NL reliability anecdotes / info: I hesitate to link this here, but I think it’s worthwhile (1 Viewer)

[DMW]

I think that is at the crux of the issue. Swaro no doubt have market research telling them what their customers use their products for and - quite likely - have made their product line to the demands of "everyday" or "regular" rather than "adventure" birding. They (and some others - the Zeiss SF is somewhat similar) do seem more of a device to enhance your regular birding (maximum field of view, best image) than the sort of thing you'd want to take on a fortnight in PNG involving lots of trekking. For the latter there are still (if you can tolerate what was state of the art in the 80s/90s technology) a fair number of old Trinovids and other fairly robust binoculars (Dialyts and SLCs) around.

I guess they have found the SWAROMAN has little in common with Indiana Jones.

I'm not sure what other birders do with their binoculars when trekking or "adventure birding". Perhaps they use them to club charging rhinos or bash in tent pegs, but I just use mine to watch birds. They live around my neck (unlike NL Pures, apparently 😆) and I'm quite particular about keeping that intact. The only real difference from birding at home is potentially more extreme weather, usually heat and humidity.
I decided to replace my ancient Dialyts after getting caught out on a mountain in a monsoon downpour in Nepal with no shelter and no waterproofs. They fogged-up so badly I had to send them Zeiss to be sorted (which they did, together with a service and refurbishment for free). Dialyts were good binoculars but the lack of nitrogen-filled sealed elements isn't something I'd willingly go back to.

The fact that binocular manufacturers give freebies to bird tour leaders working in the tropics for marketing purposes makes it clear that "adventure birding" is an intended use for their products and as such they should be capable of withstanding normal use in the field anywhere in the world.

 

[temmie]

Perhaps before speaking with such authority on 'the package' you should actually own and use NLs for a couple of years? Thereafter your opinions may be credible. Until then you just seem to be stoking the flames of the fire your friend oh-so-innocently started.

No opinions, facts. I talked with Benelux Swaro reps and they admit it's a failure, and I do have my eyes open in the field when I meet fellow birders (about 70% of birders have a Swaro, with NL and Swarovisions most popular, 20% Leica and 10% Zeiss). I know the majority of international bird tour leaders of the big companies (those that lead 5-10 tours per year) and each and everyone of them (guys like David) have issues with the NL armour. But fine if you don't want to acknowledge this. You're clinging onto a sinking ship (Swaro's armour issues) when even the captain (Swaro reps) are leaving the ship. As said above, Swaro is working on the issue, but they simply got it (very) wrong with the composition of their (aimed to be more environmentally friendly) rubber. Get over it.

I think that is at the crux of the issue. Swaro no doubt have market research telling them what their customers use their products for and - quite likely - have made their product line to the demands of "everyday" or "regular" rather than "adventure" birding. They (and some others - the Zeiss SF is somewhat similar) do seem more of a device to enhance your regular birding (maximum field of view, best image) than the sort of thing you'd want to take on a fortnight in PNG involving lots of trekking. For the latter there are still (if you can tolerate what was state of the art in the 80s/90s technology) a fair number of old Trinovids and other fairly robust binoculars (Dialyts and SLCs) around.

I guess they have found the SWAROMAN has little in common with Indiana Jones.

As above, it's a flaw and Swaro is working on it. It wasn't designed to automatically separate / deteriorate in 2-3 years while their other models (like the previous Swarovision and EL) held up fine.

 

[PW42]

As above, it's a flaw and Swaro is working on it. It wasn't designed to automatically separate / deteriorate in 2-3 years while their other models (like the previous Swarovision and EL) held up fine.

I thought the new armour was being used since the middle of last year. Is that not the case?

 

[temmie]

I thought the new armour was being used since the middle of last year. Is that not the case?

Maybe, I don't know. With 'working on it' I mean the broad term of improving / replacing the old armour / ...
If the new recipe is holding up or not, is something one will be able to see in some years.

 

[crinklystarfish]

@pbjosh As a matter of interest, and in the same way I challenged @temmie: do you have any experience of actual ownership of NL Pures? It turns out he doesn't and simply knows someone who knows someone who allegedly has a problem.

Are you a similar self-appointed proxy?

 

[Trinovid]

...he had no problems with Leica for 25 years prior.

Maybe he'd do well to take another look at Leica again, and yes, tribalism is one of those problems that never seems to go away.
Would be nice if Swarovski were able to finally put these issues to rest as it seems so many users like their binoculars and it would be less tiresome for them not to have to continually defend them.

 

[temmie]

@pbjosh As a matter of interest, and in the same way I challenged @temmie: do you have any experience of actual ownership of NL Pures? It turns out he doesn't and simply knows someone who knows someone who allegedly has a problem.

