow BF members rather even a dozen sales managers.

As a Zeiss fanboy, I'm frankly mystified by your recent campaign to dismiss Sawro focuser problems as being no more frequent than other top brands, and aghast that you would try to persuade me to join you via your email correspondence in proving this by asking me to contact store owners and poll them about returns for Swaro focusers especially since it was obvious that you already had made your conclusion.

Besides, there are six Swaro owners on this forum who have dedicated their lives to dismissing reports of wonky focusers (or any other problems with Swaro bins, for that matter), so you are doing unnecessary work!

The only way you're going to get the kind of evidence you desire to make an "objective" conclusion is by contacting the repair depts of the Big Four and asking them to tabulate the number of alphas returned for wonky focusers, and what percentage that represents of their total repairs, and then comparing those figures among the companies.

Provided that they would give you straight answers (and I can't imagine that they would be allowed to, as you, yourself have said, if you knew something proprietary or on the flip side, damaging, about your product, would you make it public - remember that remark? You said you wouldn't).

So even you don't believe you could get the evidence you need to meet your standards for evidence, but despite that you came to the conclusion that all the alphas have about the same number of problems with their focusers as Swaro.

As my dear departed Mr. Nimoy used to say: It is not logical.

Brock

 

[ceasar]

We heard this story about your wife before. I think the weight from that big ROCK on her engagement ring helps offset the two different direction stiction levels. (I think we heard this joke before, too)

If you haven't read any complaints about the 8x30 SLC's focuser lately, it's probably because that model was discontinued five years ago! People who have had complaints with it already made them. Now we have Lee unable to keep up with moderately fast birds with the 8x30 CL, the 8x30 SLC's successor, because of its stiff focuser. New bins, new issues.

But FTR, Steve's (mooreorless) 8x30 SLCneu has a focuser that turns harder in one direction than the other. He uses it for hunting and "has no problem with it," I used it for birding and found it tedious to use (using my ring finger to focus certainly compounded the problem).

I think it should be clear by now that Swaro focusers vary from sample to sample. We know this from some members who have tried them by the batch and found variations from sample to sample

Then there were some who found a suitcase full all wonky, another found a suitcase full that all worked fine.

At least some of the above "variation" has to due with the person using the bins, some have higher tolerances for wonkiness than others.

A further difference is that some of those samples with stiff/harder to turn in one direction/squeaky focusers eventually got better and some didn't!

Further still, some that were sent to Swaro for repairs were returned turning smoothly, some were improved but still not smooth, and a few were returned just as they were sent!

Seems that there's just about every variation possible with Swaro focusers, hence, all the hubbub and cornfusion.

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing your theory about why Swaro would purposely produce a rachety focuser? Or don't you know, but have faith that they must have a reason?

Personally, I can't imagine any reason why a company, particularly a company that charges anywhere from $900 to $2,600 for its binoculars, to purposely make rachetly focusers, so I'm very interested in reading your explanation of the inexplicable.

Brock

Mine is "ratchety" in the manner that the focusers are on my Leica 7x42 Trinovid and 8x42 Ultravid. The Swarovski's even moves easier in one direction than in the other but that is not an important issue either.

How is that for a precise, concise answer to your prolix post?

Bob

 

[Pileatus]

Lee wrote: I am sorry to hear about your problems and would not dream of making fun of them. I have had focuser problems myself (it is the one thing about binoculars that I am obsessive about) and for me it spoils using the binoculars that are affected. Indeed I had an EL myself many years ago that started life with an excellent focuser but within a few months it developed free play and a horrible roughness. I sent it to Absam and it came back much improved but not as good as it had been or should have been.

Believe me, nobody is saying Swaro does not produce some binoculars with bad focusers, but the conclusion I have reached is that they produce about the same number as the other two alphas and that it really is not many units. Of course you can say that the alphas should not produce any at all, and I think we would all agree with this.

