EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (2 Viewers)

etudiant · Aug 3, 2020

tenex said:
As to any possible issues with Swarovski armor specifically, Swaro's decision (when exactly?) to use more environmentally friendly chemicals in their armor has been mentioned here before, though not in this thread. When the $3k+ NL is sold with soap and a brush, someone in Absam must be aware of a real problem developing.

Istr that the second Space Shuttle disaster was caused by the switch to an environmentally more friendly process for applying the insulating foam to the core fuel tank. The foam did not stick as well as before.
So there are sometimes very undesirable consequences to well intentioned product changes.

mpeace · Aug 3, 2020

It seems like the original poster kept their binoculars outside the case and often in direct sunlight on the car seat and maybe elsewhere and potentially for years. So as others have said it's most likely that the damage is due to sunlight.

The rubber on ELs is ever so slightly translucent (to my eyes) and clearly isn't impregnated with carbon black or similar which is used in car tyres and plastics for strength, but which absorbs sunlight (like skin pigment) preventing deep absorption of light that damages the material within. If the plastic is recyclable it's likely to be a co-polymer (polystyrene + polybutadiene etc.), which is less durable, but does feel nice to the touch. None of this should be a problem.

The solution is simple, just keep your binoculars in their bag and out of sunlight, when not using them. Alternatively Swarovski could impregnate the material with carbon black (while still being recyclable), but then the casing would be black rather than their trademark green.

I imagine the soap and brush on the ELs is more about cosmetics and stopping any staining such as that found in the grey SF models. But no doubt it can prevent chemical damage also, I just don't think under normal circumstances this would have the same damaging effect as sunlight.

Arthur Red Rod · Aug 10, 2020

If biodegradability and ease-of-replacement are a priority, then perhaps the Swaro's can be wrapped in a kind of tied straw cover, not unlike a bamboo mat for making sushi. This is not meant to be flippant - I actually think this could work if you do not want to send your Swaro's in for repair at regular intervals. I assume the body is made of some kind of aircraft grade aluminum (6061 T6?), so rust should not be an issue in most environments.

wolfbirder · Aug 17, 2020

NDhunter said:
Your issue is not common, so contact Swarovski, the service dept. will be of help. Let us know what you find out.

Jerry

Hmmm...........interestingly, I have noticed signficant deterioration and scuff marks on my two-month old EL10 x 42s as well, from the green casing to the eyepiece twist cups.

I have treated them carefully, cleaning them gently after each trip out - I have been out about 10 times birding - from local reservoirs to sea-watching yesterday at Spurn. After cleaning gently with cloth and an optics-designed soft brush, they are kept inside my house in their case.

Compared to my other binoculars (Hawke Frontier and RSPB HD), they look battle-worn already. I've had those 2 binoculars for 7 and 3 years respectively and no scuff marks on either, so it clearly is an issue with this specific model and what materials they are using in their casing. Whilst my new Swarvs are optically superb, at this rate I dread to think what they will be like even in a years time.

Ries · Aug 17, 2020

Needing to clean the armouring after each use? Needing to keep them out of sunlight? Never needed all that on any bins. Emphasis should lie on the lenses and optics, armour shouldn't be a hassle.

Troubador · Aug 17, 2020

Ries said:
Needing to clean the armouring after each use? Needing to keep them out of sunlight? Never needed all that on any bins. Emphasis should lie on the lenses and optics, armour shouldn't be a hassle.

:t::t::t:

Lee

NDhunter · Aug 26, 2020

wolfbirder said:
Hmmm...........interestingly, I have noticed signficant deterioration and scuff marks on my two-month old EL10 x 42s as well, from the green casing to the eyepiece twist cups.

I have treated them carefully, cleaning them gently after each trip out - I have been out about 10 times birding - from local reservoirs to sea-watching yesterday at Spurn. After cleaning gently with cloth and an optics-designed soft brush, they are kept inside my house in their case.

Compared to my other binoculars (Hawke Frontier and RSPB HD), they look battle-worn already. I've had those 2 binoculars for 7 and 3 years respectively and no scuff marks on either, so it clearly is an issue with this specific model and what materials they are using in their casing. Whilst my new Swarvs are optically superb, at this rate I dread to think what they will be like even in a years time.

