NL Pure objective cover design (1 Viewer)

[BirderNL]

It’s merely my observation. It’s always the same people denying or downplaying various problems with Swarovskis. I’d rather see you debunk it with facts. Fact is lots of different people on this forum had that problem.

No, fact is that only a very small percentage users suffers from the problems that are so repeatedly mentioned here on the forum.
And Swarovski has them covered with an excellent aftersale service. Loose a cover and get a new one within a few days. So what’s really the problem?

 

[Owene]

No, fact is that only a very small percentage users suffers from the problems that are so repeatedly mentioned here on the forum.
And Swarovski has them covered with an excellent aftersale service. Loose a cover and get a new one within a few days. So what’s really the problem?

The covers are built in. The replacements are just a piece of plastic that fits over the lens but has no attachment method and nowhere to store it while in use. I have never broken or lost any covers for any other binoculars but have given up on covers for the nl pures

again I have and like nl pures but the earlier comments about refusal to see flaws rings ever more true

 

[crinklystarfish]

It's undoubtedly a poor design so I simply modify mine. I don't use objective covers as a rule, but on those occasions I do, the following works well. I simply leave the standard blanking piece in place and cut / trim the tab off the actual cover. Please see the pic for the finished result.

The Swarovski Mafia is always ready to pounce on anyone who dares saying anything critical about Swarovski.

Hermann

This is not directed specifically at Hermann, but his post does illustrate some perplexing behavior recurringly found on BF.

What actually happens is a handful of posters consistently gleefully overplay and exaggerate known Swarovski issues, seemingly in a determined effort to undermine the brand / ridicule the brand's consumers / generally create divisiveness.

Unsurprisingly, the brand's consumers innocently respond in an effort to put the (often grossly) exaggerated issues into perspective, but are then themselves "pounced" upon by the aforementioned handful of posters; who would arguably better spend their time with a little introspection / redirection of their impotent rage at some of the world's injustices that actually warrant getting so worked-up about.

Life is too short...

 

[hopster]

It's undoubtedly a poor design so I simply modify mine. I don't use objective covers as a rule, but on those occasions I do, the following works well. I simply leave the standard blanking piece in place and cut / trim the tab off the actual cover. Please see the pic for the finished result.



This is not directed specifically at Hermann, but his post does illustrate some perplexing behavior recurringly found on BF.

What actually happens is a handful of posters consistently gleefully overplay and exaggerate known Swarovski issues, seemingly in a determined effort to undermine the brand / ridicule the brand's consumers / generally create divisiveness.

Unsurprisingly, the brand's consumers innocently respond in an effort to put the (often grossly) exaggerated issues into perspective, but are then themselves "pounced" upon by the aforementioned handful of posters; who would arguably better spend their time with a little introspection / redirection of their impotent rage at some of the world's injustices that actually warrant getting so worked-up about.

Life is too short...

Ah, a rare voice of reason! ☺️

I'm not one of those that pile on as is rightly pointed out here, but as someone who respects the undoubted technical originality and capability of Swarovski - and sees the prices charged - I do continue to be surprised by basic design and manufacturing problems which don't appear to plague others who inhabit the same space.

 

[BirderNL]

This is not directed specifically at Hermann, but his post does illustrate some perplexing behavior recurringly found on BF.

What actually happens is a handful of posters consistently gleefully overplay and exaggerate known Swarovski issues, seemingly in a determined effort to undermine the brand / ridicule the brand's consumers / generally create divisiveness.

Unsurprisingly, the brand's consumers innocently respond in an effort to put the (often grossly) exaggerated issues into perspective, but are then themselves "pounced" upon by the aforementioned handful of posters; who would arguably better spend their time with a little introspection / redirection of their impotent rage at some of the world's injustices that actually warrant getting so worked-up about.

Life is too short...

Well put, exactly what keeps happening here. Not necessary at all...

 

[Owlbarred]

......

What actually happens is a handful of posters consistently gleefully overplay and exaggerate known Swarovski issues, seemingly in a determined effort to undermine the brand / ridicule the brand's consumers / generally create divisiveness.