I wouldn't totally agree, ideally, yes, for the price point, every unit should go through a full battery of QC checks so that nobody receives a bad unit, be that the focuser or speck in the objective or a floppy eyecups, etc. But even Honda, which this year retained its status as the most reliable used car manufacturer in the UK for the ninth consecutive year, has an occasional lemon. As somebody titled their recent thread: Nobody's perfect.

Your own example above showed that your Swaro focuser issue began months after you bought it, much too late to return it to the dealer! So that wouldn't even made the sales manager's 0.05%!

It's not about being perfect, it's about being consistently good, and Honda cars are consistently good. I owned a Civic for 14 years, so I'm not talking out of school.

You may choose to ignore the many reports of wonky Swaro focusers, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many more of them than there are for focusers made by the remaining Big Three, and if you had done what I suggested, and re-do the research that I had started but lost when my computer fatally crashed, and searched for those reports, I think you might have come to a different conclusion.

As it is, I think your conclusion is made on a priori assumptions that have no real life evidence to support it, so instead you relied on sales manager to tell you what you wanted to hear.

I came to the conclusion that there are many more wonky Swaro focusers than Zeiss, Nikon, and Leica (of course, Leica is a special case, due to their greasless design), not from salesman's figures, but rather from BF members' posts (salespeople are rated among the most untrustworthy professionals in the U.S., elected officials and salespeople dominate the bottom half of most such lists).

Who are we to believe, owners or testers of binoculars (except obvious trolls) or a sales manager? Assuming BF members are representative of those who participated in the trustworthiness polls, I'd have to conclude they would be more likely to trust their fellow BF members rather even a dozen sales managers.

As a Zeiss fanboy, I'm frankly mystified by your recent campaign to dismiss Sawro focuser problems as being no more frequent than other top brands, and aghast that you would try to persuade me to join you via your email correspondence in proving this by asking me to contact store owners and poll them about returns for Swaro focusers especially since it was obvious that you already had made your conclusion.

Besides, there are six Swaro owners on this forum who have dedicated their lives to dismissing reports of wonky focusers (or any other problems with Swaro bins, for that matter), so you are doing unnecessary work!

The only way you're going to get the kind of evidence you desire to make an "objective" conclusion is by contacting the repair depts of the Big Four and asking them to tabulate the number of alphas returned for wonky focusers, and what percentage that represents of their total repairs, and then comparing those figures among the companies.

Provided that they would give you straight answers (and I can't imagine that they would be allowed to, as you, yourself have said, if you knew something proprietary or on the flip side, damaging, about your product, would you make it public - remember that remark? You said you wouldn't).

So even you don't believe you could get the evidence you need to meet your standards for evidence, but despite that you came to the conclusion that all the alphas have about the same number of problems with their focusers as Swaro.

As my dear departed Mr. Nimoy used to say: It is not logical.

Brock

By golly Swarovski sells so many more than all others combined of course you'll hear more complaints. Trust me, you haven't dented their sales at all with your endless nonsensical diatribe. You need to focus on something you'll understand, like the luminocular.
http://www.amazon.com/Safari-Ltd-653716-Camouflage-Luminocular/dp/B000OU7QNA

Go Birding.:t:

 

[PeterPS]

I think it's also a matter of too high expectations: when you pay that kind of money you want a "perfect" focuser, but there is no such a thing. Speaking from personal experience: I have returned 3 SVs on grounds of imperfect focusers; however all three had focusers that were quite acceptable and usable, but very small "imperfections" (such as the infamous different tensions in CW and CCW directions) were enough to make me return them. Btw, Swaro people claimed in an email to me that the said different tensions are a design feature and I tend to believe them: when you try and focus CW on a far object more often than not you overshoot the optimal focus; then to avoid oscillations around the perfect focus point there is more resistance in the CCW direction ; but this is just my speculation.

 

[elkcub]

I think it's also a matter of too high expectations: when you pay that kind of money you want a "perfect" focuser, but there is no such a thing. Speaking from personal experience: I have returned 3 SVs on grounds of imperfect focusers; however all three had focusers that were quite acceptable and usable, but very small "imperfections" (such as the infamous different tensions in CW and CCW directions) were enough to make me return them. Btw, Swaro people claimed in an email to me that the said different tensions are a design feature and I tend to believe them: when you try and focus CW on a far object more often than not you overshoot the optimal focus; then to avoid oscillations around the perfect focus point there is more resistance in the CCW direction ; but this is just my speculation.

