-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Final verdict (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BertL
- Start date
A person with a mechanical background should be mechanically sympathetic.
Is this the case when reasonably competent binoculars all seem to last a year?
I wonder how long an £80,000 Thales or Safran binocular would last in this case.
I think a year or less.
In a war zone a binocular might last a day, a year or maybe longer.
It just takes a few hard knocks against granite to break a binocular.
I have a broken Hensoldt 8x30 DF that is so praised.
The two halves were made into monoculars that I like.
The problem is the right side suits my hand well but has the reticle.
The left side is optically clear but less comfortable to use.
My nephew when young could and did break anything in less than an hour.
He should have been employed in QC.
Everything has an average lifetime.
Binoculars, scopes, sofas, carpets, fridges, cookers and cars.
I have a Miele cooker that has been repaired twice in thirty years. They stock parts. I don't know for how long but very long.
My Saab is almost 40 years old and still works well, but it has been regularly serviced.
If I habitually broke things, which I don't, I would choose a binocular known to last.
It seems a pity to me that Swarovski armour doesn't last.
It might be an environmental issue.
I hope the Zeiss Conquest HD lasts longer.
My 10x42 is excellent optically, the 8x32 a bit less so, but they are reputedly tough.
I dropped a Ross 10x70 monocular on granite when I slipped on ice.
The prism was broken, but 2/3 of the view remained and I carried on using it for years.
I would not lend one of my binoculars, however tough, to be broken by someone.
Regards,
B.
Is this the case when reasonably competent binoculars all seem to last a year?
I wonder how long an £80,000 Thales or Safran binocular would last in this case.
I think a year or less.
In a war zone a binocular might last a day, a year or maybe longer.
It just takes a few hard knocks against granite to break a binocular.
I have a broken Hensoldt 8x30 DF that is so praised.
The two halves were made into monoculars that I like.
The problem is the right side suits my hand well but has the reticle.
The left side is optically clear but less comfortable to use.
My nephew when young could and did break anything in less than an hour.
He should have been employed in QC.
Everything has an average lifetime.
Binoculars, scopes, sofas, carpets, fridges, cookers and cars.
I have a Miele cooker that has been repaired twice in thirty years. They stock parts. I don't know for how long but very long.
My Saab is almost 40 years old and still works well, but it has been regularly serviced.
If I habitually broke things, which I don't, I would choose a binocular known to last.
It seems a pity to me that Swarovski armour doesn't last.
It might be an environmental issue.
I hope the Zeiss Conquest HD lasts longer.
My 10x42 is excellent optically, the 8x32 a bit less so, but they are reputedly tough.
I dropped a Ross 10x70 monocular on granite when I slipped on ice.
The prism was broken, but 2/3 of the view remained and I carried on using it for years.
I would not lend one of my binoculars, however tough, to be broken by someone.
Regards,
B.
Last edited:
That‘s a question for me.
Many other people have and use the same binoculars that you had listed in your first post.
If their experience were the same as yours, premium manufacturers would have gone out of business a long time ago.
So either these other people, among which are many professional birders, all don‘t use their binoculars the same way you do.
Or you are not taking good enough care of your binoculars.
Or you often have extremely bad luck.
Which is it?
Repair statistics could give the answer. But that data is of course not public. I know quite a number of birders/collegues that struggle with same. They use there bino's every day. Some do not bather to repair and leave the ductape on. They weer it like an old wax coat. It gives a sort of status.
But when for example focussing becomes a problem or coating is gettig loose they have to be send in for repair.
Possibly all three plus heavy use and accidental damage, as well as personal traits.
When I took my Minolta cameras for free annual checkups, the Minolta technicians were amazed that the cameras and lenses looked new.
They were always kept in their every ready cases, and I rather obsessively take care of optics.
However, the cameras did need the shutters adjusted as the timings slipped with use.
But I have had a few accidents, which can instantly disable an instrument.
But these are all things, objects that don't really matter in the grand order.