Are you a similar self-appointed proxy?

Why the ad hominem attacks? Have any stakes in the company or shops selling Swarovski?

I personally know 2 Swaro Benelux representatives (birders) who admit there are issues, and I know one shop owner of one of the 5 biggest binocular shops in the country (a birder) who says the same. I know at least 3 international bird tour leaders (besides David) personally who have publicly complained about how poor the armour holds up, while simultaneously (and rightly) praising the optical qualities of the NL. I don't have to own them to know I don't want to buy them, and I am in the market at the moment for new bins. If the armour issues would be done and dusted, a Swaro 10x42 NL Pure would be my top choice. I share what I gather and a large number of people's testimonies are obviously more representative than me owning the bins. The issues Swaro has with the armour are real, can be named and it can be shown that faulty armour is not an outlier / monday morning production fault issue. But luckily it doesn't bother me (I had my binoculars repaired for armour issues, at Zeiss, so I know how annoying it is to miss my bins for some months), the only bothersome thing is the afficionados that deny the light of the sun.

 

[pbjosh]

@pbjosh As a matter of interest, and in the same way I challenged @temmie: do you have any experience of actual ownership of NL Pures? It turns out he doesn't and simply knows someone who knows someone who allegedly has a problem.

Are you a similar self-appointed proxy?

With your cheerful attitude, I do not feel inclined to give you the pleasure of an answer. I have no interest in a pissing match nor in trying to meet your standards.

 

[SGBirder]

I agree. And it is clear it is not a Swarovski product, but instead an aftermarket item engineered to who-knows-what tolerances.

Seems like its similar to Swarovski’s own strap adapter but made out of metal. Mounts to the Fieldpro post in the same way, using the stock cap. Don’t quite see how it would affect the Fieldpro post/mount from detaching from the binocular chassis, compared to using a Swarovski strap/adapter.

Similar failures of the strap mounting points on cameras have been reported, including…. Leica

About Photography

Blog by a leading professional photographer providing hands on review of camera equipment: Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Sony, plus instructional sample images.

aboutphotography-tomgrill.blogspot.com

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2188257634/nikon-acknowledges-z8-strap-lug-failures-and-offers-repair

 

[Hermann]

I just don't get the emotional attachment people get towards gear to the point they will carry water for a brand with a clearly defective product. Describing high-end binoculars as a "precision instrument" that can't be expected to survive normal regular use by a birder in the tropics for more than a couple of years is absurd. <snip>

If I'm paying >£2000 on a pair of binoculars, I expect them to be not only optically excellent, but last at least 15 years of daily use without serious issues. For something as fundamental as a strap attachment point to fail under normal use is simply not acceptable. It should be a "never" event.

Excellent summary. And you're right about the "emotional attachment" many people feel. Remember what happened when the first few reports on the armour failing were posted here? The Swarovski mafia was out in force in no time, claiming these people had abused their binoculars, it was all fake news and so on and so forth. There were even people coming onto the forum with no or almost no posting history attacking those who had reported they had problems.

It only stopped when Swarovski admitted years later there was indeed a problem with the armour.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

I personally know 2 Swaro Benelux representatives (birders) who admit there are issues, and I know one shop owner of one of the 5 biggest binocular shops in the country (a birder) who says the same.

Funny thing; Jan van Daalen of this parish has stated the failure rate (of armouring) he sees is something like 2%. Do other Benelux birders use their Swaros harder than Jan's clientele?

 

[GrampaTom]

Im reading this a little differently. Most issues with Fieldpro strap attachments Ive read till now, have to do with the straps twisting, tangling up, and a fussy/tricky (different) way of fixing the strap hardware to the bino body. Often missed and the feature Ive promoted has been the slick way one can change carry systems easily and quickly, a plus if your bino uses vary. As well Ive posted multiple times about how to wrap the straps to avoid twangling. The idea that the strap hardware can break away from the binocular body is new, (at least to me). Thats something Id like to know more about. From the pics, and Im grateful someone else noted this, the pictured example is not using Swarovski hardware. Thats an important point and deserves conversation. I dig RYO harnesses, have multiple. Had read about their replacement hardware but have no experience with it. Wasn't sure what purpose (failure?) it served. Could this be the problem? I dont know. But its worth examining.

The problem with this thread and the last couple posts where things got personal, is once again we've got apples and oranges piling on. There is NO Doubt Swarovski has an armor issue. That has been discussed here to death. Anyone not knowing the story is not paying attention. Swaro knows it and is doing something about it. What's the point of bringing up that well known, documented issue here, where we are discussing reports from various people/sources of another, different potential sort of failure?

Piling on, to what end?