Unsurprisingly, the brand's consumers innocently respond in an effort to put the (often grossly) exaggerated issues into perspective, but are then themselves "pounced" upon by the aforementioned handful of posters; who would arguably better spend their time with a little introspection / redirection of their impotent rage at some of the world's injustices that actually warrant getting so worked-up about.

Life is too short...

Well said and troubling. I've certainly sometimes felt the same way. The following article provides perspective on the concerns you raised. Regardless, I've long treasured Bird Forum and the countless helpful comments (including objective negative perspectives) presented therein for more than a decade. FWIW, I could not be more pleased with my EL (now 22+ years old), EL SV, and NL and hope the same for others.

A runaway train of negative thoughts

 

[PatR]

It's undoubtedly a poor design so I simply modify mine. I don't use objective covers as a rule, but on those occasions I do, the following works well. I simply leave the standard blanking piece in place and cut / trim the tab off the actual cover. Please see the pic for the finished result.



This is not directed specifically at Hermann, but his post does illustrate some perplexing behavior recurringly found on BF.

What actually happens is a handful of posters consistently gleefully overplay and exaggerate known Swarovski issues, seemingly in a determined effort to undermine the brand / ridicule the brand's consumers / generally create divisiveness.

Unsurprisingly, the brand's consumers innocently respond in an effort to put the (often grossly) exaggerated issues into perspective, but are then themselves "pounced" upon by the aforementioned handful of posters; who would arguably better spend their time with a little introspection / redirection of their impotent rage at some of the world's injustices that actually warrant getting so worked-up about.

Life is too short...

Bravo!

Check rear view mirror, engage reverse gear and drive to a land where bino’s and spotting scopes are used to observe……..without even a moments thought of formulae, tints, minute differences in sharpness, ergonomics, FOV, DOF and personal brand love or hate prejudice. Thickness of glass? ICGAF.

A land where simple folk enjoy looking at nature in all her glory without being reminded what a dickhead they are, or dismissed as a knob, for choosing a particular brand, magnification, price level or who, God forbid, haven’t taken into account the application of the latest miracle coating on the surface of the lens behind the lens behind the lens.

Where advice is sought without a barrage of nonsense and disdain by return, and where opinion is impartial and offered in good faith and not ridiculed as fraudulent by those who should know better and whose lack of manners is supplemented by a rich vein of self righteousness in their replies. And the herd-like reaction to the one or two in a thousand owners who have experienced a genuine problem with a particular brand or model and which is then leapt upon by those who have never even owned the bino or experienced the problem.....or those who would bet their house on the altar of brand loyalty.

Where common sense prevails and the fact that our own eyes, facial structure, age, physical condition and wallets determine what we purchase and what we enjoy. Anything else is utter bolleaux.

Somewhere over the Rainbow……….

 

[Yarkho]

Honestly, I think that the binocular section of the birdforum is niche enough so that any "brand bashing" or criticisms thereof ... are simply pointless.

Thanks anyway to those who were brave enough to report their problem. (However 'rare' it may or may not be).

 

[tenex]

What actually happens is a handful of posters consistently gleefully overplay and exaggerate known Swarovski issues, seemingly in a determined effort to undermine the brand / ridicule the brand's consumers / generally create divisiveness.

Well actually, a handful of posters need to be more cautious about such attribution of motives, which is what turns an issue unpleasant on the forum. People aren't complaining to make you feel this way; they just want to be heard.

It's all really very simple. Some experience a problem, many do not. It's often hard to tell exactly why, or establish the real-world frequency because one tends to hear less from those not having it. It's no less real if relatively rare; uncertainty is a challenge but must be lived with. Some worry more than others, some may reach their own(!) general conclusion about a brand... which some seem to feel obliged to object to. Let's not suppose that an effort to support the brand / ridicule the brand's critics / generally create divisiveness...?

 

[GrampaTom]

Well actually, a handful of posters need to be more cautious about such attribution of motives, which is what turns an issue unpleasant on the forum. People aren't complaining to make you feel this way; they just want to be heard.

