Endurance test of binoculars (1 Viewer)

Both Leicas were delivered by Hubertus Pro Hunting shop which is official dealer of Leica Sport Optics in Poland. As I know both Leica binoculars came directly from the Leica headquarters and were returned there after the test. Who was doing this sabotage? Leica itself or the official dealer?

All binos in the fall test were dropped on the extended eyecups.

We did not include Kite, Vortex or Meopta (and many others) binoculars in our test because their dealers did not want to participate. Ask them why. Announcement concerning the test was published both at Allbinos and Optyczne.pl and was sent to as many companies as possible. Anybody could
participate with as many 8x42 binos he/she wanted.

Leica states that their binoculars work in -25 - +60 deg C temperature range and are waterproof up to 5 m. From this point of view the test was not brutal. Cheaper binoculars survived such a treatment without any problems.

steve@37n84w said:

I'm also surprised that they didn't include any of the excellent Vortex roofs in their endurance test.

Click to expand...

At the very bottom of the Introduction:
"All Polish binoculars distributors were informed almost two months in advance about the test which was supposed to last about a year. The information in English also appeared on our Allbinos.com site. We let the producers and the distributors choose what models and how many of them they would like to send to be examined and tested. We warned them that the binoculars after the test might be broken because we weren’t going to spare them anything.

The following companies decided to take part in our test:
(here is the list of companies)
We congratulate all of them – you showed courage and you proved you trust your own products. Unfortunately distributors of such companies as: Celestron, Eschenbach, Fomei, Kahles, Meopta, Minox, Vanguard or Vortex didn’t agree to take part in our test. I am sure our Readers can assess that fact properly on their own."

Any person who drops his binoculars and have them land on their extended eyecups on a hard surface without damage resulting should run, not walk, to the nearest lottery dealer and buy a lottery ticket!:eek!:

Bob

Additionally, take into account that all the binoculars taking part in the test had to be delivered to Allbinos in July 2011. Regular testing started in August 2011. This is reason why we tested Zen ED2 and not ED3 which was not available that time.

As I wrote I have no influence which 8x42 binocular will be send by the distributor. It was their choice. I only tested these binos they sent me.

ceasar said:

Any person who drops his binoculars and have them land on their extended eyecups on a hard surface without damage resulting should run, not walk, to the nearest lottery dealer and buy a lottery ticket!:eek!:
Bob

Click to expand...

You are wrong. Over half of the binoculars taking part in the test survived it without any problems. Including cheap ones. I was surprised by this result but it is a fact.

Half of the binos taking part in the test are still fully functional. Leicas, Docter or Zen Ray are not. All of them were treated identically.

although not modern Russian 8 x 30 binoculars will survive more or less indefinitely at -30°C.
They also apparently can have a light utility vehicle driven over them without a scratch.

I have seen results from a binocular specialist who dropped Fuji non-binoculars from 9 feet say 2.7 m onto concrete with almost no sign at all of any damage.

The standard military test is I think to drop binoculars from 6 feet or 1.8 m onto a standard sandpit repeatedly.

I think the drop tests here are too lenient.

I have heard of old Leica binoculars being dropped 20 feet or 6 m and surviving.
Also Leica lenses survive this.
Clearly things have changed.

I don't normally drop binoculars but on occasion have and it is hit or miss whether they remain collimated or not.

To try to kill dust mites walking around the Fresnel screen in two Minolta film cameras I bought some years ago, I repeatedly left them in the freezer at a measured -18°C, two days in two days out for weeks.
also several Minolta lenses.
There was absolutely no damage to the cameras or lenses which included the 250 mm mirror lens.
I still was not sure if I had killed the dust mites and gave the cameras and lenses away as I didn't fancy using them.

I know that old standard Nikon, Canon and Minolta cameras and lenses worked well at -35°C.

I'm not sure if modern digital cameras could take this.

Kodak negative film failed hopelessly below -30°C whereas Konica performed faultlessly.

Arek,

I do applaud you for taking the time to complete this test. As you referenced it is an area that isn't often explored in reviews of various binoculars.

After reading the entire test I would assume that it was conducted basically to evaluate the various manufacturer's claims about durability under a variety of conditions, yes?

If the answer is "yes" then I think you did an accurate job of evaluating the different models.

On the other hand if your intent was to simply test the durability of the binoculars under "real world conditions" then I am left questioning the applicability of the entire test. I do realize that binoculars are subjected to a variety of different environmental conditions depending on geographic location and intended application. However I think that many times those "extreme conditions" are just that....extreme conditions. They aren't "normal use" for a vast majority of the consumers out there and, therefore, the expectation of high durability scores, based on your test conditions, is unrealistic.

