New way to determine the weight of binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[ReinierB]

I asked Swarovski the following question:

Good day,
The stated weight of the NL Pure 10x32 is 640 g. However, the weight of my
NL 10x32 is 659 g as you can see at this picture. It is weighed without
caps, rainguard, clips, etc. Eveything I could remove I have removed,
except for the eyecups.
Can you maybe clarify why that difference is so big? I hope to hear from
you.
Best regards,
Reinier Bos

And I got this answer:

Hello Mr. Bos,

weight should be without all spare parts, should be correct when eye cups twisted off.

Mit besten Grüßen / Best regards / Sincères salutations / Cordiali saluti / Saludos
Sabine
Customer Service
SWAROVSKI OPTIK VERTRIEBS GMBH
Daniel-Swarovski-Straße 70
6067 Absam, Austria
Tel. 00800 32 42 50 56
[email protected]
SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM


I found that curious. Is that the new way of determing and stating the weight of binoculars? The stated weight of binoculars is the weight of a totally peeled of pair of binoculars?
This is not the case with my EL 12x50 and SLC 8x42. The stated weight is what I also measured with eye cups on them. The Curio is a bit heavier than stated.

 

[pm42]

Are you sure your scale is perfectly calibrated because this is a 3% difference.
On the other hand, my 8x32 weights 652g on my scale which looks like a lot like yours and 653 on another smaller one. So maybe Swaroski is optimist.

 

[Patudo]

weight should be without all spare parts, should be correct when eye cups twisted off.

This is brilliant. But then there are similar discussions about the official vs real world weights of eg. sportscars. Except in kilos rather than in grams.

 

[Hermann]

I asked Swarovski the following question:

Good day,
The stated weight of the NL Pure 10x32 is 640 g. However, the weight of my
NL 10x32 is 659 g as you can see at this picture. It is weighed without
caps, rainguard, clips, etc. Eveything I could remove I have removed,
except for the eyecups.
Can you maybe clarify why that difference is so big? I hope to hear from
you.
Best regards,
Reinier Bos

And I got this answer:

Hello Mr. Bos,

weight should be without all spare parts, should be correct when eye cups twisted off.

Mit besten Grüßen / Best regards / Sincères salutations / Cordiali saluti / Saludos
Sabine
Customer Service
SWAROVSKI OPTIK VERTRIEBS GMBH
Daniel-Swarovski-Straße 70
6067 Absam, Austria
Tel. 00800 32 42 50 56
[email protected]

That's brilliant. Maybe they should quote the weight with the armour peeled off as well.

Hermann

 

[Owlbarred]

Interesting, but a 10 g/0.67 oz. difference seems trivial: a pettifogging exercise, a bit like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

​

 

[Binastro]

I use a digital scale, but have calibrated accurate weights.
I mainly use 500g, 1kg and sometimes 2kg expensive weights that I keep clean and covered for calibration.
I also have smaller weights.

I take perhaps three readings.

The weight can differ depending on where and how the binocular is placed on the scale.

Many household scales are not very accurate.

Mine is about 0.5% off, but I'll check again as I recently changed the battery.

There can be a 0.1% difference depending on battery power.

I also don't know if long term these scales keep the same reading.

I bought a super accurate scale, but it is too complicated.

I used to go into the post office that had 5 scales along the counter and would take a measurement on each scale.
These post office scales are meant to be calibrated often, but the local ones aren't.

Official scales have to be calibrated by postcode, as there are mascons and variations depending on locality.

In addition, weight varies depending on latitude as the Earth's spin affects weight.
At the equator we spin at about 1,000 mph. at 60 degrees north half that.

Having said all this, it is likely Swarovski are just wrong in their specification regarding the weight of this particular binocular.

Even the best makers have some error in magnification, field size and weight.
When I did a binocular review I considered weight important.

I noted that two different 12x40 Soviet binoculars were slightly different.
This revealed that they had two different eyepiece types.
Lee suggested it was because of rubber armour differences, but these are leatherette covered.
And I did find that indeed they changed eyepieces that had slightly different fields.

