EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (1 Viewer)

[Grando]

I think I'm more likely to go with Zeiss unless Swarovski address the problem properly!

 

[NoSpringChicken]

I am seriously thinking about trading in my 8x32 FP for something more robust when the pandemic is finally over. I am not sure what I would buy instead and I will have to look at the figures involved. I am extremely disappointed by Swarovski's apparent indifference to the problem and have lost faith in my binoculars despite the optics being excellent.

Ron

 

[Flogger]

Hello, new guy here.
I just stumbled onto this thread, about a week too late, it appears.
I just got my new 10x42 EL field pros and while I take care of my gear, I also use it, sometimes very much so. I have many hobbies where these bino’s will get a lot of use and I’m now worried the armor won’t hold up.
I know nobody knows at this point but is this something y’all think Swaro will fix down the road? I mean fix as in a permanent solution? I definitely don’t want bins that I have to send off every year or two to get “fixed”
Many thanks for this great forum. I’ve learned a lot already

 

[PeterPS]

Hello, new guy here.
I just stumbled onto this thread, about a week too late, it appears.
I just got my new 10x42 EL field pros and while I take care of my gear, I also use it, sometimes very much so. I have many hobbies where these bino’s will get a lot of use and I’m now worried the armor won’t hold up.
I know nobody knows at this point but is this something y’all think Swaro will fix down the road? I mean fix as in a permanent solution? I definitely don’t want bins that I have to send off every year or two to get “fixed”
Many thanks for this great forum. I’ve learned a lot already

Welcome to the BF!
I don't think anybody here knows what Swaro will do, but for now they prefer to replace the armors. My guess is that they'll do nothing else, maybe the number of binos that require replacement of the armor is only a small fraction of those sold so investment in designing a new armor would not be justifed. The only thing that I can say for sure is that Swaro are aware that the biodegradable armor of the FPs/NLs might deteriorate after a while.

 

[Aquaplas]

Hello, new guy here.
I just stumbled onto this thread, about a week too late, it appears.
I just got my new 10x42 EL field pros and while I take care of my gear, I also use it, sometimes very much so. I have many hobbies where these bino’s will get a lot of use and I’m now worried the armor won’t hold up.
I know nobody knows at this point but is this something y’all think Swaro will fix down the road? I mean fix as in a permanent solution? I definitely don’t want bins that I have to send off every year or two to get “fixed”
Many thanks for this great forum. I’ve learned a lot already

Don´t be affraid. Use your Swaro as you will use it. It will stand up good. In the Past my Father bought a 8x56 SLC, think this was about 2016 or so, in this time they come out the new rubber Armor. An he use it very often. And yes, the rubber get wear in the Zone who the Thumb is. And he send it after i think 3 jears or so To swaro to get a new rubber on it. The new rubber looks and feels absolutly the same than the first, but he dont wear out.
I think Swaro has in the past a serie of Rubber who made this problems, but they fix it with the internal formular.
Dont worry about the Rubber. Use it often everyday and just so why you want to use it.
In the badest situation you will send your Swaro after 3 or 4 Years and get a brand new Rubber for zero.

 

[james holdsworth]

Not at all comforting...

 

[CSG]

Not at all comforting...

That link took me to a sign in page for Cornell. What does the article claim?

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Perhaps of interest...!

 

[SGBirder]

Perhaps of interest...!

These seem to be the SV pre-FP versions with the supposedly more resilient rubber

 

[Maljunulo]

I had no trouble with my pre-FP 10X42 when I passed them on after roughly six and a half years.

Just an occasional wipe with a damp cloth and a squirt of canned air for grit in the cracks.

 

[james holdsworth]

Jan would be the one to query about this reported issue...no doubt he would see an increase in customer returns of FP era binoculars as compared to the previous generation.

 

[NDhunter]

I must admit that I was considering a future purchase of some Swarovski EL SVs, but this thread has completely put me off. Swarovski really need to address this issue and come up with a solution. £1500 for effective obsolescence once the 10-year warranty has ended seems untenable to me...

If you want a Swarovision, then get the original non-field pro model, they have the conventional tough armor that Swarovski
was known for.
I am also disturbed about the poor performance of the newer models armor, absurd I say. Bad decision making by Swarovski.

