EL 10x42 casing deterioration. (1 Viewer)

[jan van daalen]

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.

Hi Jos,

Good for you, but be aware of the fact that all brands come back with this issue in my shop.
The fact that one brand get more Flak compared to others in this matter caused by the quantity and not the quality issue.

I have seen spectacle frames and watch bands go to S***T due to the use of DEET and SPF oil and maybe the optical industry should contact Durex, I don't have the answer but it is what it is.

At least, FWIW that's my 2 cents.

Jan

 

[PeterPS]

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

Hi Jan,
Even if you are getting nearly the same numbers of returns for the preFP and FP models that would still mean that the former are more robust as they are older and more numerous.
Peter

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Jan,
Even if you are getting nearly the same numbers of returns for the preFP and FP models that would still mean that the former are more robust as they are older and more numerous.
Peter

Peter,

OK, this is a foreign language for me so let me explain it in the most simple way so I hope you understand me correctly.
What you sell most comes back most. There is no difference in return percentage between CL, EL, ELSV , ELSVPro, SLC etc if you take the sold volume and the return volume per model in consideration.

This is the best I can do.

Jan

 

[Plingplang]

My feeling is that right now only Swaro owners chip in because this is were there is a thread called "casing detrioration". It might be interesting to start a similar thread in the fora of the other major brands to see in how far users report similar experiences.

 

[Peter Devon]

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.

Clear concise points Jos. My EL SV'v were manufactured in 2013, I bought/registered them 10.10.2018. Because I could ill afford them to begin with, I have taken exceptional care, not wanting to chuck any more money at them. In February 2021 having left them outside in the winter sun, I can only imagine that the sun's U.V rays began the process whereby unwittingly, I now in essence expensively rent these binoculars from Swarovski, if I ever want to keep them in tip-top condition!

My whole ethos was "look after them and jobs a goodun"; now I have the ominous prospect of being in a one-sided reliance to Swarovski; of which situation coincidentally, is a tacit precursor to "you will own nothing and be happy".

 

[Jos Stratford]

Hi Jos,

Good for you, but be aware of the fact that all brands come back with this issue in my shop.
The fact that one brand get more Flak compared to others in this matter caused by the quantity and not the quality issue.

I have seen spectacle frames and watch bands go to S***T due to the use of DEET and SPF oil and maybe the optical industry should contact Durex, I don't have the answer but it is what it is.

At least, FWIW that's

I have seen spectacle frames and watch bands go to S***T due to the use of DEET and SPF oil and maybe the optical industry should contact Durex, I don't have the answer but it is what it is.


Jan

It appears you don't believe those giving their experiences on this thread - even though it is totally reasonable to expect any product, especially an expensive one with a reputation for quality, to be designed to be usable in the environment that the majority of its clients use the product (80% of Swarovski clients according to you), the excuse of DEET etc is a red herring. You introduced this as an explanation, but I believe most of those who actually posted their experiences on this thread had problems on fairly new products that been used in the far from tropical climate of Europe, etc. I suspect no massive overdose of DEET.

 

[Rob Hunt]

I had my binoculars rearmoured 3 times in 8 years and I never use DEET.

 

[Peter Devon]

I have never used DEET or any equivalent.

Their (EL SV 10 x 50) serial number is D834947791, and it's an easy email anybody doubtful can make to Swarovski, to inquire of them when they were bought/registered. In my case 2 years and 4 months ago, before the armour started to come loose off the metal body, which would correspond to Rob Hunt's statement above.

 

[jan van daalen]

It appears you don't believe those giving their experiences on this thread - even though it is totally reasonable to expect any product, especially an expensive one with a reputation for quality, to be designed to be usable in the environment that the majority of its clients use the product (80% of Swarovski clients according to you), the excuse of DEET etc is a red herring. You introduced this as an explanation, but I believe most of those who actually posted their experiences on this thread had problems on fairly new products that been used in the far from tropical climate of Europe, etc. I suspect no massive overdose of DEET.

Jos,

It's not a matter of believing or not from my part.
It's the only explanation I can give for this problem which occurs on all bins. We get bins back of which the armoring sticks on your fingers like glue.
Some turn grey because of some kind of grey powder/dust (looks likes residues of sweat) comes out of the armor.
We are a multi brand dealer and one way or another all brands suffer from one or more of those "diseases". To pin/point it to one brand is a bridge to far for me. That's all I'm saying to you all.
In time I've seen it happening on bins 25 years ago and it still occurs. Some users experience it and others don't on bins from the same production line. Nobody blames the owner/user here. It's just the only explanation I can find. If the glove fits, fine. We have the source of the problem. If it doesn't fit then I don't have the answer.
One thing I am certain of, could it be solved by the supplier of the armoring it was solved years ago. No optical firm makes the armor. They have a say in thickness, weight, color, resistance for slippery etc and can only hope for durability on the long run.
The only thing they can do is to make it right when it goes wrong and here a lot of brands differ.