I suppose science lab scales should be accurate.

Makers should be more careful.
Sometimes the quoted differences are because of Imperial and metric conversion.

Grams are more accurate, as ounces are just over 28g.

Similar problems occur with aircraft altimeters.
Here, Imperial is more accurate than hPA or milibars.

Regards,
B.

 

[ReinierB]

Interesting, but a 10 g/0.67 oz. difference seems trivial: a pettifogging exercise, a bit like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

​

It is 19 g actually, and everything was already peeled off except the eyecups.

 

[tenex]

That's brilliant. Maybe they should quote the weight with the armour peeled off as well.

A binocular that gets lighter over time! What's not to like?

 

[Binastro]

With the 1Kg accurate calibration weight, the scales indicate 1007g, which is what they have always done.

I took this 1Kg weight to the post office and from memory the 5 post office scales varied by one or two grams.

I corrected binocular weights indicated by 0.7%.

Sometimes the weight of a binocular hovered between, say, 677g and 678g, so I called it 677.5g.

Some binoculars have fixed straps.
I try to weigh the straps and adjust the binocular weight, but this can probably be 5g wrong.

I have also immersed waterproof binoculars in a measuring jar and noted the change in volume.
I also weighed them.
Most binoculars sink in water, but some float without a flotation strap.

B.

 

[Binastro]

A change in the thickness and density of rubber armour could account for some or all of the 19g difference.

Has the rubber armour changed over time?

Regards,
B.

 

[Bill Atwood]

I know the photography manufacturing industry actually has a standard on the procedure weigh certain equipment.

 

[wllmspd]

I’ve got a 0.1mg precision balance at work, only goes up to 200g max load unfortunately :-(

Peter

 

[MiddleRiver]

Interesting, but a 10 g/0.67 oz. difference seems trivial: a pettifogging exercise, a bit like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

​

I disagree. The point stands and is simply that such a simple calculation should be reliably and accurate.

One immediate thought: could it reflect changes in armor composition?

 

[rajas]

Perhaps a relevant thread: The mystery of the Trailseeker ED 8x42's weight

 

[Maljunulo]

Scale is uncalibrated, and factory eyecups are in place.

Error (if there is one) is about 0.55%, or one part in 180.

I only have one scale with enough sensitivity to weigh such things.

 

[tenex]

Recent Meopta catalogs have the weight of the entire B1+ series wrong, as usual on the light side -- possibly related to falsely claiming to have switched from an aluminum chassis to magnesium. That's the worst case I know of, but erroneous specs aren't rare. (Anyone who missed this recent discussion can find it here.)

 

[quincy88]

Wow. This is pretty deceptive. I am disappointed in Swarovski.
You need the eyecups to use the binoculars, therefore they should be treated as integral to the binocular.

 

[NDhunter]

Wow. This is pretty deceptive. I am disappointed in Swarovski.
You need the eyecups to use the binoculars, therefore they should be treated as integral to the binocular.

I trust Swarovski with the weights they say their products are, over anything I read on the internet.
This forum included.
What is the difference in a few grams in any way, meaningless.
Jerry

 

[quincy88]

I trust Swarovski with the weights they say their products are, over anything I read on the internet.
This forum included.
What is the difference in a few grams in any way, meaningless.
Jerry

If you trust their representative, then the weights of the NL 10x32s are determined with the eyecups off. If that is true, then the methodology is the deceptive part. Not the number on the scale.

 

[ReinierB]

It is not a very big deal, but I still think it is misleading. I wanted a lightweight 32mm to add to my 800 grams 42mm.
The 800 grams of my SLC 8x42 is spot on.
My NL 10x32 weighs 668 grams as seen below. I expected 640 grams. If I knew this before I might have considered the SF 10x32 or EL 10x32 more than I did now.

I think the representative was just guessing to be honest. If I weigh the NL 10x32 without all spareparts it is 620 grams as seen below.