Endurance test of binoculars (1 Viewer)

[etudiant]

I just noticed that all of the Allbinos reviews have been removed from their website. With the exception of this one on the Endurance test.

Bob

Seems a pretty comprehensive wipe. Wonder if they got hacked.
Sure hope that it is only a glitch, the site is a real resource. Afaik, it is the only site that offers this kind of consistent review of binoculars of all price ranges.
The concern is of course that their review trod on some bigger toes and that they were pressured, although that seems inconsistent with leaving the durability review still up.

 

[etudiant]

But, I never drenched my binoculars deliberately to test them. Rather, after observing an image quality loss, inspection revealed signs of damage or other things like crystals forming on the objective tubes. Off they went to the manufacturer, and back they came repaired. I suspect that sometimes the seal was broken and water vapor entered and just did its nasty thing.

Ed

If memory serves, some of the high end Fuji glasses have a built in desiccant cartridge. Maybe Fuji's long experience with marine binoculars has taught them to understand the limitations of O rings and the benefits of a 'belt and suspenders' approach better than their competitors.

 

[pompadour]

My suggestion above that if Leica identify a defective lot they can trace and inform the relevant buyers was a bit hasty and excessive.

Firstly, I was thinking of the importance of waterproofing in some parts of the world, such as where I live, where if a bin is not thoroughy wp. fungus/mould on glass may quickly ruin it. I don't know how many Leicas end up in such areas. Elsewhere a failure in wpng. may cause a problem only on submerging or strong splashing.

Secondly, the failure in the test may have been caused by the freeze-bake sequence. Although, as noted further above, this sequence, or its reverse, can occur in use, that is rare.

In such cases Leica's warranty operating in the normal way should give relief.

However, I repeat, what happened should not have. It is, as I had to write to Leica, surprising and disturbing.

 

[elkcub]

Hi Holger,

Trying to minimize technical stuff, inferential statistics is based on the twin notions of a population distributions and sampling distributions. Let's say the population is comprised of all new binoculars made by Leica, merging the two types used in the Allbinos tests. Each member of the population is either waterproof or not, i.e., having binary values (1 or 0), but we don't know in what proportion. In order to find out, we devise a scheme of drawing a random sample of size N from the large population, with the idea of inferring whether or not the proportion of zeros, q, exceeds some criterion e.g., 5%. If q > 5% the alarm goes off. Otherwise the percentage of good products, i.e., p = 1 - q, is considered acceptable and production continues.

Now let's consider how large a sample is needed to get information about the population proportions. In the lower limit, when N = 1, the only thing that can inferred about the population, if a 0 is recorded, is that p < 100%. That's it. With a sample of N = 2, even with two zeros not much more is learned. As N increases, however, the population proportions are increasingly expected be mimicked by the sample proportions. So a very small sample tells us almost nothing and a large sample can tell us everything.

For practical reasons it isn't possible to measure huge samples, so sampling distributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distribution are used to draw probabilistic inferences. For binary events the sampling distribution of p is called a binomial distribution, having a mean = Np and variance = Np(1-p). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution The statistical question then becomes: for a sample of size N what is the probability that the observed proportion q = 1 - p exceeds our production criterion of q = .05 with a confidence level of, let's say, .95.

This reasoning is the basis for constructing quality control charts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_chart, although it's too complicated to present here. Let me simply say that within this framework a sample of N=2 reveals almost nothing.

Sorry to disagree with you, my friend. I liked your earlier conclusion that two failures should probably catch the manufacturer's attention, but that might just be to devise damage control in the marketing arena.

I hope I can still count on you for help with PDEs when the need arises.

Best regards,
Ed

 

[David in NC]

WOW! Some serious knowledge of statistical analysis, methodology, and product testing has been espoused over these past pages, most of which was posted to debate Allbinos testing procedures.

So much knowledge is shown off in these posts... So why are none of you testing large numbers of binos for the rest of us to benefit from, like Allbinos?

I'm asking that rhetorically of course...

It's kind of like my job (law enforcement)...there are precious few who will actually do it but when there is an incident or event everybody and their brother is an expert...and vocal with their opinions...

:t:

I await you guys to put this vast knowledge base to use... :smoke:

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Hi Holger,

Trying to minimize technical stuff, inferential statistics is based on the twin notions of a population distributions and sampling distributions. Let's say the population is comprised of all new binoculars made by Leica, merging the two types used in the Allbinos tests. Each member of the population is either waterproof or not, i.e., having binary values (1 or 0), but we don't know in what proportion. In order to find out, we devise a scheme of drawing a random sample of size N from the large population, with the idea of inferring whether or not the proportion of zeros, q, exceeds some criterion e.g., 5%. If q > 5% the alarm goes off. Otherwise the percentage of good products, i.e., p = 1 - q, is considered acceptable and production continues.

