• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (1 Viewer)

It rather looks like your bins are suffering from a phenomenon well known to collectors of G-Shock watches, which they refer to as "resin-rot". The exterior protective armour and the wrist straps of most G-Shock watches is also made out of PU rubber, and over the years it also breaks down - becoming waxy and brittle, and in severe cases, just crumbles off the watch. This generally happens after a number of years (depending on use and exposure to light, heat, skin oils and acids, etc.) - but it can be quite variable. For vintage G-Shock collectors this can be a real issue, as replacement resin bezels and straps are often no longer made, and new old stock spares may be on their way to breaking down.

Hopefully, your's is an isolated example and Swarovski will be able to replace your armour at no cost to you, and they will maintain supplies of replacement armour for very many years to come (I hope so - I also have a pair of EL-FPs). I don't think dealing with this issue would be unique to Swarovski - I think Leica, Zeiss and very many other manufacturers use PU rubbers in their armour. They must all face similar environments and contaminants - and be required to be reasonably durable.
 
Just received this from Swarovski.

'We will repair your product free of charge. We will start the repair work shortly and let you know as soon as your product has been repaired and shipped to you.'
 
PU plastic will crack from sun exposure over time. This happens with handbags using PU.
I have a small Cole Haan bag with leather exterior, but PU (fake leather) interior. The care card instructs
not to expose to direct sunlight. They're talking about the PU no doubt. The cheaper all PU exterior bags you
find at Kohls crack after a while. PU is cheap and is supposedly biodegradable compared to other rubbers/plastics.
I doubt previous Swaro model bins used PU and doubt Leica , Zeiss and others used PU. If so the cracking would be seen a lot more and would be a common experience. Seems Swaro was forced to switch to PU plastics with their newer models.
 
I doubt previous Swaro model bins used PU and doubt Leica , Zeiss and others used PU. If so the cracking would be seen a lot more and would be a common experience. Seems Swaro was forced to switch to PU plastics with their newer models.

I remember in the promotional brochures for the Leica Trinovid BA (or maybe BN) they mentioned that the armour was made from polyurethane (PU) rubber. That must've been some time in the early 1990s, I think. Much, I suspect, depends on the other compounds (platicizers, stabilizers etc.) that are put into the mix - one kind of PU rubber can have very different properties from another, even if they look similar.
 
I remember in the promotional brochures for the Leica Trinovid BA (or maybe BN) they mentioned that the armour was made from polyurethane (PU) rubber. That must've been some time in the early 1990s, I think. Much, I suspect, depends on the other compounds (platicizers, stabilizers etc.) that are put into the mix - one kind of PU rubber can have very different properties from another, even if they look similar.

That's interesting and a little surprising. Bags made with PU don't seem to have a strong rubber smell like new bins. Maybe that's the other stuff mixed in ... just a guess on that.
 
Let's hope the new armouring lasts a tad longer than the previous, wonder of they will respray / recoat the metal parts where it wore away. Swaro' continue to portray the highest after sales customer service. Look forward to some images of the repair before you "gently" take them out into the field.
 
I remember in the promotional brochures for the Leica Trinovid BA (or maybe BN) they mentioned that the armour was made from polyurethane (PU) rubber. That must've been some time in the early 1990s, I think. Much, I suspect, depends on the other compounds (platicizers, stabilizers etc.) that are put into the mix - one kind of PU rubber can have very different properties from another, even if they look similar.

Just looked in the Ultravid booklet and it only states "rubber armored ".

btw , PU is plastic and not rubber. I always thought most armor on bins that smell like rubber are just that. So I'm wondering if the Ultravid is rubber (no PU). I m thinking so since the booklet states rubber and not plastic.

If anyone has a recent Swaro field pro let us know if it had the typical strong new rubber smell or not. If not then it should be all PU plastic and makes sense it cracked from direct sun exposure over time on the car seat.

I may ask Leica to clarify about the armor. I'll post here their reply.
 
Last edited:
Attributed by whom? If a camera covering hasn't been tested against the effects of being touched by hand, it's a pretty crap camera covering and a pretty crap manufacturer.

FWIW there are reports among Nikon camera users of rubber bodied cameras 'sweating' making them unpleasant to handle. From memory this was more due to poor or prolonged storage than use, Google will tell.

