• 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.

Leica Quality Control (1 Viewer)

John Traynor said:
(1) The odds of one individual experiencing so many optical disasters with one brand is beyond my computational ability.

You are not alone. I find his report hard to believe. (I'm sure I posted a comment along these lines earlier but can't find it. Maybe it's on a related thread.)

I'm looking forward to upgrading my bins to digital. I'm told the reception is better.

Leif
 
John Traynor said:
(1) The odds of one individual experiencing so many optical disasters with one brand is beyond my computational ability.

Well, that's what i thought too, and since i am all "shook - up" from spending a year and a half analyzing data and writing a dissertation, i said to myself: "what would be the odds of such an event actually happening, more precisely,
what would be the odds of a series of four events happening to the same person (out of all Leica customers) when purchasing a product with a rate of failure (defect rate) of 0.001%.
Bare with me here:
I considered 4 consecutive purchases of a defective pair of binoculars by mork, who is one of 10,000 Leica customers in USA, and 1 pair of Leica binoculars are defective for every 1000 sold. Now, the numbers may be different, mork may have purchased 3 binoculars, Leica may have fewer or more customers, and fewer than 1 in 1000 binoculars may be sold defective. It would not change the results by much. One may also argue that greater than 1 in 1000 Leica binoculars are sold defective. Even at 1 defective pair for every 100 sold, the the overall odds are unbelievable.

Here is what i did:

I used logistic regression, a statistical procedure commonly used in medical sciences for studies such as “died/survived”, and I used SAS software to randomize and analyze data.

Without going into details, I will tell you that mork’s odds of winning the lottery are greater by a significant margin than his odds of consecutively purchasing 4 defective Leica binoculars.

So, there are only two possibilities:
One: mork should better start buying lottery tickets fast, before he runs out of luck
Two: he is a damn liar.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand whats so hard to beleive. If you will notice I have also posted problems with leica that I have had. And yes ,the internal blackining (paint) was almost completely gone from one of the barrels. I have also had 7x42s with similar problems as Mork. Looks more hair spray on my lenses though. I have since parted with them,but I am sure some lucky someone such as one of you that doesn't believe this problem really exist is enjoying them.My problem was solved when I purchased my 10x42els.The view to my eyes are so good I don't care if rats are running around inside of them.


JCJ
 
JCJ said:
I don't understand whats so hard to beleive. If you will notice I have also posted problems with leica that I have had.
JCJ

JCJ, the Birdforum is a very bad way to sample binoculars quality. It is so because people who get a bad sample are much more likely to end up on a forum and discuss about it. For every unhappy Leica customer venting their dissatisfaction, there are thousands that just go birding and never come here. Zeiss also had a few samples with focus knob problems, and Swarovski's were reported to rattle. That does not mean anything, you can not make inferences buy summing up information gathered on this forum..
 
I don't want to get into the believability debate here, but reading through this thread I noticed that Mork, JCJ and an earlier post by PappaMundi which variously describe "freckling", oily droplets and hairspray like deposits on the focusing element and the interior of the objective strongly suggest to me the possibility of evaporated lubricant coating the glass. I've noticed this in a few porros at the eyepiece end where the lubricant is applied to the eyepiece tubes. It's the sort of thing that might not be noticed unless you know exactly what you are looking for and how to see it. A small amount wouldn't matter, but it can continue to build up over time.
 
Sorry for my poor English coz it is my second langauge.

I apprepriate the brand loyalty of some Leica's die-hard fans and I love Leica too. But I am kind of person alsways fooling around. IMHO, the picturesque view of BN/BR is second to none. I once saw a photo in the newspaper, picturing the Princess of Japan holding a Leica BN for birding. It should say sth about the optical quality of BNs.

I have no idea about the situation in America, however the QC issue is real, at least in Hong Kong. Most of the time, a little lint or speck doesn't hurt. However, to be Leica fans we should be perfectionist,shouldn't we? IMHO, Leica should address the problem seriously, otherwise the (once) faithful supporters will have affairs with other brands sooner or later.