Now let's consider how large a sample is needed to get information about the population proportions. In the lower limit, when N = 1, the only thing that can inferred about the population, if a 0 is recorded, is that p < 100%. That's it. With a sample of N = 2, even with two zeros not much more is learned. As N increases, however, the population proportions are increasingly expected be mimicked by the sample proportions. So a very small sample tells us almost nothing and a large sample can tell us everything.

For practical reasons it isn't possible to measure huge samples, so sampling distributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distribution are used to draw probabilistic inferences. For binary events the sampling distribution of p is called a binomial distribution, having a mean = Np and variance = Np(1-p). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution The statistical question then becomes: for a sample of size N what is the probability that the observed proportion q = 1 - p exceeds our production criterion of q = .05 with a confidence level of, let's say, .95.

This reasoning is the basis for constructing quality control charts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_chart, although it's too complicated to present here. Let me simply say that within this framework a sample of N=2 reveals almost nothing.

Sorry to disagree with you, my friend. I liked your earlier conclusion that two failures should probably catch the manufacturer's attention, but that might just be to devise damage control in the marketing arena.

I hope I can still count on you for help with PDEs when the need arises.

Best regards,
Ed

No: If you want to test the assumption "less than 5% of the binoculars are faulty", then even a single draw (yielding a faulty binocular) suffices to reject that assumption on 95% confidence basis (because the probability to draw a faulty binocular would be below 5%).

Cheers,
Holger

 

[pompadour]

Etudiant, among the "alphas" Swaros. may be more susceptible to seal failure. Here's what I wrote some months ago in another thread in BF, http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2570952&postcount=176:

"... Dennis indicated that the Swaro. Sv. 8x32 has a problem of fungus forming inside. Surprised, I asked for details because ... I was considering this particular model. D. then gave this link ... http://www.birdforum.net/showthread....arovski+fungus ...

Also, 3-4 Swaro. early SLC bins over here had developed a haze inside due to a wproof. seal/s being weakened - not enough it seems to let in fungus. (After your acount I remember that Swaro. at that time was keen to actually demonstrate at shops that their bins were wproof.) Since the time "central-focus" bins began to be made inert-gas-filled wproof. (early 1990s?) I know of this happening here only to those SLCs, not such bins of other makes and models. (Earlier a nitrogen-purged 'individul focus' Nikon I had showed the same problem.)"

 

[Pileatus]

This forum has provided long-term, field-based endurance testing for many years. Damaging binoculars and then saying they are damaged is of no use to me.
Allbinos should have tested seal integrity as soon as they removed binoculars from the box!

Again, allow me to ask, how many Leica binocular owners have suffered seal failure?

 

[etudiant]

This forum has provided long-term, field-based endurance testing for many years. Damaging binoculars and then saying they are damaged is of no use to me.
Allbinos should have tested seal integrity as soon as they removed binoculars from the box!

Again, allow me to ask, how many Leica binocular owners have suffered seal failure?

Honestly, Pileatus, how do you expect him to do that? No quick and easy seals test exists afaik. Dunking the glass is probably the only way.
The Allbino tests are done by visual inspection, plus camera, scale and tape measure. There are no USAF resolution targets, no lasers to inspect the lenses for fluorite, no collimation test setups and none of the various more searching optical tests that 'Surveyor' or 'Henry' has sometimes provided on this forum. So imho the testing is done with very limited means by a dedicated enthusiast.
I remain of the view that the man provides a real service and should be applauded for his work. Nitpickers, if they wish, should feel free to try to do as well or better.

Separately, I accept that leaking Leicas are not the norm, so perhaps they were poorly stored. They both come from the same source and are both older than 'elkcub's 5 year threshold.
It might be useful to check a couple of other older glasses from the same shop, maybe they park them in a storage space next to the furnace or something. The shop sounded reputable and they would surely also be interested.

Meanwhile, the Allbino reviews are still no longer found and I worry that this controversy has killed that activity.

 

[FrankD]

I just noticed that all of the Allbinos reviews have been removed from their website. With the exception of this one on the Endurance test.

Bob

Maybe I am missing something. The "homepage" looked blank but when I clicked on the reviews tab then all of the reviews popped up. Maybe they are redoing the website?

What I did find interesting was a review of 4 65 mm ED spotting scopes posted last month that I somehow missed. The fun part is that I have owned all four (assuming the Acuter is just a rebadged Celestron Ultima ED). I am reading it now. Will post a link/thread over in the spotting scope forum as well.

http://www.allbinos.com/165.1-article-Review_of_four_65_ED_spotting_scopes.html

 

[Pileatus]

Honestly, Pileatus, how do you expect him to do that? No quick and easy seals test exists afaik. Dunking the glass is probably the only way.
The Allbino tests are done by visual inspection, plus camera, scale and tape measure. There are no USAF resolution targets, no lasers to inspect the lenses for fluorite, no collimation test setups and none of the various more searching optical tests that 'Surveyor' or 'Henry' has sometimes provided on this forum. So imho the testing is done with very limited means by a dedicated enthusiast.
I remain of the view that the man provides a real service and should be applauded for his work. Nitpickers, if they wish, should feel free to try to do as well or better.

Separately, I accept that leaking Leicas are not the norm, so perhaps they were poorly stored. They both come from the same source and are both older than 'elkcub's 5 year threshold.
It might be useful to check a couple of other older glasses from the same shop, maybe they park them in a storage space next to the furnace or something. The shop sounded reputable and they would surely also be interested.

Meanwhile, the Allbino reviews are still no longer found and I worry that this controversy has killed that activity.

Open the box, remove the binocular and submerge it in water. I think that's rather easy to do. If it fails, end of test for that sample. If it passes, move on. This procedure would have eliminated Allbinos torture testing as a cause of failure. As it is, we have no idea how much abuse Allbinos inflicted on any model.

You can claim whatever you want but it's a real mystery supported by nothing but a website and some fanciful statements. Truthfully, I'm shocked professionals eagerly debate the merits of unsupported, unsubstantiated claims.

Allbinos wants eyeballs, a fact that should inspire a modicum of skepticism and critical thinking. The truth is they know how to cleverly feed an insatiable appetite.

 

[ceasar]

Maybe I am missing something. The "homepage" looked blank but when I clicked on the reviews tab then all of the reviews popped up. Maybe they are redoing the website?

What I did find interesting was a review of 4 65 mm ED spotting scopes posted last month that I somehow missed. The fun part is that I have owned all four (assuming the Acuter is just a rebadged Celestron Ultima ED). I am reading it now. Will post a link/thread over in the spotting scope forum as well.

http://www.allbinos.com/165.1-article-Review_of_four_65_ED_spotting_scopes.html

Frank,

I went to the "Rankings" and clicked on it. Then I went to Allbino's rankings, clicked on them--8 x 32--in this case and the ranked ones came up. It was when I clicked on "Specifications" and "Test" therein that nothing showed up. Here is one for the Nikon 8 x 32 HG L. Nothing for them came up:

http://www.allbinos.com/94-Nikon_HG_L_8x32_DCF-binoculars_specifications.html

This happened for other binoculars I chose randomly. Other sections of the website still could have information on it but here the reasons for the ratings were not available and they were written about at the end of the specs.

Bob

 

[R.B.]

Open the box, remove the binocular and submerge it in water. I think that's rather easy to do. If it fails, end of test for that sample. If it passes, move on. This procedure would have eliminated Allbinos torture testing as a cause of failure. As it is, we have no idea how much abuse Allbinos inflicted on any model.

Dear Customer. Congratulations. You've just bought high quality Leica binoculars. Your new binoculars can operate at temperatrures as low as -40 C. Also your new Leica binoculars can operate at temperarures as high as +60 C. Your new binoculars are waterproof and can be safely immersed to 5 m under water. However, decide what listed above exterme conditions you are going to expose your high quality Leica binoculars at. If you want to use your binoculars at high temperatures low temperatures and in extremaly wet conditions it is advisable to buy 3 pairs of HQ Leica binoculars and expose each pair for only one of these extreme conditions.

Likely I was a total idiot that was simply not able to understand how to operate Leicas. That forum provided me with knowledge that for instance frozen Leica simply can cease to be waterproof and it is absolutely normal. Leica exposed to +60 centigrades sholud not be expected to have seals untouched.
Yes, now I understand Leicas are absoultely unusual.

 

[eitanaltman]

Open the box, remove the binocular and submerge it in water. I think that's rather easy to do. If it fails, end of test for that sample. If it passes, move on. This procedure would have eliminated Allbinos torture testing as a cause of failure. As it is, we have no idea how much abuse Allbinos inflicted on any model.

I still reject the idea that there was any "torture test". Other than the drop test, what did they do that was that extreme? The temperature range they subjected the binoculars to (-20C/+60C) was within the spec'd operating range of most binoculars. Plenty of users on this forum have stuck their binoculars in the freezer for a few hours or longer to see if the focus knob got stiff.

Surely you don't think the lens cleaning test was "torturous"?

Leica Ultravids are advertised to be fully submersible to a depth of 5m. And to be very rugged. So which part was the "torture" which damaged their seals? Dropping them from 2 feet up? If that's enough to do it, then that's a valid indictment of their ruggedness.

I will note this paragraph from the Ultravid manual:

The Leica Ultravid binoculars have hermetically
sealed and nitrogen-filled magnesium
housings. They are therefore suited for rough
outdoor use. There is no need to be concerned
with moisture as they are 100% waterproof
to a depth of 5m and the internal optical
system is not subject to fogging.

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

Have I missed in what order the tests were conducted?

Rich

 

[eitanaltman]

No, it wasn't specified. But I don't see why it would matter.

One would infer that the submersion wasn't first, because the binoculars that failed and flooded wouldn't be much worth for the rest of the tests.

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

Hi Eitan. I enjoy reading these threads but am beginning to think that I'm some kind of weirdo because I'm quite happy with one pair of bins.

Therefore the analogy I'd make is that in general I believe the Japanese make the most reliable cars - stick with me Recently I noticed the bumper/ fender? of my Nissan beginning to drop. Could this be the fault of the manufacturer? Should I return the car? Personally I think it may have been caused by spinning off the Black Mountain Road and down a bank. Sorry for the crudeness of the analogy but you can see my point.

Rich

 

[chris butterworth]

Plenty of users on this forum have stuck their binoculars in the freezer for a few hours or longer to see if the focus knob got stiff.

Eh ???????????????

What ?????????????

Anyone that treats what is basically a scientific instrument like that is an utter barbarian that shouldn't be allowed out unless accompanied by a responsible adult, preferably equipped with suitable tranquilizer darts. And as for the excuse given for such behaviour - all I can say is I hope they never suffer from 'personal problems'. It's the equivalent of buying a Bugatti Veyron and pouring cement into the engine - "To see if it got stiff". If this is the way certain people treat their binoculars no wonder there is a belief that the tests carried out were part of a 'normal' review procedure. There is absolutely no excuse for such behaviour and if I've upset anyone who has done this then all I can say is "They are binoculars - not frozen peas".

Chris

 

[eitanaltman]

Rich -- You're not a weirdo, you actually qualify as normal the people on these forums with dozens of pairs of bins are the weirdos!

I understand your analogy, and it basically seems to be what Pileatus is arguing -- that the failure of the waterproof seal wasn't due to some inherent problem, but rather damage caused by the nature of the tests.

To me, the issue at question is the "extremity" of the tests. To use your analogy -- if your car flies off the road into a ditch and now the bumper is falling off, then yes, that's obviously not the manufacturer's fault. But if you drive your car normally, but in slightly more demanding conditions than the typical "never leaves the pavement" suburbanite (e.g. occasional jaunts down a dirt road), and the bumper is falling off, then yes I would blame the manufacturer for not building something durable enough.

I think everyone agrees that a binocular should not fail mechanically under "normal" use (e.g. taking it out and using it to look at stuff). I also think everyone agrees that a binocular should be expected to survive extreme abuse (e.g. using it as a hammer to pound nails into boards). But the point is that test resides in that gray area between these two extremes. And I would argue that the tests were not "extreme abuse" but rather attempts to simulate somewhat rough, but not abusive, treatment that could occur if someone uses their binoculars in somewhat more demanding conditions than the typical user.

I know I will (and have) throw my binoculars into backpacks, onto the floor of the car, use them in torrential tropical downpours in Costa Rica or Borneo, occasionally drop them or have them bump into a rock if I am scrambling across a messy surface on a hike, etc. My expectation is that gear should be able to easily survive this type of "demanding but not abusive" usage.

 

[eitanaltman]

It's the equivalent of buying a Bugatti Veyron and pouring cement into the engine - "To see if it got stiff".

That has to take the cake for the worst analogy ever.

So if putting your binocular in the freezer for a few hours makes you an "utter barbarian that shouldn't be allowed out unless accompanied by a responsible adult" what about people who take their binoculars out for use in sub freezing conditions? How is that any different? Is the person who is out for several hours in far northern Minnesota looking for Boreal Owls a barbarian?

Binoculars differ from "scientific instruments" in a very important way -- unlike, say, a microscope, they are intended for FIELD USE. Expecting them to operate normally within the range specified by the manufacturer does not make the end user a barbarian. Perhaps you just keep your binoculars seated gently on lace doilies on the porch, with lovely silken covers to keep the elements off?