Mike Penfold
Well-known member
Fastest fungus facts follow folks: Pelee Wings in Leamington, Ontario, added the Swarovski 8x32 SVs to their stock in May, 2012.
Mike
Mike
Last edited:
-
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.
Swarovision 8X32...SE death knell (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Pileatus
- Start date
Here is one of many threads about the "Fungus among us" in Swarovski's! HaHa!
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=215783&highlight=swarovski+fungus
Mike Penfold
Well-known member
There once was a bino so hazy
(left carefree-ly close to a daisy)
"Flare!" snapped a turtle, focused
clear on a Myrtle, and eye-pop humongous:
"Good grief, either flare, or it's FUNGUS!"
Mike
(left carefree-ly close to a daisy)
"Flare!" snapped a turtle, focused
clear on a Myrtle, and eye-pop humongous:
"Good grief, either flare, or it's FUNGUS!"
Mike
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I wouldn't worry too much about it. These threads tend to be a gathering place for tales of woe, and are probably not representative of ownership. Check any model - you will find lots of posts of problems - big and small. Most satisfied owners don't post here......as they say ''the squeaky wheel gets the grease.''
Mike Penfold
Well-known member
Equipment failures are not funny 99% of the time.
As context, my wife's 10x42 WB ELs have been dependable for 9 years, and often for months in the tropics. They've been in Germany a couple of times, quickly improved for focus speed and grit. My 10x32 WB ELs have been well-used for 6 years, and dependability in the tropics is the last thing to think about in my 8,5x42 SVs.
FWIW the green angled Zeiss 65 is similarly dependable in our experience.
That said, if we were living full-time in the very humid and hot conditions of the tropics, we'd probably put any optics and electronics in a commercial or homemade dry box when not using them. An incandescent light bulb in a cupboard would work nicely, and for peace of mind, an inexpensive hygrometer. MEC sells a variety of effective dry bags for cameras and electronics.
Mike
As context, my wife's 10x42 WB ELs have been dependable for 9 years, and often for months in the tropics. They've been in Germany a couple of times, quickly improved for focus speed and grit. My 10x32 WB ELs have been well-used for 6 years, and dependability in the tropics is the last thing to think about in my 8,5x42 SVs.
FWIW the green angled Zeiss 65 is similarly dependable in our experience.
That said, if we were living full-time in the very humid and hot conditions of the tropics, we'd probably put any optics and electronics in a commercial or homemade dry box when not using them. An incandescent light bulb in a cupboard would work nicely, and for peace of mind, an inexpensive hygrometer. MEC sells a variety of effective dry bags for cameras and electronics.
Mike
Last edited:
Mike, no, not funny - I assume D.'s Ha, etc. is for the opposing argument.
Very few users of bins hereabouts keep them in either "dryboxes" (dessicators) or "hotboxes". The former is just too much trouble - recharging the dessicant, opening and closing it twice each time you use the bin, maintaining the air-tight seal... The latter needs a light bulb of only very low wattage, but has to be constantly linked to a mains power outlet, hence of limited mobility. This may be why modifying a cupboard also is not popular.
Much better, if one can afford it, is a properly waterproof insrtument, with inert gas filling. So far I have known only one such to fail around here, an early "individual-focus" model - not letting in fungus but develping a kind of haze.
A week ago I rescued a friend's bin from a dessicator. Due to this thing being not recharged and the bin being seldom used over several years, the bin had developed a white mildew(?) all over the black body, which had turned grey! (It was removed by wiping thoroughly with a damp cloth). But the waterproofing had held and nothing had got in.
It's a Nikon Action EX. That's a porro, which is said to be more difficult to waterproof than a roof, but Nikon does that so effectively in this mid-level series, and several other makers in similarly priced models. Now that gets us more on topic: I don't quite know why they have not waterproofed the SEs.
Later edit: I realise "recharge" is probably incorrect to mean driving water out by heating!
Very few users of bins hereabouts keep them in either "dryboxes" (dessicators) or "hotboxes". The former is just too much trouble - recharging the dessicant, opening and closing it twice each time you use the bin, maintaining the air-tight seal... The latter needs a light bulb of only very low wattage, but has to be constantly linked to a mains power outlet, hence of limited mobility. This may be why modifying a cupboard also is not popular.
Much better, if one can afford it, is a properly waterproof insrtument, with inert gas filling. So far I have known only one such to fail around here, an early "individual-focus" model - not letting in fungus but develping a kind of haze.