Nick, I am surprised you are having such trouble with your Swarovski, I would think you are cleaning your binoculars with sandpaper. I find it very hard to believe your story. :smoke:

I will just leave it at that.

Jerry

wolfbirder · Aug 28, 2020

NDhunter said:
Nick, I am surprised you are having such trouble with your Swarovski, I would think you are cleaning your binoculars with sandpaper. I find it very hard to believe your story. :smoke:

I will just leave it at that.

Jerry

Well thank you sir:t:

Attached are photos of my two month-old Swarovski EL10x 42s.
As I say, I have taken them out bird-watching around 10 times, personally I wouldn't expect so many visible scuff marks after such a short time, I have treated them carefully though walked around with them around my neck, always cleaned gently and carefully with a brush and soft cloth, and kept in their case inside my house. To me, the scuffs are soft marks but they look quite battered, as though I had had ten-years of use.

jan van daalen · Aug 28, 2020

wolfbirder said:
Well thank you sir:t:

Attached are photos of my two month-old Swarovski EL10x 42s.
As I say, I have taken them out bird-watching around 10 times, personally I wouldn't expect so many visible scuff marks after such a short time, I have treated them carefully though walked around with them around my neck, always cleaned gently and carefully with a brush and soft cloth, and kept in their case inside my house. To me, the scuffs are soft marks but they look quite battered, as though I had had ten-years of use.

Hi Wolfbirder,

I am 100% sure Swaro will replace the armor for free, but looking at the "damage" of the many visible scuff marks........... It is hard to believe they occur while walking carefully with them round your neck within two months.
But if you say so, who am I not to believe you.

Jan

NDhunter · Aug 28, 2020

I am thinking that the armor on the Fieldpro model must be softer than the previous models.

That is why I mentioned it, I think the armor on the older Swaros. wears quite well.

Jerry

Patudo · Aug 29, 2020

Wolfbirder - maybe the folks at Infocus sent you a "special" after you bent them over to get them at that price! o

... and since the veracity of the folks who have posted their experiences now appears to be fair game, I have to admit I found it "very hard to believe" (as was so delicately put) that the binoculars in post #89 on this thread were subjected to the kind of treatment described in post #83. I'd say it's far more likely that binoculars used by a hardcore birder (and the birds listed in Wolfbirder's signature certainly don't come to the casual birder...), would get scuffed up more in two months than those owned by some of our worthy respondents might in ten years. But who am I not to believe, etc... :cat:

wolfbirder · Aug 29, 2020

I don't really know what else to say, believe me if you want, don't if you don't. I've got no agenda, I'm just telling it as it is. As others have said - this seems to be a bit of a reoccurring pattern on here with people making sweeping implications or inferences.

I certainly did get them for a very good price, but I offered to pay a bit more after the confusion, so I can have no complaints about that.

But that merely distracts from the actual issue. I am a keen birder but not a hard-core one, I have been out ten times since buying them, and I have treated them more carefully than any binoculars I have ever had due to the amount I paid. I'm 57 and my mobility is slower than average now, so I don't go charging around or clambouring through difficult terrain. I really struggle with any incline or decline that is more than gentle due to knee problems. I place them down carefully on the very rare occasion they come off my neck, if I am taking a seat for a bit, and I pack them in their protective case before departure for home so they do not travel in my car 'out of the protective case'. I clean carefully after every usage and pack away inside the house. No one else has access to them.

I have a immaculate pair of RSPB HD8x42s that are still in excellent condition despite lots of use over past few years, and an admittedly tired, very well-used looking pair of 10-year old Hawke Frontiers 10x43s. I tend to do one trip abroad per year for a few days but have only taken my Hawke Frontiers which have admittedly been heavily used and subject to travel in desert terrain, sea-watching, travel in a suitcase, and so look appropriately marked. The optics of both these are absolutely fine & both are fine binoculars but the Swarvs are a different class optically, especially regards depth-of-field.

So draw what conclusions you will. Birdwatching binoculars are designed for outside use. I have treated these new Swarovski's with kid gloves and they have not come into any abrupt contact with anything potentially damaging, unless my coat surface can be deemed as such.

