• 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.

Definition of "waterproof" (1 Viewer)

jaymoynihan

jaymoynihan

Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
I have heard that the definition of "waterproof" varies by manufacturer. If that is true, does anyone know how Swift defines it?
Folks that have used in rain or have had a submersion of the more recent (armored) Audubon 8.5x porros, (that i believe are advertised as waterproof ), how did they hold up?
 
Last edited:
See my thread on IEC 529. The Japanese use JIS system which matches up with IEC 529.

I have no idea how Swift define it but I can't bring myself to trust porros with external focusing as ever being truly immersion proof especially for some time in use.

For me the only meaningful use of waterproof is "doesn't admit water when submersed to a given depth for a given time" i.e. IEC 529 IPX7 or JIS 7.
 
I'd say it depends on the pressure too. I guess the pressure of the nitrogen gas (or whatever) in the bino is the same as the air pressure outside, so not that much force against the seal (just some diffusion). If submerged, the deeper in the water it goes, the higher the pressure. At some point it will leak!
 
vop is right, depth is important ... it's about 1 additional atmosphere per 10m water depth.

The usual spec is no leakage at 1m to 3m for 5 to 10 minutes.

The IXP8 spec is for submersible items i.e. indefinite time at a specified depth.
 
As far as I recall, and I remember asking both EO and Swift, both said the Audubon porro was just sealed, and was not gas purged.
 
Well, when it was when it was built.

Like all external focused porros, that act like bellows when focused, the question is how long it stays nitrogen only rather than an air mixture. When you change the volume of the bin the pressure changes or gases are exchanged.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with KP in that any externally focused porro is unlikely to both retain any gas initially used and to be truly waterproof. I would also be curious to know how many roof prism bins, even good ones, retain their dry gas after some years.

I imagine that someone who flies a lot or changes elevations frequently in a mountainous part of the world will lose the gas charging in their bins quicker. Most bins are waterproof enough for the occasional rain shower or quick rinse under the faucet. Where a high degree of waterproofness is especially useful is for keeping moisture laden atmosphere out.

For any manufacturer to use the term "waterproof" is the cheapest form of promotional advertising. Do the math. What are the odds of water actually breaching the seals of the average joe's bins? Not that great as most don't use them in such an environment. If they do leak, just fix 'em with a smile, the customer will be happy and think the water-proofness has been "restored".

I remember what got me going on Leica bins many years ago. I was deciding on my first good pair of full sized bins and was considering the then new Leica "Ultras", what we now commonly refer to as Leica Trinovids, and Zeiss Dialyts. I knew two people in my local Audubon who had Dialyts that had tarnished prisms, rendering the bins mostly useless. The silver coatings oxidized. It dawned on me that the Leica system was superior not necessarily for it's 5m depth (claimed) water-proofness, as I didn't expect to need that, but for the integrity of it's seals to keep humidity out.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell said:
Well it was when it was built.

Like all external focused porros, that act like bellows when focused, the question is how long it stays nitrogen only rather than an air mixture. When you change the volume of the bin the pressure changes or gases are exchanged.
Click to expand...

Good point, I have often thought about this as well! Bryce...
 
I once cleaned my then 5 year old 820 EDs under a very gently running warm tap and the next day they were fogged.

Swift did sort them out under warranty but it leaves me wondering about the waterproofing; I've had no problems with them in rain in the subsequent couple of years.
 
RJM said:
The #820 is defintely nitrogen purged.

Rick
Click to expand...

That's good to hear. The reason I brought it up was the fact I did not have much faith in the answer I got from either source. I can't see much point in using the waterproof seals without purging. ;)
 
Steve C said:
I can't see much point in using the waterproof seals without purging. ;)
Click to expand...

But there is at least the waterproof seals reduce the amount of air transfered (you hope). And they should impede the ingress of liquid water so you might recover from a quick dunk more than say an SE (where the EP aren't waterproofed at all though they are for all practical purposes rain-resistant due to the rainguard and rubber eyecups).

Purging does make a difference if you have a unprotected silver mirror coating.

That wouldn't affect Zeiss Dialyt with AK prisms (the 7x42) I take it as they just use TIR but the later 8x30 and 10x40 with SP prisms and unsealed moving objectives and no claim of waterproofing. It doesn't take much effort to seal the back of a silver mirror coating to avoid oxidation or worse turning to AgS (which is black too).
 
I've said this before and don't apologise for saying it again. Anyone who contemplates cleaning their binocular under running water, however 'waterproof' it's professed to be, must be...(how can I put this kindly?)... erm, very brave? Other epithets occur to me, (like unwise, ill-advised, foolish, stark staring bonkers) but I'll refrain from mentioning 'em in case they may cause offence. Talk about 'tempting fate'! A bit like playing a game of Russian Roulette with a Colt Magnum set on 'safety': it's extremely unlikely to blow your head off, but... why take ANY risk?
 