Jan

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Jos Stratford, post 178, Yes are very much alone in this. If you had read quite a few posts here about the service level Swarovski offers: it is unparalled generally. I have used Swarovski and other brand binoculars for decades and never the armor failed, but I avoid DEET and other oil base products from which you can expect on the basis of chemistry that some armor may suffer.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[james holdsworth]

Jos Stratford, post 178, Yes are very much alone in this. If you had read quite a few posts here about the service level Swarovski offers: it is unparalled generally. I have used Swarovski and other brand binoculars for decades and never the armor failed, but I avoid DEET and other oil base products from which you can expect on the basis of chemistry that some armor may suffer.
Gijs van Ginkel

If you read the thread, he is clearly not alone on this. Coming out repeatedly to say swarovski can do no wrong (and each and every model is perfect in every respect) helps no one.

 

[Rob Hunt]

Swarovski do indeed have outstanding after sale service and this is one reason I bought the binoculars. I didn’t expect that I would have to send them back, at my own cost, 3 times in 8 years to have them rearmoured. As I’ve stated in earlier posts I never use DEET. I have not encountered problems with Zeiss, Nikon and Bausch and Lomb binoculars. It seems clear to me that there is a major problem with the armouring of the EL binoculars.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Rob Hunt, post 192,
I have used my EL 8,5x42 from 2000 up to now very frequently and up to now the armor is in perfect condition, so our experiences differ.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[jaymann]

I take good care of my binoculars and they look brand new. These ones look like they were neglectEd or dragged behind a truck

 

[John A Roberts]

One thing I am certain of, could it be solved by the supplier of the armoring it was solved years ago. No optical firm makes the armor . . .
The only thing they can do is to make it right when it goes wrong and here a lot of brands differ.

As Jan indicates, Swarovski along with other optics manufacturers, use rubber armour components produced by specialist firms
Consequently, Swarovski and others are dependant on what the specialist suppliers can do, taking into account the limitations of current technology
What we really need is input from someone in the industry who can explain the techical challanges

- - - -
The components that Swarovski obtains from others are outlined in their 2016 Sustainability Report
The 136 page 8.5 MB report can be found can be found at: https://www.swarovskioptik.com/int/en/birding/about-us/sustainable-business
Go half way down the page click on the button 'Dive In'

The report indicates that Swarovski uses a variety of both semi-finished and finished components. To quote:
• Our global supplier network contains more than 500 suppliers in more than 35 countries. More than 100 of them supply parts and components that are incorporated directly into our products (p.70)

• We purchase glass blanks from Germany and Asia, while metal and molded parts mainly come from Europe . . . The semi-finished products and components that we purchase from suppliers include plastic parts, electronic components, gaskets, screws, accessories such as straps, bags, tripods or smartphone adapters, and many more (p.71)

• Electronic components are purchased and integrated into our products. In our development, manufacturing, and repair activities, we find it a challenge keeping pace with the short life cycles that electronic components have (p.93)

- - - -
Swarovski’s RA covering, along with other plastic components, are manufactured by a specialist injection moulding company. Again to quote:
• SWAROVSKI OPTIK has already been collaborating with Pließnig, located in Fulpmes, Austria, since 1998. It is involved in the creative development of products and solutions using thermoplastic. Pließnig manufactures injection molding plastic parts for all optical devices . . . (p.70)

The Pliessnig site can be found at: https://www.pliessnig.at/de (and while it’s in German, an English version can be selected)
It includes a number of images of Swarovski components. The first set includes the L10 10x13 jewellery loupe dating from 2003,
and the second shows a FieldPro neck strap connector being manufactured


John

 

[Peter Devon]

As this thread is clearly revealing: a) there is a particular problem relating exclusively to the Swarovski armour. b) those who are not entirely free from (edit: the appearance of) conflict of interests, are trying to gaslight the rubes, that there's nothing to see here so please move on.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Peter Devon, post 196,
I have used over the years binoculars from Leitz/Leica, Nikon, Hensoldt, Swarovski, Zeiss and with none of these binoculars I got problems with the armor, so I must have done something right.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Rotherbirder]

Rob Hunt, post 192,
I have used my EL 8,5x42 from 2000 up to now very frequently and up to now the armor is in perfect condition, so our experiences differ.
Gijs van Ginkel

I'm glad that I stuck with my 2004 8x32ELs and decided not to 'upgrade' to a FP recently. The armour of my original EL - being of a different formulation - is still in perfect condition. They have been used very extensively but are well looked-after; they took a lot of work to buy, even back then when they were half the price they are now!

RB

 

[jan van daalen]

As this thread is clearly revealing: a) there is a particular problem relating exclusively to the Swarovski armour. b) those who are not entirely free from (edit: appearance of) conflict of interests, are trying to gaslight the rubes, that there's nothing to see here so please move on.

Hi Peter,

.........not entirely free from conflict of interest........

Well, at least is says everything about your way of thinking as it does to the others who are just trying to express their expertise.

Jan

 

[Peter Devon]

.........not entirely free from conflict of interest........

........not entirely free from (edit: appearance of) conflict of interests.........