It's all really very simple. Some experience a problem, many do not. It's often hard to tell exactly why, or establish the real-world frequency because one tends to hear less from those not having it. It's no less real if relatively rare; uncertainty is a challenge but must be lived with. Some worry more than others, some may reach their own(!) general conclusion about a brand... which some seem to feel obliged to object to. Let's not suppose that an effort to support the brand / ridicule the brand's critics / generally create divisiveness...?

I support much said here. I wonder about the last sentence.

It seems the case, there are efforts to support the brand / ridicule the brand, (as distinct from the brands critics), independent of the innocence of the poster of an individual issue's intent. It seems true enough some here (more than likely myself) are seen as the proSwaro mafia, while those posting such, see themselves as EDIT: "not" the opposite. Ironic enough. Its hard to deny there are a couple regular posters who pounce on any single issue, add to the list of past grievances, no matter their status whats been or being done about them, to pile on the brand. That's not necessary. It is divisive. It is happening.

The list of such issues well known to anyone regularly here, glare, rubber armor, Fieldpro in both its forms (we need to acknowledge the newest reported real failure has been quite consciously conflated with the older more personal unhappiness with an individual's experience with manipulation), objective cover, is long, and/but arguably superficial as compared with the real substantive mission, of a binocular. Frequency to one side. Folks coming here from the outside looking for information on what bino to purchase see this and think... what??? That this happens suggests there's more going on than just the innocent if real report of a problem.

Wouldn't it be better, if we could separate out the reportage of a real issue, let it stand, be reported on as more info is gathered, what is Swaro doing about it, etc. and leave the brand bashing, piling on out of it?

As for "a handful of posters need to be more cautious about such attribution of motives" isn't this the product of the "all opinions are welcome" policy? Ostensibly all of us a free to post whatever we want. They can post such. You can post such. If somehow we could be more discerning, (described in the paras just above), might that go a way to limiting the divisiveness many agree exists here?

Maybe we should ask, discuss why does this happens. That of course requires acknowledgement that it does.

 

[Owlbarred]

I support much said here. I wonder about the last sentence.

It seems the case, there are efforts to support the brand / ridicule the brand, (as distinct from the brands critics), independent of the innocence of the poster of an individual issue's intent. It seems true enough some here (more than likely myself) are seen as the proSwaro mafia, while those posting such, see themselves as EDIT: "not" the opposite. Ironic enough. Its hard to deny there are a couple regular posters who pounce on any single issue, add to the list of past grievances, no matter their status whats been or being done about them, to pile on the brand. That's not necessary. It is divisive. It is happening.

The list of such issues well known to anyone regularly here, glare, rubber armor, Fieldpro in both its forms (we need to acknowledge the newest reported real failure has been quite consciously conflated with the older more personal unhappiness with an individual's experience with manipulation), objective cover, is long, and/but arguably superficial as compared with the real substantive mission, of a binocular. Frequency to one side. Folks coming here from the outside looking for information on what bino to purchase see this and think... what??? That this happens suggests there's more going on than just the innocent if real report of a problem.

Wouldn't it be better, if we could separate out the reportage of a real issue, let it stand, be reported on as more info is gathered, what is Swaro doing about it, etc. and leave the brand bashing, piling on out of it?

As for "a handful of posters need to be more cautious about such attribution of motives" isn't this the product of the "all opinions are welcome" policy? Ostensibly all of us a free to post whatever we want. They can post such. You can post such. If somehow we could be more discerning, (described in the paras just above), might that go a way to limiting the divisiveness many agree exists here?

Maybe we should ask, discuss why does this happens. That of course requires acknowledgement that it does.

An incisive magnum opus post on a thorny issue (for some).

 

[tenex]

... ... ... ... Maybe we should ask, discuss why does this happens. That of course requires acknowledgement that it does.

Once again, who's "we"? Maybe you shouldn't. I thought I'd said something very simple and to the point here, but that too often doesn't work on this forum. Posts about posting are a waste of time.

 

[GrampaTom]

"Maybe we should ask, discuss why does this happens. That of course requires acknowledgement that it does."