Personal accidents etc. are of far more importance.
In the camera world, the condition of old cameras varies from terrible to mint, with the amount of use not much of a factor.
There is tremendous variation from person to person.
The condition of binoculars also varies a lot, but I think considerably less than with cameras and lenses, unless amateur botched repairs are involved.
Regards,
B.
When I took my Minolta cameras for free annual checkups, the Minolta technicians were amazed that the cameras and lenses looked new.
They were always kept in their every ready cases, and I rather obsessively take care of optics.
However, the cameras did need the shutters adjusted as the timings slipped with use.
But I have had a few accidents, which can instantly disable an instrument.
But these are all things, objects that don't really matter in the grand order.
Personal accidents etc. are of far more importance.
In the camera world, the condition of old cameras varies from terrible to mint, with the amount of use not much of a factor.
There is tremendous variation from person to person.
The condition of binoculars also varies a lot, but I think considerably less than with cameras and lenses, unless amateur botched repairs are involved.
Regards,
B.
I recommend the individual above cease pontificating about the durability of things that largely have no relation to birding binoculars (indeed, a cessation of his regular dropping of price-tags of such items into the conversation would also be quite welcome), and actually go do some birding. Or better yet, accompany BertL on a couple of trips, in Europe or further abroad, to see what his work entails.
How many of us really use our binoculars for several hours every day? If you're leading a bird group you'll likely be finding birds for the less experienced, probably in a variety of habitats over the course of a birding tour, and be working the focus system of your binoculars even harder. A binocular used by such an individual as his/her sole birding tool will likely be worked harder in a single week of guiding than the average binocular in many collectors' arsenals will be in a year.
How many of us really use our binoculars for several hours every day? If you're leading a bird group you'll likely be finding birds for the less experienced, probably in a variety of habitats over the course of a birding tour, and be working the focus system of your binoculars even harder. A binocular used by such an individual as his/her sole birding tool will likely be worked harder in a single week of guiding than the average binocular in many collectors' arsenals will be in a year.
Right. To keep it short, Kowa Genesis, Nikon EDG II, and Fujinon FMTR-SX are built like tanks. All are regularly used on the beach without any degradation of the armor or function. As an aside all three generally out perform various excellent Zeiss T FL, UV HD+ and SW SV when used in challenging light conditions. Will post a picture of my test range next.
Mike
Attachments
I drive SAAB for more than 40 years. My current SAAB is 21 years old.
I think it is relevant how long things last, optics and otherwise.
Although I have not used binoculars as intensely as bird guides, I have extensive knowledge of aero lenses.
Some of these are flown at a height of 80 metres at 500 knots with terrain following radar over desert sand.
They are subject to extreme sandblasting on take off and landing.
About twenty RTH 4 inch f/1.8 were sandblasted to opaque because the crew failed to fit protective filters that should be regularly deployed and replaced.
Only one lens was fit for purpose.
Some of the Wild 98mm f/1.4s had fungus.
I had these professionally overhauled.
The 4 inch f/2 TTH are usually O.K.
Some of these aero lenses are made to much tougher standards than binoculars.
I don't know the new cost of these lenses, but probably substantial.
The reason I mentioned cost is that birdwatching binoculars are usually £3,000 at most.
A binocular at that price should work well, but will not be up to the highest standards possible.
It is also probable that a £1,000 Conquest HD is tougher than a £3,000 Swarovski.
But the Swarovski might be better in some regards.
Also some people are easier on their optics than others, even professional bird guides.
Regards,
B.
Although I have not used binoculars as intensely as bird guides, I have extensive knowledge of aero lenses.
Some of these are flown at a height of 80 metres at 500 knots with terrain following radar over desert sand.
They are subject to extreme sandblasting on take off and landing.
About twenty RTH 4 inch f/1.8 were sandblasted to opaque because the crew failed to fit protective filters that should be regularly deployed and replaced.