To cite a specific example....though I don't wear eyeglasses my facial dimensions dictate using almost every binocular with the eyecups fully collapsed. If I were to drop one of my binoculars in that position then do you think I would find the same results that you did (assuming I did it with one of the models you tested)?

To cite another, I bird all year long and use my binoculars in hot conditions (80-95 degrees F) and cold conditions (10-20 degrees F). When I bird in cold weather it is very rare for me to be out in that temperature for any truly extended period of time. Sure, I participate in Christmas bird counts which are full day events but the exposure to cold is often interrupted with trips in the car from one birding location to another...and lunch.

In warmer months I am more likely to have my binoculars out for extended periods of time. I often leave one or more pairs sitting out on a table on the patio while I perform a variety of other activities. Under those conditions I have never run into an issue with poor durability. The one exception to this is Pileatus's comment above as it was one of my Zeiss FL 7x42s whose focus knob became extremely stiff after being exposed to direct sunlight for an extended period of time. I believe that was an isolated incident though as I have owned four or five of them at this point and none of the others suffered from this concern.

I also found the waterproofing test to be extreme compared to what I, and most likely many others, would consider "regular use". If I were to leave my binoculars out on the patio during a rainstorm and the manufacturer advertised the binoculars as being waterproof then I would expect them not to have water inside of them. I think that is realistic as I have occasionally birded under those type of "wet conditions". I have never had a pair of binoculars submerged under water, at any depth, for any extended period of time. Furthermore I don't know anyone else that has. At the absolute worst I am sure there are some individuals who have inadvertently dropped their binoculars in a stream or lake but chances are the exposure to those conditions lasted a few minutes not a half of an hour or an hour.

I guess my point is that your testing was extreme (admittedly so on your part). That type of extreme testing does allow one to separate highly durable instruments from average ones. I am just left questioning the applicability of the testing for the average binocular user.

It's always amusing to me when people see their favorite pair of beloved binos turn out to be a miserable failure. Bashing the test, sample of one,etc is a very predictable response.

FrankD, no offense intended as I enjoy your posts and learn a lot from you. One point that cannot be ignored is that some of the manufacturers either lied or totally misrepresent their product. Also, I'm sure folks in Alaska, NW USA, etc really appreciate he waterproof testing. I could care less about the waterproofing personally, since I live in the desert, but once again, if it fails to do what the manufacturer says it will do means something to me. I also found the heat test interesting. It may be 145*F inside my pickup in the dead of Summer.........

jgraider said:

It's always amusing to me when people see their favorite pair of beloved binos turn out to be a miserable failure.

Click to expand...

As I already said I have a Leica UV, you may call it my beloved bino because I really like to use it. It's defo not a miserable failure and it's certainly waterproof. The one in the test obviously isn't.

As I also said already, I saw a test where a Zeiss Victory was full of water, in this new test it came out number one.

The Swaro did well it the waterproofness test here, but there are also reports in this forum about mouldy Swaros.

Probably the same for all the other bins, cheap or expensive. Most work well, some fail.

So what can we deduce from all this? Basically we know that despite all the claims of the bin makers, some of their bins fail sometimes. How often the bins of which maker actually fail, such tests and user reports cannot tell.

The only sort of test that I have read about and that could come close so something like a statistically relevant result, was a German optics dealer, who wrote that he tested all his incoming ware for waterproofness (among other things). He said that the failure rate was less than 1 % and there was no clear indication that one brand was better than the other (he sold mainly Zeiss, Swaro, Leica and Nikon). But of course he was an optics dealer, so one could always question the neutralitiy of his statements...

Yeah - what Frank said (um, well ..... mostly =) :cat:

In an earlier post, I too, meant to applaud allbino's for having a go on this issue (but forgot) |:$|
So here goes :clap: Well Done! :t:

While I suppose we can always argue the minutiae of exactly what tests to perform (and how), I think the important part is in the concept, and the attempts (intention) to standardize. So while it may seem harsh, or unrealistic to submerge bins under water for an hour, I think its a valid test with reference to some manufactures claims (supposedly being tested to various national, or international, official standards).


Chosun :gh:

Arek said:

You are wrong. Over half of the binoculars taking part in the test survived it without any problems. Including cheap ones. I was surprised by this result but it is a fact.

Half of the binos taking part in the test are still fully functional. Leicas, Docter or Zen Ray are not. All of them were treated identically.

Click to expand...

You only dropped each binocular 2 times. How did you eliminate the "luck" factor? Most dropped binoculars are caused by carelessness or a strap coming loose. They fall on different surfaces from different heights and land at different angles on different parts of the binocular. You can also bang them against rocks which I did with an old Minolta Mariner. It has dents along the rim of the objective barrels but it still works.