A week ago I rescued a friend's bin from a dessicator. Due to this thing being not recharged and the bin being seldom used over several years, the bin had developed a white mildew(?) all over the black body, which had turned grey! (It was removed by wiping thoroughly with a damp cloth). But the waterproofing had held and nothing had got in.
It's a Nikon Action EX. That's a porro, which is said to be more difficult to waterproof than a roof, but Nikon does that so effectively in this mid-level series, and several other makers in similarly priced models. Now that gets us more on topic: I don't quite know why they have not waterproofed the SEs.
Later edit: I realise "recharge" is probably incorrect to mean driving water out by heating!
Last edited:
Mike Penfold
Well-known member
Jason Reyes, a birding guide in Sabah, Borneo, uses Nikon products exclusively, and also leaves his stuff in a dry box; however, I'm not sure if he reads these posts on a regular basis.
Mike
Mike
brocknroller
porromaniac
dennis may be the sole exception since he uses these forums to "pimp up" his current favorite bin, so the critiques of other bins are merely an extension of that.
as to the rest of our motley crew, i think we are natural born nitpickers and perfectionists (see Frank D.'s signature comment) who, as you say, are not representative of binio users as a whole.
however, in our defense, and in your own defense since you post to these forums too, i think we provide a useful service. i've read posts on hunting optics forums that directed hunters with picayune questions to birdforum, because that's where the "optics nuts are and they know a lot more about sports optics than most hunters"
i think we should take a perverse pride in that fact.
it's a nice day here, and if i didn't have to work this weekend and weren't looking for any excuse to take a break from transcribing another interview about electronic health records, i'd be outside somewhere birding with my bins instead of reading and writing posts on BF.
<B>
The subject of waterproofing SEs has come up several times in the past. I believe that it was concluded that it would require a complete redesign of them which would add considerably to their cost. Their design has remained unchanged over some 15 years. They all share the same eyepieces, prisms, prism housings and focusing mechanism. The only differences are with their objective tubes and their objectives.
This seems to be largely the reason why they have remained profitable over the last 15 years or so with only small fluctuations up and down in their prices during that time. Advertising for them is mostly free by word of mouth (or blog talk, if you will)! Nikon seems to be following the maxim here of "If it's not broke don't fix it!"
Bob
True, but I wonder if there has been much, or indeed anything, on this particular fault - failure of wproofing. in an inert-gas-filled model of this quality - in other makes.
Correction! That's a Nikon, but I now remember this happened to several Swaro. early SLCs about 1 to 3 yrs after purchase.
Seems to me troublesome, even if he's in one spot, like a station, but still more if he goes on tours and takes the box around with him!
I do remember now the matter being mentioned, but did not know this is the reason wp. has not been done.
Last edited:
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Pileatus;2562581 After chasing merlins around the dunes for a few hours before sunset.[/QUOTE said:
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
I find that to be the most interesting bit in this thread. For official counters that is pretty risque. Seldom do i see less than 10x in hand amongst their kind
:eek!::t:
Brilliant Dennis
For some bizarre reason i've wrongly been taking what you say seriously and it's taken the above post to see what a fool i've been.
I get it now; you're only doing it all for a laugh, and I bet you do get to laugh a lot when people like me bite.
Keep up the great humour Dennis - the forum's a lot more interesting for it :t:
Brilliant Dennis
For some bizarre reason i've wrongly been taking what you say seriously and it's taken the above post to see what a fool i've been.
I get it now; you're only doing it all for a laugh, and I bet you do get to laugh a lot when people like me bite.
Keep up the great humour Dennis - the forum's a lot more interesting for it :t:
Last edited:
Bob, on at least one occasion Nikon continued with a fine model line for prestige or other strategic reasons while making a loss on it. http://www.epinions.com/review/elec..._8x25_Mountaineer_II_ATB/content_217566056068. With the SEs unless it is obvious, or can be reckoned, e.g. from what you say above, that the prices may bring a profit then none or a slight loss is a possibility.
Last edited:
It's speculation of course. But they are somewhat a flagship for the company if any binocular is.
It looks like they don't sell the SE's in great quantity but they seem to sell steadily. There certainly are many factors involved in the ups and downs of the prices over the years. Maybe Nikon was even testing the market to determine their price limits. For many years the 10 x 42 SE sold at Eagle Optics for $999.00 and the 8 x 32 SE for about $699.00.