I recall reading an article some years ago about getting a Swarovski binocular totally refurbished. It was written by a woman who published a popular Birding magazine. Bob

Just received this from Swarovski. "We will repair your product free of charge. We will start the repair work shortly and let you know as soon as your product has been repaired and shipped to you."

Swaro' continue to portray the highest after sales customer service.

And not only the multi-billion euro Swarovski juggernaut.

The first class Leupold warranty has to be worth a mention. I've posted this before and there's no harm in repeating it here : about five years ago I dropped a line to Leupold asking if they could date the year of manufacture from the serial number of a binocular unit.

Their reply was, and I quote “My screen is not showing a year of manufacture, but it is coming up as an authentic Leupold bino. Return it to us asking for it to be returned as close as possible to "factory condition". We'll do so and ship them back to you on our dime”.

That for a long discontinued entry level line. Their warranty is still the same.

Regards, Steve
 
Just looked in the Ultravid booklet and it only states "rubber armored ".

btw , PU is plastic and not rubber. I always thought most armor on bins that smell like rubber are just that. So I'm wondering if the Ultravid is rubber (no PU). I m thinking so since the booklet states rubber and not plastic.

If anyone has a recent Swaro field pro let us know if it had the typical strong new rubber smell or not. If not then it should be all PU plastic and makes sense it cracked from direct sun exposure over time on the car seat.

I may ask Leica to clarify about the armor. I'll post here their reply.

Leica US responded and said the armor on the Ultravid is not rubber and is completely synthetic of unknown material. I guess Leica Germany knows the exact material. It certainly could be PU (polyurethane).
 
Just looked in the Ultravid booklet and it only states "rubber armored ".

btw , PU is plastic and not rubber. I always thought most armor on bins that smell like rubber are just that. So I'm wondering if the Ultravid is rubber (no PU). I m thinking so since the booklet states rubber and not plastic.

I wouldn't get too hung up over the rubber/plastic differentiation. True, PU is distinct from natural rubber, which is produced from latex - chiefly sourced from the sap of the Hevea brasiliensis tree. Natural rubber can be chemically treated in many ways to produce a range of rubber materials from something as soft and stretchy as latex gloves, to very hard materials which can be machined and engraved (hard rubber was frequently used for fountain pen barrels and caps (and even wind instruments) in the 1920s and 30s - it was known as ebonite). Car tyres are an example of a material somewhere in between.

Similarly, polyurethane resins can be formulated to give materials of a similar range of hardnesses - from something soft and squishy to something with the hardness of wood. Many of the more resilient forms of PU resin are referred to in industry as PU rubber - because of their (natural) rubber-like properties. This link will illustrate: https://www.mbfg.co.uk/polyurethane-rubbers.html

There are a whole range of synthetic "rubbers" out there available to industry - silicone, nitrile, neoprene, butyl, Viton... Take your pick: http://www.industrialrubbergoods.com/types-of-synthetic-rubber.html

Each kind of material has its advantages and weaknesses - and a good industrial designer will select the best material (be it of natural or petroleum origin) to suit the task in hand.
 
Last edited:
Leica US responded and said the armor on the Ultravid is not rubber and is completely synthetic of unknown material. I guess Leica Germany knows the exact material. It certainly could be PU (polyurethane).

Leica Germany via Leica UK have said that the armour is a hybrid material of NBR (which means nitrile rubber) and PVC, so this means a rubber/plastic hybrid.

Should we call it 'rubstic' or 'plubber'? No wonder Leica USA didn't know what to call it.

Presumably this achieves the grippy and flexible surface of rubber but the better wearing properties of plastic.

Lee
 
If anyone has a recent Swaro field pro let us know if it had the typical strong new rubber smell or not. If not then it should be all PU plastic and makes sense it cracked from direct sun exposure over time on the car seat.

Hello Gilmore Girl,

I have a very new 10x50 EL Field Pro and I don't remember its having the (to me) nice rubber smell of the UV models. Going to check now... Of course Lee has pretty much now answered your question.

... OK, have just done a comparative sniff test: the EL FP has a new smell but I can't tell what it is; to me it's just new. The 8x32 UVHD Plus, getting on for a year old has a different smell which is slightly rubber but also just a sort of very good quality smell. You can tell I like Leica!

So that's not much help to you at all. But they are both too new to suffer from much sun exposure yet, and sun exposure even in these climate changing days is not such a problem in Great Britain!