It is difficult to simulate these accidents.

Bob

JG, Chosun,

You both have valid points. My comments were meant to determine whether or not Arek was testing manufacturers' claims or typical "real world use". I don't have an issue with the intentions of the test but rather the applicability for most users.

Just to illustrate, and sympathize with one of the comments, to the dismay of some I certainly do leave one or two pairs of my binoculars in the car on hot summer days. They are often on the floor or under the seat. I haven't run into any major issues as a result of this. (and as a side note, I don't consider the rubber eyecup coming unglued from the metal eyepiece as a "major issue").

Bob,

I am not disagreeing with your comments or stance on the issues at hand. I often, very carefully, pick and choose my "wording" in my posts. In this case I think you are correct and I should have taken it to another level. Yes, the wording "specific binoculars" and not necessarily "different models" would be a more accurate representation of the findings.

My focus was on the test itself and not necessarily any of Arek's recommendations based on it. To be honest I found the comment about "leaving it up to the reader" to decide why certain manufacturers chose not to send binoculars for the test more than a bit suggestive.

Arek: Just want to express my appreciation on spending the time on doing such an extensive test! The most interesting evaluation I have read on binos in a long time. Yes, it is bound to be controversial, but unbiased evaluations like this are needed so that consumers can make informed decisions on their purchases. :t:

Was it a perfect test? No, probably impossible to achieve except at unreasonably excessive cost. Was it informative and useful? I think so.

Thanks Arek.

I too would like to thank Arek and the allbinos.com crew for not only this endurance test but all the other testing they do. They are one of the few places where one can find performance info for various binos based upon measured results rather than just anecdotal comments.

It would be interesting to see if the allbinos.com crew receives any responses from the various brands regarding the test results.

I have to disagree with a few comments here (Bob and Frank for example) and I feel like a lot of the criticisms are "nit picking" of the methodology. Arek tried to create standardized conditions to simulate some of the "extreme" situations that a binocular may encounter and I think he should be applauded for his thoroughness and consistency. I don't think you can simulate "real world" use in a controlled manner, e.g. going out and just using them. Too many variables. But if you want to really test durability, submitting them to "torture tests" is totally valid. Testing their durability by subjecting them to some mild variation in temperature or just sprinkling some water on them wouldn't be particularly interesting or useful IMO.

Several of the criticisms, like the submersion in water, sticking them in the freezer or oven, etc. to me are perfectly valid tests. The binoculars are spec'd to perform within these operating ranges and, in the case of the waterproofing aspect, most of these binoculars claim to be fully submersible and waterproof. I think submerging them is a completely valid way to test this claim.

Similarly, contrary to Bob's comments, I think it is pretty common for a binocular to end up spending several hours in fairly extreme temperatures. I know I always have a pair of binos in my car, and I would not want it to fail because it ends up getting hot or cold as a result. And it's typical to have a binocular out for several hours in cold weather during winter birding, so I think judging the response of the moving parts like the focus knob is again quite valid.

I do agree that there could be sample variation, but that is true of every binocular review. It's not reasonable for a reviewer to obtain 5-10 samples of each model for these types of "torture tests".

The one criticism that I think is valid is that it's a little extreme to no longer recommend a particular binocular because of a failure in these extreme conditions. Most users will NOT put their binoculars through this kind of extreme use. But I don't think that invalidates the concept nor the results.

I will also extend thanks for the test, but I will also have to say this is really pretty meaningless. In order for this to have any statistical significance, the same test would have to be performed multiple times, each time with a different sample of all of the models tested. When the point is reached that testing a different sample of each model sees the average score result remain unchanged even if the sample is either high or low spec, then the result will come closer to significance. In this sort of a test, what will be most telling is how few or how many samples of a particular binocular needed to be tested before hitting the unchanged average.

How quickly dennis dives off into the insanity side of life is irrelevant.

Eitan,

I think I may have been misintrepreted. I am not downplaying any of the results that Arek posted. He ran some extreme tests and posted his findings. Nothing wrong with that. If his tests were done to verify manufacturers' advertised durability levels then the tests are totally valid and applicable.

My point is simply that I don't plan on subjecting any of my binoculars to the extremes that he did. I see no reason to. If the binoculars I utilize stand up to "regular use" in the manner in which I use them then they are durable enough for my standards. The test in question "raises the bar" beyond what I would consider normal use. Nothing wrong with that but it should be pointed out that a vast majority of users won't push their binoculars to such extremes and therefore they will typically not run into many of the issues mentioned in the review. I think this is key because the subconscious suggestion here is that if the binoculars failed in Arek's test in some way then they aren't "good binoculars" from a durability standpoint and therefore not worthy of being purchased and used.