Only one lens was fit for purpose.
Some of the Wild 98mm f/1.4s had fungus.
I had these professionally overhauled.
The 4 inch f/2 TTH are usually O.K.
Some of these aero lenses are made to much tougher standards than binoculars.
I don't know the new cost of these lenses, but probably substantial.
The reason I mentioned cost is that birdwatching binoculars are usually £3,000 at most.
A binocular at that price should work well, but will not be up to the highest standards possible.
It is also probable that a £1,000 Conquest HD is tougher than a £3,000 Swarovski.
But the Swarovski might be better in some regards.
Also some people are easier on their optics than others, even professional bird guides.
Regards,
B.
Hermann
Well-known member
aq w
Hermann
That's the point. Bert actually uses his binoculars, a lot, under stressful conditions. That's what birders do, and that's what top class binoculars are made for (or, possibly, were made for). That's quite different from the sheltered lives many binoculars owned by a lot of forum dwellers here lead. Heck, I remember threads where people basically claimed that using binoculars in the rain comes close to abuse, where people argued you need to be really careful with the armour and wash it carefully after use. And then there are the collectors ... who probably rarely go out birding, presumably because they can't decide which binocular to take. That's all very, very different from the rough and tumble of birding.
Hermann
And what relevance does this unending stream of guff have to binoculars used for birding, other than demonstrating your knowledge of esoterica? If you find it hard to believe how much a professional birding guide's binoculars get worked, do a couple of birding tours -
The more appropriate analogy might be that a Land Rover or similar vehicle driven by a game ranger in Africa or even a farmer in rough terrain in the UK will wear out faster than one owned by a city-dweller. However much "mechanical sympathy" the farmer might have, his vehicle is going to get much heavier use (or abuse, call it what you will) than yours.
Hermann
Well-known member
Ever been in a twitch in the mountains, in inclement weather? Quite different from a leisurely walk in the park in the sunshine.
Hermann
I don't find it hard to believe how much use a bird guide's binocular gets.
The point is some guides break binoculars, some don't.
It may be the ones who don't break binoculars choose a very tough, maybe older model.
I professionally drove a short wheel base Land Rover pulling numerous cars out of snow drifts in one of the two worst winters in Britain of the 20th. century.
Using low ratio.
Yet it is said in Australia if you want to get somewhere you take a Land Rover.
If you also want to get back you take a Land Cruiser.
As to the aero lenses.
I doubt that a binocular would last one sortie if put in the camera pod under an aircraft next to the cameras and lenses even with protective filters.
Regards,
B.
The point is some guides break binoculars, some don't.
It may be the ones who don't break binoculars choose a very tough, maybe older model.
I professionally drove a short wheel base Land Rover pulling numerous cars out of snow drifts in one of the two worst winters in Britain of the 20th. century.
Using low ratio.
Yet it is said in Australia if you want to get somewhere you take a Land Rover.
If you also want to get back you take a Land Cruiser.
As to the aero lenses.
I doubt that a binocular would last one sortie if put in the camera pod under an aircraft next to the cameras and lenses even with protective filters.
Regards,
B.
Last edited:
Not to apply a water and dirt resistent and repelling coating for example makes a binocular useless in bad weather conditions.
A manufacturer is leaving such a coating out because of PFAS content. Understandable but appertly did not replacement it for something else. It makes a binocular useless in all weather conditions. It even becomes a dirt collector that is hard to clean.
Zeiss as the biggest optical company of all for example also manufactors glass for glasses. Researchs done there, can be applied on binoculars.
I wear my glasses in any weather the whole day and every day. I clean them every day and nothing goes wrong with it.
Maybe talk once to some real birders and field ornithologists in the jungles of Costa Rica or Colombia, who do their work day in day out in all conditions with binoculars from the early 1980s (when water repellent coatings hadn‘t even been introduced).
I have been there. I am in the mid America's several times a year. Actualy I have been al over the world. But I stop this thread. Useless.