By the way, I was sorry to hear you had to stop using your 7x42 UVHD and hope that you have a set up that gives you as much pleasure for your nature observation.

Best wishes,

Tom
 
Last edited:
Hello Gilmore Girl,

I have a very new 10x50 EL Field Pro and I don't remember its having the (to me) nice rubber smell of the UV models. Going to check now... Of course Lee has pretty much now answered your question.

... OK, have just done a comparative sniff test: the EL FP has a new smell but I can't tell what it is; to me it's just new. The 8x32 UVHD Plus, getting on for a year old has a different smell which is slightly rubber but also just a sort of very good quality smell. You can tell I like Leica!

So that's not much help to you at all. But they are both too new to suffer from much sun exposure yet, and sun exposure even in these climate changing days is not such a problem in Great Britain!

By the way, I was sorry to hear you had to stop using your 7x42 UVHD and hope that you have a set up that gives you as much pleasure for your nature observation.

Best wishes,

Tom

Thanks for doing the sniff test Tom o:) The Ultravid 7x42 still has a slight rubber smell to it. The handbag I mentioned with PU (polyurethane) lining has a smell, but it's not a rubber smell and not as strong.

I guess if I ever get a bino with PU armor I'll make sure not to leave it sit soaking up the sun for long.

Out of my small list of replacement binos I'm going to try the Ultravid HD+ 8x32 first to see if it will work with my newer super thin eyeglass frames.
If that doesn't work I have a few other models I want to try. I do hope the little Ultravid works. It will be nice to replace the 7x42 with a smaller, lighter weight Ultravid.
 
The 'rubberiest' smelling binoculars I have owned was a pair of Minox HG 8x43. I sold them recently as I hadn't used them for some time and when I opened the box, even after nine years, the smell was strongly reminiscent of that encountered when entering a bicycle shop in my youth.

Ron
 
I bought an Ultravid 10x42 circa 2006 and always kept it in the car under the front seat, 24/7/365. It never saw much sunshine and certainly no moisture, but after 9 years when I finally sold it, the skin had a lot of deterioration. The lenses and mechanics were fine.
 
I bought an Ultravid 10x42 circa 2006 and always kept it in the car under the front seat, 24/7/365. It never saw much sunshine and certainly no moisture, but after 9 years when I finally sold it, the skin had a lot of deterioration. The lenses and mechanics were fine.

But Dale, did your dog chew it?

Lee
Just joshing........
 
The 'rubberiest' smelling binoculars I have owned was a pair of Minox HG 8x43...
The only "rubbery" smell I've encountered that's actually unpleasant is on the strap of my BogPod bino-tripod adapter. I wonder whether it's natural or synthetic? It does stretch and grip very well, properties not needed in bino armor. Fortunately I don't need to use it that often.
 
I remember in the promotional brochures for the Leica Trinovid BA (or maybe BN) they mentioned that the armour was made from polyurethane (PU) rubber. That must've been some time in the early 1990s, I think. Much, I suspect, depends on the other compounds (platicizers, stabilizers etc.) that are put into the mix - one kind of PU rubber can have very different properties from another, even if they look similar.

The BA/BNs indeed had polyurethane armor that as far as I could tell was indestructible. It didn't smell and mine never reacted with painted surfaces or vinyl, etc. The PU was a translucent amber/brown and the color of the bin (green, black, etc) was derived from a thin surface coat. This wore through with heavy use exposing the, once again, seemingly indestructible substrate.

Acidic sweat, deet, sunscreen, hand lotion, UV are all part of what a field bin can expect. Since we hear so little of this kind of account, it seems rather apparent (to me anyway) that Swaro misstepped with this particular covering.
 
I used to work in an industry that used different rubbers as a major product component and compatibility of different oils with different rubbers was a major issue. Some oils make some rubbers shrink because the oil draws a component out of the rubber, while some other oils can make rubbers swell because a component in the oil invades the rubber chemically. In either case the rubber not only changed its size and shape but also its physical characteristics making it useless at performing its function.

As a result, I always wash my hands of any kind of oily substance before handling binos. Its worth noting that Swaro has called the EL's armour 'plastic' which may have other strengths and weaknesses compared with rubbers.

Lee


I try to keep my hands clean before handling most anything I'm fond of.
Bins, scopes, musical instruments, nose picking 8-P...
I think it's paid off.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top