Photos of my two other binoculars - 10 years old (Hawke) and 2-3 years old (RSPB).

NZbinodude · Aug 29, 2020

wolfbirder said:
I don't really know what else to say, believe me if you want, don't if you don't. I've got no agenda, I'm just telling it as it is. As others have said - this seems to be a bit of a reoccurring pattern on here with people making sweeping implications or inferences.

I certainly did get them for a very good price, but I offered to pay a bit more after the confusion, so I can have no complaints about that.

But that merely distracts from the actual issue. I am a keen birder but not a hard-core one, I have been out ten times since buying them, and I have treated them more carefully than any binoculars I have ever had due to the amount I paid. I'm 57 and my mobility is slower than average now, so I don't go charging around or clambouring through difficult terrain. I really struggle with any incline or decline that is more than gentle due to knee problems. I place them down carefully on the very rare occasion they come off my neck, if I am taking a seat for a bit, and I pack them in their protective case before departure for home so they do not travel in my car 'out of the protective case'. I clean carefully after every usage and pack away inside the house. No one else has access to them.

I have a immaculate pair of RSPB HD8x42s that are still in excellent condition despite lots of use over past few years, and an admittedly tired, very well-used looking pair of 10-year old Hawke Frontiers 10x43s. I tend to do one trip abroad per year for a few days but have only taken my Hawke Frontiers which have admittedly been heavily used and subject to travel in desert terrain, sea-watching, travel in a suitcase, and so look appropriately marked. The optics of both these are absolutely fine & both are fine binoculars but the Swarvs are a different class optically, especially regards depth-of-field.

So draw what conclusions you will. Birdwatching binoculars are designed for outside use. I have treated these new Swarovski's with kid gloves and they have not come into any abrupt contact with anything potentially damaging, unless my coat surface can be deemed as such.

Photos of my two other binoculars - 10 years old (Hawke) and 2-3 years old (RSPB).

I believe you.

I've owned both a 'Field Pro' 8.5x42, in addition to the previous version (the 8.5x42 'WB').

The rubber armor on the 'WB' iteration had a harder/smoother texture and felt hard wearing. The Field Pro armor, while softer/grippier and more pleasant to the touch, felt delicate in comparison. And a bit cheap.

I often wondered how the Field Pro would fare in the long term, but I sold it a few weeks after I'd bought it. It didn't inspire much confidence as a serious hunting/outdoor tool.

PYRTLE · Aug 29, 2020

Haven't rubber armouring and neck straps materials been considerably altered during the last couple of years due to carcinogenic concerns and tests? Also to further achieve the perfect " comfort " and non slip ergonomics desired by both serious and occasional users.

My Zeiss SF protection covering feels and looks very different to that on my 7 x 42 Dialyt, which I would think is nearly 100 % rubber.

NZbinodude · Aug 29, 2020

PYRTLE said:
Haven't rubber armouring and neck straps materials been considerably altered during the last couple of years due to carcinogenic concerns and tests? Also to further achieve the perfect " comfort " and non slip ergonomics desired by both serious and occasional users.

My Zeiss SF protection covering feels and looks very different to that on my 7 x 42 Dialyt, which I would think is nearly 100 % rubber.

Swarovski aren't in the business of selling utility. They're in the business of selling an exclusive experience. They've pulled a page out of Apple's book.

It's about the entire package. What the product smells like. What it feels like. What it tastes like??? Oh - and the packaging must be just as tantalizing.

First impressions count.

Zeiss and Leica aren't immune to it either.

Chances are your 7x42 Dialyt will last far longer, and hold its value better than any of the modern offerings.

Arthur Red Rod · Aug 30, 2020

NZbinodude said:
Swarovski aren't in the business of selling utility. They're in the business of selling an exclusive experience. They've pulled a page out of Apple's book.

It's about the entire package. What the product smells like. What it feels like. What it tastes like??? Oh - and the packaging must be just as tantalizing.

First impressions count.

Zeiss and Leica aren't immune to it either.

Chances are your 7x42 Dialyt will last far longer, and hold its value better than any of the modern offerings.

