• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

I trust Swarovski with the weights they say their products are, over anything I read on the internet.

With the NL Pures I do not trust the weights they state anymore. They are too optimistic.
Actually every reviewer weigh more than stated bij Swarovski (scopesviews, house of outdoors, etc.)

And yes, It is just ca. 25 grams, so I will rest my case. I was just a bit worried about this new way of stating the weight of a pair of binoculars: remove everything that can be removed incl. the eyecups and put it on a scale...

Maybe it has some variation in the thickness of the armor. When the NL's were first produced the armor could have been a tiny bit thinner. Just guessing.
 
The image in post #1 shows 659g and 668g in post #20.

I assume this is the same binocular and that the amount of strap added in post #20 is 9g.

If Swarovski are quoting weights without eyecups this may be dishonest.

Or it may be the armour has changed or internal changes made over time.

Also, some folks here actually believe that the indicated weights on these digital scales are accurate to 1 gram, just because the figures are shown to 1 gram.
It would seem that these digital scales are inaccurate by up to 1% or maybe slightly more.
To get a truly accurate example is probably less than a one in ten chance.

You cannot expect that scales made for weighing vegetables to be accurate for weighing binoculars

My scales have been consistent for about 15 years, but the error for a typical binocular is about 0.73% in my location.
Also the indicated reading is slightly dependent on temperature and also a stable environment and a flat surface.

The weights quoted by the good makers may be rounded to 5g or 10g.

With Meopta it seems the quoted weights are just not true.

One can buy very accurate scales but these need to be made and calibrated under strict scientific conditions.
I expect a NPL, National Physics Lab machine to be correct to a stated value.
How China conducts itself I don't know.

The Indian metal sheets with multiple varying small apertures seems accurately made, but generally I don't trust anything Chinese, although some items are indeed very good.

I also suspect that the Royal Mail post offices weighing machines are less accurate than years ago, considering the dire condition of Royal Mail.
If I had a letter that weighed 97g, I would put a 100g plus stamp on it, as Royal Mail have been known to surcharge letters incorrectly.

Regards,
B.
 
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.

View attachment 1585156View attachment 1585157
It is kind of a big deal. If the specs didn't matter, then they wouldn't be fudging them. Even if it is only a little. Swarovski and other manufacturers know this, that is why they do it. It's not a coincidence that they are always fudged in the direction that makes their products more competitive.
 
The large Leica optics catalogue gives full specifications of all items.

The 12x50 Ultravid is stated to be approx. 1040g.

I weighed it and it is 1046g calibrated.

So it is slightly more than stated, but I think acceptable.

I suppose they could have said approx. 1050g, but as mentioned above they tend to go lower.

I have found that generally Leica specs. are pretty accurate, although they sometimes make mistakes changing metric to Imperial.

I think the 5.7 degree field I measured as 5.75 degrees.

Regards,
B.
 
The large Leica optics catalogue gives full specifications of all items.

The 12x50 Ultravid is stated to be approx. 1040g.

I weighed it and it is 1046g calibrated.

So it is slightly more than stated, but I think acceptable.

I suppose they could have said approx. 1050g, but as mentioned above they tend to go lower.

I have found that generally Leica specs. are pretty accurate, although they sometimes make mistakes changing metric to Imperial.

I think the 5.7 degree field I measured as 5.75 degrees.

Regards,
B.
Interesting. I'm glad you said that. Field of view specifications have often been an irritation to me. How did you measure the field of view on your 12s?
Also, did you measure the weight with the eyecups on?
 
I measure fields of view from accurate star separations.

A good one is alpha to beta Ursa Major at 5 degrees 22.4 minutes from memory.
There are numerous others, but one tries to get as close to the limit as possible.
There are internet programmes, which are accurate.

For spotting scopes the belt stars of Orion are good.

The eyecups are on the 12x50.
They have never been off.

Also the strap is never used, although I use the strap on the Canon 18x50 IS.
Normally both kept in original cases.

I prefer the Canon 18x50 IS to the Ultravid 12x50 if I want good resolution.

Regards,
B.
 
It's not a coincidence that they are always fudged in the direction that makes their products more competitive.
Variances always leaning to the most advantageous direction are definitely hard to defend with a straight face as being neutrally coincidental. Honestly the weight spec should be averaged over enough sets that the production models would sometimes be just over, and other time just under the published numbers. Can't help but be seen as having been selected from the lightest of all within a particular batch, and I believe that there probably are a few pairs out there which come in at the advertised number.
As others have suggested, armor is a very likely culprit, but I'd also be looking at the chassis as well.
 
It seems like there's often confusion on straps & eyeguards being included in the specs. That's a fault of the reviewers IMO...I have no interest in weighing straps & lens caps. The weight of the bare binocular is the universal benchmark.

I definitely don't trust anyone's home scale, they're notoriously wrong. When I used to weigh myself on a regular basis for sports training the first thing I noticed was that the home scales in people's bathrooms were often off by 10 pounds or more.

Is there an example of a bino that's significantly different weight from manufacturer's specs? All the ones I've used match the specs when compared with each other - the lighter ones are lighter, the heavier ones are heavier as reflected in the OEM specs.

*EDIT Ok we started with an example, I didn't read the first page :) Unscrewing the eyecups? That's an incredibly weak answer - they should just admit the specs are off a bit.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top