Last year I sent my 10x50 BR back to the dealer because of lint detected on the focusing lenses in both barrels. Maybe I was overreactive and misused the warrantly coz it didn't affect the performance at all. After 8 weeks, when it returned I discovered that there was a tiny spot at the very edge of the left ocular. This time I didn't take further action coz I didn't want to be too obsessive to it.

The CS of the official dealer in H.K. once told me that he had reflected the QC concerns from the long-term customers to the HQ. However the reply from the HQ was sth like,"if the products are all perfect, then your position can be slashed!" Interestingly, there are few, if not none, QC problems of Leica's products in Japan. Supposedly the importer has done an excellent job as the gatekeeper.(Leica binoculars are considerably more expensive than those in HK, though)

For those who are satisfied with their products, congrulation. Just enjoy the view and don't dwell on it.
 
Last edited:
Otto McDiesel said:
JCJ, the Birdforum is a very bad way to sample binoculars quality. It is so because people who get a bad sample are much more likely to end up on a forum and discuss about it. For every unhappy Leica customer venting their dissatisfaction, there are thousands that just go birding and never come here. Zeiss also had a few samples with focus knob problems, and Swarovski's were reported to rattle. That does not mean anything, you can not make inferences buy summing up information gathered on this forum..
Well what is your problem otto?
 
I just shone a torch down my 8x42BRs and would you believe it, I found a dead frog!

No seriously - there is a speck of lint or summit on the objective lens, but I'm not really bothered... still, it shouldn't happen, considering how much they cost.
 
Leica quality control seems to vary, but all binos come with the little signed inspection card, so we know who to go after if things aren't right!
 
Hi,

I've just gotten a pair of Leica 10x42 Ultravids and the description of 'speckles' in the tubes describes perfectly what I see scattered in my pair in both tubes on the glass surfaces. These speckles are very small and appear almost metallic; like 'glitter' but much smaller.

A strong LED flashlight reveals them when scanned in various directions from the objective end (viewing also from the objective side).

Despite the fact I saw these I accepted this pair since it was the lesser of two evils (two Zeiss FL's had fingerprints on their prisms!). The speckles are unlikely to be of any consequence optically and I have satisfied myself of this.

The speckles are not being imagined.

My pair also had a small amount of similar 'speckled' metallic dust on the rubber of the rim of the objective. It seems like a contaminant dust of some sort. Perhaps it's glass or metal filings from the assembly area? Not sure, but it obviously exists in some Leica binoculars (including mine) and makes little difference to the image quality.

If you are interested in testing yours then a strong LED flashlight shined in through the objective and viewed from that same side should reveal the reflections from glass surfaces if the light is scanned, and you are wearing your reading glasses (near correction if you're above about 40 years of age). Because glass is clear to light, the real problem is focussing one's eyes back and forth within the tube to see them. I suspect many people with presbyopia will fail to see these because they focus at essentially one focal plane and miss the ability to scan the whole depth of the barrels.

I agree it would be nicer without it, but imperfection is in the nature of things.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Hi Zuiko,

Glad to see (after reading your posts in other threads) that you plumped for the 10x42 Ultravids rather than the Zeiss FL's - I am sure that you will be very pleased with them. I have both Trinovid 10x50's and Ultravid 10x42's - I still prefer the Trinovids but the much lighter weight of the Ultra's is a winner.

As to the main theme of this thread, I spend all my time looking through the ocular (eyepiece) lenses, not the objectives - the view is far better!!

I have only one criticism with the Ultravids - they stink!! Seriously, when I first unpacked them I was struck by the strong smell of the rubber (green) armouring. I reckoned that this would wear off (like in car tyres or rubber-soled shoes) but it hasn't after 18 months. I am often birding in temperatures over 30 celsius and find that sweaty hands make the smell even worse.

Anyone else noticed this?
 
Colin Key said:
I have only one criticism with the Ultravids - they stink!! Seriously, when I first unpacked them I was struck by the strong smell of the rubber (green) armouring. I reckoned that this would wear off (like in car tyres or rubber-soled shoes) but it hasn't after 18 months. I am often birding in temperatures over 30 celsius and find that sweaty hands make the smell even worse.