That could be. But keep in mind that CW requires a push action for the left index finger and a pull action for the right index finger. The opposite relationship holds in the CCW direction. Push and pull finger strengths are different, hand strengths are different, and single, alternate, or combined finger movements can be used. All and all, it's a very complicated thing to evaluate, particularly when it may also involve relearning old techniques used with previous binoculars.

Ed

 

[justabirdwatcher]

hen you pay that kind of money you want a "perfect" focuser, but there is no such a thing.

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. The focuser on my Brunton Epochs could have been described as "perfect." The focuser on my Sightron's is pretty darn close to perfect. Either are much better than the far more expensive Swaro.

 

[Pileatus]

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. The focuser on my Brunton Epochs could have been described as "perfect." The focuser on my Sightron's is pretty darn close to perfect. Either are much better than the far more expensive Swaro.

My two SV's are perfect and my wife thinks her Swarovski is perfect. :t::t::t:

 

[brocknroller]

I think it's also a matter of too high expectations: when you pay that kind of money you want a "perfect" focuser, but there is no such a thing. Speaking from personal experience: I have returned 3 SVs on grounds of imperfect focusers; however all three had focusers that were quite acceptable and usable, but very small "imperfections" (such as the infamous different tensions in CW and CCW directions) were enough to make me return them. Btw, Swaro people claimed in an email to me that the said different tensions are a design feature and I tend to believe them: when you try and focus CW on a far object more often than not you overshoot the optimal focus; then to avoid oscillations around the perfect focus point there is more resistance in the CCW direction ; but this is just my speculation.

I thought that's what Bob was going to say above, but I didn't remember what the purpose was until you mentioned it. That "design feature" might work fine for hunting, but most birding takes place at medium to close range and since birds don't tend to stay in one place very long, a focuser that turns smoothly in both directions is the better for birding than one that has different levels of tension CW and CCW.

I think this comes back to my original supposition, namely, that Swaro's main customers are hunters (~2/3), and this "design feature" works fine for them. What Swaro has not dealt with, however, is that over the past 10 years or so, more and more birders are buying Swaros (mainly ELs), and that it might be time to rethink that design feature and to reinvent the (focuser) wheel to make it more suitable for birding.

Brock

 

[Maljunulo]

That could be. But keep in mind that CW requires a push action for the left index finger and a pull action for the right index finger. The opposite relationship holds in the CCW direction. Push and pull finger strengths are different, hand strengths are different, and single, alternate, or combined finger movements can be used. All and all, it's a very complicated thing to evaluate, particularly when it may also involve relearning old techniques used with previous binoculars.

Ed

Can we solve that "problem" by putting both index fingers on the focus wheel, so that we may either push or pull, as we wish?

Works for me.

 

[Steve C]

I have no focus direction preference. What I do is make note mentally of the binocular I'm using, as push to focus close or pull to focus close, and the direction never bothers me.

I also use Maljunlo's technique a lot too.

Just relax and use the glass, it works itself out shortly.

I prefer CCW, but as I said, I have, use, and enjoy both.

 

[perterra]

I have no focus direction preference. What I do is make note mentally of the binocular I'm using, as push to focus close or pull to focus close, and the direction never bothers me.

I also use Maljunlo's technique a lot too.

Just relax and use the glass, it works itself out shortly.

I prefer CCW, but as I said, I have, use, and enjoy both.

I dont know, I heard Arnold Swartzengruber cant even focus them without grunting loudly.

 

[SuperDuty]

I use a set of the curved jaw vice grips to operate my SV focus knob. The extra leverage helps overcome the ratchety , stiff rotation.:t:

 

[perterra]

I use a set of the curved jaw vice grips to operate my SV focus knob. The extra leverage helps overcome the ratchety , stiff rotation.:t:

I'm thinking you are on to something. Might be something to get a patent on.