I've cleaned a lot of waterproof roofs this way and not had a failure yet. Because its so much easier and so much less likely to damage the glass with running water and perhaps a clean wet fingertip.

I just cleaned a Chinese ED (Hawke) with a big sap-like splat on the objective in this way.

I think your excess caution for (especially for roofs) is, err, how do I say this without causing offense, a little "unwise, ill-advised, foolish, stark staring bonkers" ;)

When people make JIS7 (immersion proof to shallow depth) bins and warranty them for it there is no risk to the consumer. The bin is waterproof or if it isn't it goes back.

For waterproof porros I won't immerse them but I do rely on their lens seals and water clean the objectives and the eyepieces. Again without incident.
 
James Bean said:
I've said this before and don't apologise for saying it again. Anyone who contemplates cleaning their binocular under running water, however 'waterproof' it's professed to be, must be...(how can I put this kindly?)... erm, very brave? Other epithets occur to me, (like unwise, ill-advised, foolish, stark staring bonkers) but I'll refrain from mentioning 'em in case they may cause offence. Talk about 'tempting fate'! A bit like playing a game of Russian Roulette with a Colt Magnum set on 'safety': it's extremely unlikely to blow your head off, but... why take ANY risk?
Click to expand...

James, relax, really. I've been doing it for 20 years w/o a single problem. To those of us who use running water, we consider THIS the safe method.

Water's a great solvent, plus for extra funky foreign material one can throw soap and/or windex into the equation to really clean things up, final rinse with plenty of H2O. Micro fiber cloth for drying.

It's Madness! :eek!:
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic. I have a Swiss Army wrist watch that claims to be water proof to 300 meters. Even with that assurance, off goes the watch when I bath. I guess I'm a non-believer. But following is a story about a binocular that seems to have met the test.

When Zeiss came out with their Safari IF 8x30 roof model (the olive green one), Zeiss literature said it was waterproof. I bought one and used it extensively for hunting. Being IF it had limited use for birding. But when I went on canoe trips, it was the binocular of choice. On one trip to Yellowstone Lake, it was accidentally knocked overboard on the shore line . A friend had borrowed it at dusk and left it on the bow of a canoe. During the night the wind came up, and the canoes were pulled ashore. Somehow the binocular fell unseen into about two feet of water.

The next day we couldn't find it, and my friend remembered where he had left it. The wave action had buried it under gravel, and I saw a piece of the neck strap sticking out of the gravel still under water. After retrieving it and shaking off the water, it showed no damage to the lens or moisture inside. My friend was so impressed with the Zeiss, he kept asking me to sell it to him which eventually I did.

Chapter 2. My friend loaned it to his brother for a big game hunting trip in western Montana. They rode horses and had to ford a small river several times. Somehow the binocular came loose from the saddle horn and tumbled into the river. After a short search they give up on finding it. Upon returning from their hunt about a week later, they more carefully searched the stream bed at the ford and managed to find it down stream under about three feet of water. The crystal clear water had been slowly dropping that week. The binocular remained undamaged. No moisture inside. Now that is what I call a waterproof binocular! True story. I'm not a shill for Zeiss.

John
 
Not Swifts or bins but relate to what 'waterproof' can mean to a manufacturer. I asked Opticron how waterproof my ES 80 scope is. They said it should withstand "repeated showers", i.e. certainly not submersion.
 
Thanks for all the intereesting responses.
I think (?) it is the Cornell Lab tests where they spray with a hose, dunk in a bucket, and put them in a freezer, to see what fogs up.
 
It's a good idea to do the freezer test first (like tvwg.nl do) to see if the nitrogen used to fill to optics was dry nitrogen. It's amazing how many optics end up putting some ice on the glass. I wold have though dry nitrogen (and perhaps warming the optics before filling them) would have been obvious.

Then do the freezer test again after exposing to water.

Of course Cornell have the advantage of not actually buying the optics they test but if it's warranted to be waterproof then it should be ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

yarrellii
Waterproofness of the 30 mm APC range
Replies
0
Views
620
yarrellii
yarrellii
B
Removing fungus from old Porro binoculars
Replies
8
Views
478
Barbican1987
B
J
Full Spec Sheet for Nikon 8X30 Monarch HG
Replies
3
Views
1K
JohnVan
J
C
CL 8x25 due an upgrade?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Swedpat
S
chill6x6
A few quick thoughts, 7X35 vs. 8X32
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
John M Robinson
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top