Jerry

 

[chill6x6]

So I have a 10X42 EL pre Field Pro. I'm also pretty sure even tho it's not a "Field Pro," my 8X32 has the Field Pro armoring. I also have the FP EL 8.5X42 and the FP EL 12X50. The 8.5X42 and the 8X32 have a lot of miles on them. All still look great. Now I absolutely take care of my stuff, binoculars included.

 

[jan van daalen]

Most deteriorations are caused when exposed to DEET, gasoline (we have had a lot of Marine Steiners back with more deterioration I've ever saw on a Swaro bin) and/or SPF oil.
By far is Swaro our best sold brand and 80% of our customers use them for far destiny travels (read: using Deet and SPF oil).
What's sold most comes back most, but every brand suffers from it.
Rubber used on optics and chemicals just don't go together that well.

Explaining the plausible cause of deterioration to the customer when he/she brings the bin in with this disease, there is always denial at first and when they find out it is not a service/guarantee issue (only at Swaro's) but a free fix the attitude changes to the remark that the armoring should have resistance against DEET and SPF oil because that's what one uses a lot in Africa.

Sigh.....

The advantage of being is business now for almost 30 years is that you've heard all the stories from the complaint book. Most are legit, some are........

Jan

 

[oetzi]

"...there is always denial at first..."🤣🤣🤣
With 25 years in an outdoor store under the belt this sounds very familiar: it's a rare customer who freely admits that he had done something he shouldn't have done.

 

[Troubador]

Most deteriorations are caused when exposed to DEET, gasoline (we have had a lot of Marine Steiners back with more deterioration I've ever saw on a Swaro bin) and/or SPF oil.
By far is Swaro our best sold brand and 80% of our customers use them for far destiny travels (read: using Deet and SPF oil).
What's sold most comes back most, but every brand suffers from it.
Rubber used on optics and chemicals just don't go together that well.

Explaining the plausible cause of deterioration to the customer when he/she brings the bin in with this disease, there is always denial at first and when they find out it is not a service/guarantee issue (only at Swaro's) but a free fix the attitude changes to the remark that the armoring should have resistance against DEET and SPF oil because that's what one uses a lot in Africa.

Sigh.....

The advantage of being is business now for almost 30 years is that you've heard all the stories from the complaint book. Most are legit, some are........

Jan

Jan, Some members have felt this problem is confined to the FP bio-degradeable armour. Is this your experience?

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

Jan, Some members have felt this problem is confined to the FP bio-degradeable armour. Is this your experience?

Lee

Hi Lee,

Yes, it occurs more at Swaro because it is sold more, so to say it is confined to this model is a bridge to far for me.
FWIW, no optics brand is in the business to loose name and if any rubber supplier brand could bring a armor for the optical industry that would not degrade under certain circomstances, wouldn't that be on the market already?

 

[Jos Stratford]

....By far is Swaro our best sold brand and 80% of our customers use them for far destiny travels (read: using Deet and SPF oil).

...(they comment that) the armoring should have resistance against DEET and SPF oil because that's what one uses a lot in Africa.

Sigh.....

Well, I have never had Swarovski, but have spent years and years using optics daily in Africa without any issue with the armour.

If 80% of your customers are using them in such conditions where exposed to Deet, etc (read: high likelihood of their armour degrading) then Swarovski is clearly failing to provide a product suitable for the conditions a majority of its customers actually require a product for.

Given several posters on this thread have clearly not even used their optics in adverse conditions and yet have still seen the armour degrade in fairly new products, then all the more I would say Swarovski is failing .

Amazed someone from Swarovski hasn't come onto this thread to give their view, or what they plan to do about it if anything. I am thinking about new optics, but, despite clearly superb optics and top class after sales service, no way I would buy a pair from them until this is addressed. I doubt I am alone in this.

 

[james holdsworth]

Hi Lee,

Yes, it occurs more at Swaro because it is sold more, so to say it is confined to this model is a bridge to far for me.
FWIW, no optics brand is in the business to loose name and if any rubber supplier brand could bring a armor for the optical industry that would not degrade under certain circomstances, wouldn't that be on the market already?

You’re not really being clear - or I’m not understanding what you have said - have you seen a notable increase in armour problems with FP models as compared to the pre FP models?

 

[jan van daalen]

You’re not really being clear - or I’m not understanding what you have said - have you seen a notable increase in armour problems with FP models as compared to the pre FP models?

Hi James,

No, AFAIK there is no difference in the returning rate between both.
To be absolutely clear: If it was otherwise I would tell!

Jan