• 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.

Endurance test of binoculars (1 Viewer)

I simply asked if anyone knows how to "sink" a working Ultravid, Duovid or Trinovid? Leica owners should know.

I've no idea how to do that (at least not without causing serious damage to the bino). So how?

Re the test, I mostly agree to what Kammerdinner says. Not really extreme, test procedures make sense with the exception of the falling test. Sample of 1 makes the generalisation of results difficult, in particular for criteria where the result is failure (0p) or not failure (10p).

Still a fun test and nice someones done that.
 
Mark,

Maybe my choice of terms could be better. I am not disagreeing with either your or the previous response that stated the conditions could be representative of "accidents" that normally occur.

Let me see if I can clarify by citing a specific example. My bins sit various places depending if they are seeing regular use or if they are "in storage". I use different bins at different times of the year and for different applications. To simplify things though lets take my Sightron Blue Sky SII 8x32s as an example. As I type this they are sitting out on the back floor of my car. They are going to sit there all day while I am here at work. Temp right now, according to Weatherbug, is 56 F. It might get up to the low 70s F later today.

After work I will probably stop at one or two birding spots to check for some of the Warblers that have been passing through the area lately. I will take them out of the car and either scan from some parking lots or take a brief walk with the bins attached to the neckstrap and around my neck.

Later in the day when I get home I will probably have them sitting out on a table on the back patio in either full shade or full sun. They will probably sit there until it is time to pack it in for the evening. Tomorrow they will be back in my car again for another round of the same schedule.

Temps are fluctuating throughout the day but not to the extent of a freezer or an oven.

I didn't/don't plan to drop them either. I have dropped them once though. It was a day last year when Stet and I met at a local high school so I could check out his 6.5x32 Vortex Furys. I, of course, became immediately concerned because I have had mixed results from dropping binoculars. In that particular situation the worst that happened was a small nick in the rubber armor around the rim of the objective. Collimation was still spot on, no problems with mechanics or optical performance. The drop was from the seat of my car (about 3 feet) down to a macadam (spelling?) parking lot surface.

I have dropped plenty of other binoculars in my time. Several immediately come to mind. Here is a list and the subsequent results...

Zeiss Conquest ABK 8x40 - Dropped from the back of my pickup to a dirt/gravel surface on a road shoulder. Optics were fine but the focusing knob snapped off the focusing rod. I had to ship them to Zeiss's Virginia facility and they had to ship them off to Germany. Two months and $220 later I had the bins back in new condition with a nice Zeiss hat and lens cleaning kit. Not covered under warranty since the Zeiss warranty on those bins only covered manufacturing defects and not user damage.

Nikon Action Extreme 7x35 - Dropped from an elevated deck, at my old house, down about 15 feet to grass/dirt. Binoculars out of collimation but with no exterior damage. Shipped to Nikon and repaired for the $25 to cover shipping via their No-Fault warranty.

Zen Ray 7x43 - Dropped, actually by Charles, onto a macadam surface from about 5 feet. No damage internally or externally. Eyecups were fully collapsed at the time.

Pentax DCF SP 8x32 - Dropped from a pool deck and then bounced into a swimming pool. Rubber eyecup had a small "split" right around the edge of the rim. Eyecup worked perfectly with no change to collimation or overall performance. Contacted Pentax and they shipped me out a new eyecups that I replaced on my own...free of charge.

Nikon E II 8x30 - Dropped from a table onto a carpeted floor. Out of collimation but no damage externally. Sent to Nikon and repaired under their No-fault warranty for $24.95.

Vortex Razor (original open-bridge version) - Dropped from the hood of my car onto the shoulder of the road (dirt/gravel again). Slightly out of collimation and the focusing knob became much more difficult to turn. Returned to Vortex who promptly shipped me out a new one with a two week turn around - fully covered under the warranty.

That is all I can remember at the moment. There may have been one or two more. So, as you can see, I do agree that a drop-test is valid in that it does occasionally happen. How often it happens is debatable.

As for waterproofing, here is a video I uploaded to my flickr account last summer. This is what I "expect" waterproofing to be in a binocular...regardless of what a manufacturer posts on their website. I think it roughly correlates with exposure to rainy or snow conditions...at least what I typically put a binocular through.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73029961@N07/7376330860/in/photostream

So, as I mentioned, I am not disputing that binoculars aren't used or exposed to these types of conditions but I would not term those conditions "regular use".

On a related note, this may also be a good point to mention warranty and/or customer service. Neither has anything to do with durability but it is certainly reassuring to purchase a product from a company that has good customer service and a full-proof warranty should exposure to such conditions result in an unusuable binocular.

Personally I don't find the test conditions "extreme."

-22 C = -7.6 F. I'm quite certain I've used binoculars at that temp, and for long enough periods of time for the bino to equalize with the ambient temp. I don't remember the details, though. I was probably anxious to get back inside. ;)

60 C = 140 F, and that's a typical summertime, closed vehicle temp. I try never to leave optics in that situation, but it probably happens.

If a manufacturer claims 500 cm waterproof, then 50 cm should be smooth sailing, right?

The drop test is problematic, however. No clear science here. The closest you could do would be to drop something on the binoculars, not the other way around. Still, eliminating chance and sample variation would be daunting. Not to mention that in real-world accidents you couldn't repeat the results if you tried.

Personally, I wouldn't decide on a binocular purchase based on these results. But I wouldn't say they're useless either. I found it rather interesting.

I have a Zeiss, 2 Swaros, a Leica, and a Zen. Has this test changed my mind about any of them? Not so much.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Such merriment I can hardly bear! Thanks to Arek for this totally rocking new kind of test.

Still, you need to take tests with a grain of salt. The results speak for themselves, yet still require interpretation within the larger body of knowledge. But, when opining on his work, every tester seems to take his own one-time result as the one and only true truth, gladly discarding the results of other tests as well as the whole of user experience. Such testing is just not at the level of science yet, where investigators who differ must take one another seriously.

Of course there are flawed binoculars of all makes, and on this forum are plenty of reports of various complaints and blatant failures. But I for one am not yet convinced, for example, that by and large the Leica is not a rugged binocular well suited for harsh climates and rough usage, that the Fujinon FMT-SX is not supremely bright, or that Swarovisions have terrible focusing action. I fully believe, however, that things to the contrary did occur in certain tests, and were correctly reported.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Much of this criticism is self inflicted and the result of Allbinos editorial comments, implications and opinions about the binoculars and about the reputations of the companies which were needlessly included with the tests and their results.

What is wrong with just saying, in effect: "We begged, bought, borrowed or stole the following binoculars to conduct an endurance test on them. The conditions under which the test took place are as follows:. ............. . Each binocular was subjected to them.

The results are listed on the last page.

PERIOD!

Let people draw their own conclusions.

Bob
 
Thanks Arek for taking the time to do this excellent test! I hope you folks keep doing what you do, and don't take "us" too serious.;):t: I don't always agree with the conclusions etc. I can understand why some manufacturers would not want to include their hardware and surprised how many samples you folks actually got.
 
Last edited:
Much of this criticism is self inflicted and the result of Allbinos editorial comments, implications and opinions about the binoculars and about the reputations of the companies which were needlessly included with the tests and their results.

I agree with this. Arek would have been much better served to simply present the results without the editorializing.
 
Frank,

Your varied experiences show just how capricious the issue of "endurance" can be.

I do think the Allbinos tests could be useful in a very general fashion, but any reputable manufacturer should be miles ahead of this. After all, they have the ability to test samples to failure whenever they want to. If they don't (Leica??) that's their fault.

Mark
 
Ok, I surrender to the BF humor factor.

Without evidence, many are accepting someone's word that they "tested" a bunch of bins, evaluated them and then ranked them based on a numerical scoring system that is so ill-defined it boggles the imagination.

Why isn't there a simple video summarizing methodologies employed by the "testers"? Cabelas has one and it's pretty convincing.
http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/vide...87&embedCode=NxNWdrNTqDvXoMAxlCi7FQ-7VlZb7MaI
How about the same from Allbinos? Surely, the technology is not that daunting.

A couple of points...
I don't see any science in their methodology. If I'm missing something, please advise.
I can cause any Ultravid, Duovid or Trinovid to leak underwater. Can you?
And last, but not least...show me the money trail!

Caveat Emptor

This "where is the video?" objection is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Their testing methodology is meticulously described in the 2nd page of the review. Why do I need a video to believe that they stuck a binocular in a freezer or put it into a bathtub full of water?

You seem to be implying (practically explicitly stating) that they literally just faked this entire test. You claim that you "suggested nothing of the kind" but how on earth could any reasonable reader interpret your statement any other way: "Without evidence, many are accepting someone's word that they "tested" a bunch of bins, evaluated them and then ranked them based on a numerical scoring system." The alternative would be to presume that they DIDN'T test them, i.e. they just made it all up. Denying that you did not suggest that is with your comment borders on self-delusion.

Why on earth would they fake this test? Do you also think they faked all of their optical reviews too? I don't see any videos showing them measuring light transmission or distortion. Guess that's all a lie/fake too!!

A variety of legitimate objections/criticisms have been raised, from the statistical significance of small (single) sample sizes to criticisms of the specific methodology. But your suggestion that the results were fake and/or rigged (show me the money trail!) is so absurd that I don't even know what to say.

Occam's razor. What's more likely -- that they actually tested the binoculars as stated in their review, or that unless I see a video showing what happened it was all a big fake!! Good lord.
 
Last edited:
Much of this criticism is self inflicted and the result of Allbinos editorial comments, implications and opinions about the binoculars and about the reputations of the companies which were needlessly included with the tests and their results.

What is wrong with just saying, in effect: "We begged, bought, borrowed or stole the following binoculars to conduct an endurance test on them. The conditions under which the test took place are as follows:. ............. . Each binocular was subjected to them.

The results are listed on the last page.

PERIOD!

Let people draw their own conclusions.

Bob

I agree. Just define how the sample was obtained and it's size, the tests and the results. The sermonizing may come back to haunt the tester in that manufacturers and/or distributors may decline to provide binoculars for future evaluations of any kind. To me the downside risk seems to outweigh the benefit of such extreme testing.
 
Well when you look at it as a % of total binoculars owned rather than as an absolute total it's not so bad. 6 drops out of 300 binoculars is only, what, 2%? :D
 
Thanks for pointing that out Eitan.

Consider the amount of time they are in my hands or even within a foot of me on any given day. I would probably end up sleeping with some of them but the future Mrs said no toys in bed.
 
Ok, opinion trumps science.

This was the finest test and review I've ever seen. It's terribly unfortunate that Leica failed so miserably but now the world has been warned not to buy bins with a red dot...unless you really like red dots. Thank you for trashing Leica. Job well done!

I hope we see more reviews like this because the world needs to know exactly who's lying and who isn't. Truthfully, we really need to know.

Oh, I forgot to mention I recently birded on a very rainy day (raining cats and dogs) with my Nikon 8X32 SE porro. Since I have a few of them I decided to take the risk and just go for it. Surprisingly, it suffered no damage whatsoever. I was shocked but as they say "live and learn."

Keep up the good work!
 
Strawman, Giant Strawman ;)
 

Attachments

  • strawman.jpg
    strawman.jpg
    21.7 KB · Views: 86
  • giant straw-man.jpg
    giant straw-man.jpg
    212.9 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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