BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 3234296" data-attributes="member: 665">Some guys have all the luck... you got yourself a good'un. Only one out of the five modern Swaros I tried had a smooth focuser like yours, the rest had some degree of stickiness, from merely turning a bit harder in one direction than the other to taking two fingers to turn. I also tried a 20-year-old SLC that had a smooth turning focuser, but it wasn't waterproof and probably didn't have the one-way spring like the modern models. Swaro doesn't use a lubricant-free design like Leica, the focuser needs lubrication, and after years that lube can dry up or break down from continued exposure to the elements, which you would expect, but I've experienced focuser issues in brand new models, so the problems are not due to the lubricant. It's a design flaw that some diehard fans and Swaro refuse to recognize. Instead, Swaro just fixes 'em up when owners send them in for repairs. Some get their bins back with smooth focusers, others better, but not totally smooth. Apparently, it's less costly to do the repairs than redesigning the focuser. Swarovski's largest consumer group is hunters. Fine focusing isn't important to them, so if they redesigned the focusers, it would be to please  namby–pamby birders who bought samples with less than optimal focusers and want them to work perfectly. What's a real mystery is why some buyers like you receive samples with focusers that turn smoothly. After all, if the one-way spring were the culprit, as has been suggested, shouldn't ALL samples be at least a little harder to turn in one direction than the other? And why are some new samples worse than others if they all use the same mechanical parts? Something's fishy here, and so far, I have not caught the fish. Brock</blockquote>

Verification