I argued in an earlier thread a while ago with Brock that because of the modular nature of the construction of everything but the objective portions of the binocular Nikon could keep an inventory of those parts at hand to make more when demand increases. Something like this can contribute to profits. They are really built much in the manner of their inexpensive Porro's except they use much better materials for the bodies and much better glass.
Bob
brocknroller
porromaniac
I think it appears like there are more SEs sold than there actually are, because a lot are purchased "second hand". I bought six of my SEs on the second hand market. One of those samples, a 12x50 SE, had seven previous owners before I bought it. I sold it to a guy I knew from Cloudy Nights, who sold it to Edz, who sold it to mooreorless, who sold it to another BF member.
God knows where it is now, but it had at least 11 owners! The serial # was worn off from being handled so much, but the optics and mechanics were still in great shape when I had it, and I have to admit I regret selling it. It had an exceptional 16 ft. close focus, same as the 10x SE. But the 10x SE is more practical since birding is my primary use for bins, stargazing, secondary, so I sold the 12x and bought the 10x. When I purchased my first sample 12x50 SE, my primary use for bins was stargazing and secondarily, birding.
Then there's the three or four 8x32 SEs that Frank's owned including the sample I had.
So they get around. A lot of people keep them as reference standards. I don't know anyone besides me who uses an SE as their main birding bins except the tour guides that somebody keeps referencing. Horokuru is the only tour guide I know who uses the SE, and that's only because he hasn't tried an 8x32 SV EL yet. :smoke:
<B>.
God knows where it is now, but it had at least 11 owners! The serial # was worn off from being handled so much, but the optics and mechanics were still in great shape when I had it, and I have to admit I regret selling it. It had an exceptional 16 ft. close focus, same as the 10x SE. But the 10x SE is more practical since birding is my primary use for bins, stargazing, secondary, so I sold the 12x and bought the 10x. When I purchased my first sample 12x50 SE, my primary use for bins was stargazing and secondarily, birding.
Then there's the three or four 8x32 SEs that Frank's owned including the sample I had.
So they get around. A lot of people keep them as reference standards. I don't know anyone besides me who uses an SE as their main birding bins except the tour guides that somebody keeps referencing. Horokuru is the only tour guide I know who uses the SE, and that's only because he hasn't tried an 8x32 SV EL yet. :smoke:
<B>.
FrankD
Well-known member
Actually Brock I know Pileatus was using the SE 8x32 as his primary bin for many years. I know he was also using it regularly at the local hawkwatch up until last year and despite the fact that he also owned the SV 8.5x42.
...and then there is Dennis.
Well, ok, maybe that wasn't the best example but at least he is using it as his primary binocular for now.
As for my "3 or 4", they were all purchased second hand. The closest I came to owning a new one was the refurb I bought from CLNY. Not sure if that was the one that eventually graced your hands or not. The last one I owned was sold to a gentleman up in Canada via the bay. He had a bit of an odd name but I think he was a regular seller on the bay and over on Astromart as I saw him selling several 8x32 models over there in subsequent months. I don't know if he actually used any of them regularly as I got the impression he was simply looking to turn around many of those bins for instant profit.
...and then there is Dennis.
Well, ok, maybe that wasn't the best example but at least he is using it as his primary binocular for now.
As for my "3 or 4", they were all purchased second hand. The closest I came to owning a new one was the refurb I bought from CLNY. Not sure if that was the one that eventually graced your hands or not. The last one I owned was sold to a gentleman up in Canada via the bay. He had a bit of an odd name but I think he was a regular seller on the bay and over on Astromart as I saw him selling several 8x32 models over there in subsequent months. I don't know if he actually used any of them regularly as I got the impression he was simply looking to turn around many of those bins for instant profit.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
For those who don't want to put it there and are looking for a small, good-fitting case, try the case for the Zeiss Conquest 8/10x30 (the previous model). It is not expensive and fits the 8x32 SV like a glove. The Zeiss logo comes of quite easily
The Leica 8x32 case is a bit too tight, especially its height. It is better padded though, but also more expensive. The Zeiss 8x32 FL case is too wide and a bit too short.
...
George
Thanks for the tip. The Zeiss case arrived today. It is rather a tight fit, and doesn't offer a lot of impact protection, but geez it's a lot smaller/lighter than the Swarovski "field case." Much more compact than the Zeiss 8x32 FL case as well. I'll use it for travel for sure, when I just want the bino protected by something or other to get it through airports and whatnot.
Incidentally, I told my wife a couple days ago that we should just get another 8x32 SV and sell everything else except the backpacking compacts. What's the point after all: these things do it all!!
Mark
And her response was??