A bitingly apt observation; I will stick with classic looks and feel. It's the exact same phenomenon we are seeing with cars, electronics and just about every consumer product with a high price tag.

dwatsonbirder · Aug 30, 2020

Nick, many of those that frequent the optics forums are not birders and would not comprehend using their fully waterproof binoculars in the rain. Having looked through this thread and seeing the condition of several birding associates latter day Swarovski, I am of the opinion that there is clearly something awry with the formula of the latest armouring - indeed I have yet to see a good condition EL field pro or last gen SLC in the hands of a serious user which doesn't look completely knackered; I am sure that those who work in shops or buy the latest and greatest "just because" are simply unqualified to make a judgement call on durability - anybody who disagrees is welcome to join me in the field for a few hours this autumn, and then see how your bins look after a few hours bush-bashing... I'd post pictures of how my current bins are looking after a year of fairly serious use (no overseas trips yet) but I'm afraid the image would offend some of those aforementioned sensitive souls on the thread!

SeldomPerched · Aug 30, 2020

mpeace said:
It seems like the original poster kept their binoculars outside the case and often in direct sunlight on the car seat and maybe elsewhere and potentially for years. So as others have said it's most likely that the damage is due to sunlight.

The rubber on ELs is ever so slightly translucent (to my eyes) and clearly isn't impregnated with carbon black or similar which is used in car tyres and plastics for strength, but which absorbs sunlight (like skin pigment) preventing deep absorption of light that damages the material within. If the plastic is recyclable it's likely to be a co-polymer (polystyrene + polybutadiene etc.), which is less durable, but does feel nice to the touch. None of this should be a problem.

The solution is simple, just keep your binoculars in their bag and out of sunlight, when not using them. Alternatively Swarovski could impregnate the material with carbon black (while still being recyclable), but then the casing would be black rather than their trademark green.

I imagine the soap and brush on the ELs is more about cosmetics and stopping any staining such as that found in the grey SF models. But no doubt it can prevent chemical damage also, I just don't think under normal circumstances this would have the same damaging effect as sunlight.

I like this answer; it seems to fit the situation and offers a simple solution.

Would your mention of green vs. black also explain the discoloration that is noticeable on green (admittedly a different, more olive shade of green) Zeiss FLs as against the standard black ones? It can be seen from the way objective cover rubber band rings leave a mark just as a wrist watch obstructing a sun tan. Or is that the rubber reacting with the covered part and the rest is in fact not affected after all?

Not trying to steer more than momentarily away from the main topic so ignoring the previous paragraph if preferred is OK!

Tom

Jos Stratford · Aug 30, 2020

Even if it is currently affecting a minority of users, it seems pretty clear that there is a real issue with the Swarovski coverings - if the advice is to keep the binoculars in a case or out of direct sunlight, then it is a poor reflection indeed on the company that they can't produce a product that is capable of handling the conditions that the items are supposed to be designed for, i.e. the outdoors. For any birders active in hot sunny countries, (and judging by some of the reports here less than sunny countries too), a binocular that cannot handle such exposure is simply a failure, regardless of the optical performance.

No way I would buy Swarovski after reading this thread - even if they do have excellent after sales service and would replace the covering, who wants the possible hassle of sending their optics back periodically for service that shouldn't be needed in the first place for such a high class product.

PS my pair of Leica Trinovid has bounced round the world numerous times, spent umpteen months under African sun, rarely ever been in a case and has been dropped more than it should, plus chewed by a young labrador dog on one occasion ...and still the armour is basically unscathered ...bar a few bite marks by the dog, which simply add character

NoSpringChicken · Aug 30, 2020

When I had my 70th birthday I was given quite a bit of money and I decided to buy something special that I couldn't normally afford. I thought that a pair of Swarovski EL 8x32 binoculars would fit the bill and should last me the rest of my life. I was very happy with my purchase but if I had seen this thread before buying them I might have looked elsewhere.

I wonder if there is any chance that Swarovski could alter the composition of the armour to something more durable and retro fit them when they are repaired? However it seems that they do not think there is a problem. It will be interesting to see how well the NLs' coverings fare.

Ron

EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (2 Viewers)

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Experienced observer

sub-200 birding aspirant

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Old Berkshire Boy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread