Endurance test of binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

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.

Well, here's the real kicker folks ...... isn't water at -40 C, um ..... you know - like, errrr ..... ice? :brains: |8.| ... B


Chosun :gh:

 

[chris butterworth]

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?

I have used my binoculars in the Shirotoko mountains and along the Okhotsk coast in northern Hokkaido, in the middle of winter, many times ( and for more than "a few hours" ) so they have been subjected to rather chilly conditions. I used the same binoculars in the high Andes and the Atacama desert last year - but never felt the need to put them in a vacuum chamber or the oven. Neither have I been overcome by the necessity to introduce them to a sauna when I visit Borneo. If you cannot see that 'high end' binoculars are scientific instruments, made with all the care and skill of the same, then there is very little I can do about that. I, on the other hand, use my binoculars in both a professional and personal capacity so perhaps I view them as more than a "play thing" to stick in the freezer - just to see what'll happen.

Chris

 

[Pileatus]

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.

It appears, by your post, that you are quite confused.

 

[Pileatus]

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.

There is no way of knowing what they did to any of the binoculars. I'm afraid your level of critical thinking is very shallow.

 

[Pileatus]

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.

Now you're on the right track. Leica was verbally trashed solely because the bins flooded (so they say). Based on that, they should have water tested from the outset and eliminated all failures from further testing.

Do you really want to purchase an otherwise perfect speciment from a company that lies about its products? That's exactly what Allbinos suggested in their summation.

I never did see a Leica logo, just the local distrbutor's. I wonder how much contact there was with Leica prior to testing. It's not clear or perhaps I missed something.

 

[R.B.]

Well, here's the real kicker folks ...... isn't water at -40 C, um ..... you know - like, errrr ..... ice? :brains: |8.| ... B

Oh, really?



If there were any suggestion that water was liquid at -40, please forgive me my english.

 

[eitanaltman]

Thanks for the utterly condescending and downright insulting reply. Much appreciated.

Considering your immense critical thinking skills, I would hope you have noticed the multiple times I have agreed that the editorializing about Leica detracted from the review. So you can stop beating that dead horse. But I somehow have sufficient critical thinking capacity to understand that, despite this flaw, it doesn't mean their tests were forged or faked, which you continue to imply ("so they say").

 

[Kammerdiner]

I still don't find the test "extreme" or "abusive." The hot and cold temps are pretty commonly encountered (outdoors in winter/closed car in the summer sun). Half a meter of water isn't very deep for something that claims to be waterproof. The drop test surprised me the most--the fact that so many came through unscathed.

I'm also glad they tested the coatings because I've always felt some of those worked much better than others. The best I've seen is Zeiss Lotutec and the test seems to confirm how good it is: even lard beads up on it, lol! They noted that the Zen ED2 eyepieces are hard to clean and that sounds right to me as well. I've just about given up on keeping them clean and I half believe they ooze grease onto themselves! Nikon evidently still doesn't use any hydro/lipophobic coatings. All useful info.

My guess is Allbinos ordered the tests a lot like they described them under testing procedure: cold, hot, water, drop, cleaning. They certainly dropped them after the submersion because in photos of broken eyecups (Zen, Opticron) you can see water droplets on them. This also suggests they probably did the testing over just a few days, if that really matters.

Zen states on their website that they submerge every pair before it leaves the factory:

"You might want to know that every ZEN ED3 binocular has gone through rigorous waterproof testing before leaving our factory floor by following the most demanding JIS 7 (Japanese Industrial Standard Level 7). What does that mean? We immerse every binocular into a 5 feet deep water tank for 3min. Only the one that passes the test can be released. So, let it rain!"

Doesn't sound like JIS 7, which I think is 1 meter for 30 minutes, but it probably catches some lemons along the way. Sounds like a good idea.

It's unfortunate both Leicas failed the water test, and also unfortunate that Allbinos didn't send them back to Leica and ask for an explanation before pummeling the brand in public. But if the Zen had failed the same test, what would the collective response have been around here? You got it: proof positive of poor Chinese quality control!

Maybe Leica needs a dunk tank of their own.

The test wasn't flawless, but it's not hopelessly flawed either.

My two cents,
Mark

 

[eitanaltman]

The test wasn't flawless, but it's not hopelessly flawed either.

+1

This is the reasonable middle ground in which most of the folks on this thread reside. I guess that means we all have crippled critical thinking skills eh?

OMG he trashed Leica! Zeiss won! And there's no video!! It must be rigged! Wait, no I didn't actually say or imply that!

 

[Pileatus]

Thanks for the utterly condescending and downright insulting reply. Much appreciated.

Considering your immense critical thinking skills, I would hope you have noticed the multiple times I have agreed that the editorializing about Leica detracted from the review. So you can stop beating that dead horse. But I somehow have sufficient critical thinking capacity to understand that, despite this flaw, it doesn't mean their tests were forged or faked, which you continue to imply ("so they say").

Allbinos showed a clear and hostile bias in their summation. That alone tells me they don't understand science, testing, or fair play. They could have reported their results to Leica (and other water logged victims), waited two weeks for replies and then published their results. Imagine the effect of saying "well, we gave them two weeks to investigate and get back to us...but they didn't." Now that might influence me. As it is, we don't know where the bins in question are at the moment. Does Leica have them in house?

People are pretty much free to do as they please. Take your bins swimming; it matters not to me. Throw them off a cliff. Bake them, freeze them and microwave them. I don't care in the least. But, when you decide to deliberately take down a legendary company you better expect a challenge. A couple of paragraphs on a website proves absolutely nothing. When the text is riddled with negative bias it speaks volumes.