Anyone else noticed this?


I have the black Ultravid 10x42, and i do notice the smell of rubber in warm weather. To me the smell is very much like that of a pencil eraser, and it brings fond memories of pencils and childhood. I love them, smell included, there are no speckles in them, and the focuser is as smooth as one could whish for.
 
ultravid texture?

Colin Key said:
I have only one criticism with the Ultravids - they stink!! Seriously, when I first unpacked them I was struck by the strong smell of the rubber (green) armouring. I reckoned that this would wear off (like in car tyres or rubber-soled shoes) but it hasn't after 18 months. I am often birding in temperatures over 30 celsius and find that sweaty hands make the smell even worse.

I'm curious about the texture of the ultravids. In the samples I've handled (~ 1/2 dozen) there's been a good bit of variation, with some feeling super slick (mostly the green ones) to being pleasantly tacky. Do the green ones tack up over time or the black ones get slick?

Thanks,
Chris C.
 
Chris C said:
I'm curious about the texture of the ultravids. In the samples I've handled (~ 1/2 dozen) there's been a good bit of variation, with some feeling super slick (mostly the green ones) to being pleasantly tacky. Do the green ones tack up over time or the black ones get slick?

Thanks,
Chris C.

I have noticed the difference between green and black rubber, as you mention. I can't comment on their aging, but i believe that the two are different kinds of rubber in the first place (for color reasons).
 
Hi all,

Personally I find the smell from my Ultravids a bit off-putting. If they have been kept in their cordura case for any length of time then the smell can be quite nauseating when the case is opened. Also, in use, it is rather difficult to keep the bins away from your nose!!

Whether the green rubber is worse or the same as the black I can't say; hope more Ultravid owners will respond.

The texture of the rubber armouring is also a bit disappointing. When new, mine had a pleasant feel - not quite "sticky" but a nice non-slip feel. After 18 months of daily use the rubber has become quite shiny and slippery. I wipe them often with a damp cloth to clean off the sweaty hand prints, and in the field sometimes give then a rub with a "Wet One" (moist wipes in an airtight pack which probably contain a small amount of ethyl alcohol) but the original finish cannot be regained.

My wife has Swarovski EL's which have a much better rubber armouring (same as in my ATS80HD 'scope) - this does have a very slight texture to it, doesn't smell and looks as as good as the day the bins were bought.

I also think that the "feel" of the Trinovids was better than the Ultravids, although with years of use they also became shiny.
 
Colin Key said:
Hi all,


The texture of the rubber armouring is also a bit disappointing. When new, mine had a pleasant feel - not quite "sticky" but a nice non-slip feel. After 18 months of daily use the rubber has become quite shiny and slippery. I wipe them often with a damp cloth to clean off the sweaty hand prints, and in the field sometimes give then a rub with a "Wet One" (moist wipes in an airtight pack which probably contain a small amount of ethyl alcohol) but the original finish cannot be regained.

Thanks Colin-- have you tried rubbing the rubber with a fine sandpaper (~ 400 grit)? This might be enough to refresh the surface, though I'd try in a very small area first (I was considering this approach for a new pair of green ultravids if I'd gonet that route...). No suggestions for the smell though!

Cheers,
Chris C.
 
For the smell you might try a slurry of bicarbonate of soda (sodium bicarbonate) to treat the rubber. Wash off after a few minutes.

To roughen the rubber fine sandpaper would almost certainly make it smoother acting to polish it in effect.

An alternative would be steel wool applied judiciously; or even the synthetic washing up 'green' scrubbers which would also be safe. Maybe hit two birds with one stone by applying the slurry with the scrubber for a wash.
 
Last edited:
IF you're going to do anything like that... I'd first try the green scrub pad, and then some coarse steel wool.. anything finer and it would definitely start to smooth it out. I wouldn't even consider taking sandpaper to them, but if you do, some 400 grit or higher would probably do the job...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top