PS
No insult was ever intended.

 

[R.B.]

As it is, we don't know where the bins in question are at the moment. Does Leica have them in house?

Yes, according to Arek, Leica has these two binos. AFAIR it was said here several times.

 

[oetzi]

They could have reported their results to Leica (and other water logged victims), waited two weeks for replies and then published their results. Imagine the effect of saying "well, we gave them two weeks to investigate and get back to us...but they didn't."

Thats what you do in a review. If anything odd surfaces, you contact the manufacturer and give him the chance to reply. Then you can still write whatever you want. Ponder, assess, evaluate to your hearts delight. But "utinam et altera pars" is a necessity and a gain for everyone.

Of course, if a comment is denied, you write exactly this and leave it to the reader to judge for himself.

At the moment, I have two binoculars (8x and 10x, constructed in the same way) from one company for review here. One is really a fine bin for a good price, I like it very much, the other is very obviously inferior. I called the company, explained and will get another bin which I will compare with the inferior one.

Then I will puplish my review.
Maybe one is really good and the other inferior to this by construction. Ok, this happens.
Maybe now both are about equal. Then I know that an inferior bin slipped through the QC and report just that. Plus the reaction of the company. Plus give an excurs into the importance of QC and its dependancy of the price paid for the bin.
Either way, the reader gets valuable information.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

Now you're on the right track. Leica was verbally trashed solely because the bins flooded (so they say). Based on that, they should have water tested from the outset and eliminated all failures from further testing.

Do you really want to purchase an otherwise perfect speciment from a company that lies about its products? That's exactly what Allbinos suggested in their summation.

I never did see a Leica logo, just the local distrbutor's. I wonder how much contact there was with Leica prior to testing. It's not clear or perhaps I missed something.

What are you on!!!?

 

[Pileatus]

What are you on!!!?

Ad Hominem attacks are never fruitful. Thanks for the reminder!

 

[Pileatus]

Thats what you do in a review. If anything odd surfaces, you contact the manufacturer and give him the chance to reply. Then you can still write whatever you want. Ponder, assess, evaluate to your hearts delight. But "utinam et altera pars" is a necessity and a gain for everyone.

Of course, if a comment is denied, you write exactly this and leave it to the reader to judge for himself.

At the moment, I have two binoculars (8x and 10x, constructed in the same way) from one company for review here. One is really a fine bin for a good price, I like it very much, the other is very obviously inferior. I called the company, explained and will get another bin which I will compare with the inferior one.

Then I will puplish my review.
Maybe one is really good and the other inferior to this by construction. Ok, this happens.
Maybe now both are about equal. Then I know that an inferior bin slipped through the QC and report just that. Plus the reaction of the company. Plus give an excurs into the importance of QC and its dependancy of the price paid for the bin.
Either way, the reader gets valuable information.

Your method sounds reasonable and useful to your future audience.

 

[Pileatus]

Yes, according to Arek, Leica has these two binos. AFAIR it was said here several times.

Did I miss a post or statement by Allbinos? If so, I certainly should pay closer attention.

 

[etudiant]

Thats what you do in a review. If anything odd surfaces, you contact the manufacturer and give him the chance to reply. Then you can still write whatever you want. Ponder, assess, evaluate to your hearts delight. But "utinam et altera pars" is a necessity and a gain for everyone.

Of course, if a comment is denied, you write exactly this and leave it to the reader to judge for himself.

At the moment, I have two binoculars (8x and 10x, constructed in the same way) from one company for review here. One is really a fine bin for a good price, I like it very much, the other is very obviously inferior. I called the company, explained and will get another bin which I will compare with the inferior one.

Then I will puplish my review.
Maybe one is really good and the other inferior to this by construction. Ok, this happens.
Maybe now both are about equal. Then I know that an inferior bin slipped through the QC and report just that. Plus the reaction of the company. Plus give an excurs into the importance of QC and its dependancy of the price paid for the bin.
Either way, the reader gets valuable information.

That seems a good approach, as long as the initial result and the switch are clearly noted.
Otherwise, there is the possibility(probability) of getting a skewed sample.

 

[HeavyG]

... If you cannot see that 'high end' binoculars are scientific instruments, made with all the care and skill of the same, then there is very little I can do about that. I, on the other hand, use my binoculars in both a professional and personal capacity so perhaps I view them as more than a "play thing" to stick in the freezer - just to see what'll happen.

Chris

I would consider a good pair of binoculars more a precision instrument rather than a scientific instrument. Not all scientific instruments have to necessarily be particularly well made. A wind vane for instance.

Many decades ago I recall my father used to take every newly purchased rifle scope and place it in the freezer overnight. He did this so that when he went hunting in the winter that he would know that it would likely able to be focused. He had had a few that failed him when on week long January camping/hunting trips. Seemed to me like a reasonable approach to checking out your gear.

A few decades ago I bought a pair of Leitz Trinovids (which I still have, use and love). First thing (well not literally the first thing) I did was put them in the freezer overnight so I could see how difficult they would be to focus since they would be frequently used on weekend winter backpacking trips and would be frozen for most of that time.

Personally I don't think it is imprudent to check out your gear beforehand to gain some idea as to how/whether they will function once one is out in the backcountry.

 

[eitanaltman]

Obviously you're a barbarian.

 

[pompadour]

R.B., "according to Arek, Leica has these two binos." Sorry if I missed that in AllBinos or previously in this thread, but: the Leica co., or the Leica agent? Thanks.

Arek/AllBinos, could you please keep us abreast (in the website or here) with any response from the Leica co., preferably while communicn. is in progress if that's okay, not only when concluded. Thanks.