Regards the list of folks chiming in from other social media, (seeming to corroborate?) one of our regulars chose to add, as I read those, most seem more to do with the supplied strap connecting hardware separating from the attachment point on the bino body. Thats a different issue than the attachment point breaking away from the bino body. Its well known some folks have issues getting the Swaro system to properly "latch" though it seems well enough explained in their literature. If you fail to push in and rotate while pushing, till you feel a mechanical click the strap hardware is NOT secure. It takes a time or two of in and out, for what seems burrs, or sharp edges on those quite nicely machined parts to wear in a bit after which the task goes quite nicely (on my 2 examples at least). This is the issue mentioned in para 1 above and not the same newish issue introduced here.

Not to go on, but the added photos of the bunged up rubber on the eyepiece was another pile on. If you look at the aluminum inner ring, the ring just between the rubber and ocular glass you can see ding marks where one can reasonably guess this bino was dropped from a distance and landed on something hard enough to ding up the rubber and leave the tell tail marks on the AL ring. Otherwise what sort of eyebrows does the user possess... What was the purpose of this inclusion? This seems quite clearly a binocular subjected to very hard use. Eyecups are easily replaceable. Let's call that out for what it is. What purpose was served to the discussion of the Fieldpro hardware to bino body dis-attachment potential? This was pouring gas on the fire. It set a tone.

Any chance we could explore more carefully more precisely the new complaint being introduced here? Has anyone had the Swaro made fieldpro bits afixed to the bino body that receives the strap hardware break away? Have we got better pics of what that looks like when not assembled? Id like to see more about this described plastic to metal interface. Dont quite understand that from the supplied pic.

 

[temmie]

Funny thing; Jan van Daalen of this parish has stated the failure rate (of armouring) he sees is something like 2%. Do other Benelux birders use their Swaros harder than Jan's clientele?

Yeah that’s funny, there have been many recalls of products that should last 10 years and are showing clear defects in 2% after 2-3 years.
As i said Swaro knows it’s a problem, birders who use their NLs frequently have experienced the problem. This problem was t there to this extend in previous models. And that’s all there is to it.
I can only hope that bringing out these issues, and feedback to any binocular brand, is leading to improvements in future models. I’m hoping the issues get resolved, rather than not talked about.

 

[GrampaTom]

This problem was t there to this extend in previous models. And that’s all there is to it.

Not sure thats true temmie. The later ELs got bit with this same bug as I recall.

 

[Thotmosis]

The Swarovski mafia was out in force in no time

I heard rumours that they they are even worse than the Chinese triades, Camorra, Ndrangheta and the Irish Mob….

 

[temmie]

Not sure thats true temmie. The later ELs got bit with this same bug as I recall.

I remember something like this. Probably they introduced the new rubber compound in the later years of the Swarovisions, and as the NL all got those, the problem became clear as the NL obviously sells very well.
Just one, separate (from David's facebook topic) comment on Swaro's armour. I agree it has been beaten to death but it struck me some here didn't want to move on from that known issue and still seem to be in denial.


With regards to the eyecups:

Not to go on, but the added photos of the bunged up rubber on the eyepiece was another pile on. If you look at the aluminum inner ring, the ring just between the rubber and ocular glass you can see ding marks where one can reasonably guess this bino was dropped from a distance and landed on something hard enough to ding up the rubber and leave the tell tail marks on the AL ring. Otherwise what sort of eyebrows does the user possess... What was the purpose of this inclusion? This seems quite clearly a binocular subjected to very hard use. Eyecups are easily replaceable. Let's call that out for what it is. What purpose was served to the discussion of the Fieldpro hardware to bino body dis-attachment potential? This was pouring gas on the fire. It set a tone.

I don't keep records but remember someone on facebook posting a picture of his (obviously also well-used) NL with the same issue. Could it be that the rubber of those eyecups has the same issues with being more brittle than its predecessor? This doesn't look like impact to me, but rather (given the position) detererioration due to e.g. sweat or other chemicals (suncream, DEET,...). In any way, I have seen this before on the very same NL, and I haven't seen it in any other alpha bins, having soft eyepiece rubber (like later Zeiss, Leica) or harder eyepiece rubber (like earlier Trinovid, Zeiss and also a bit harder = EL).

 

[crinklystarfish]

Why the ad hominem attacks?

Allow me to try to summarise.

The 'complainant' has clearly given his bins a hard time and fitted aftermarket strap lugs.

I don't doubt the failures reported, but, by comparison, my own 12x42 has been in almost daily use across three continents for four years and shows absolutely zero signs of distress. I handle it carefully and keep it clean. I have regularly used both Swarovski's Universal Comfort Strap and Swarovski's 3rd party strap lug adapter. I regularly detach the strap(s) as I often use my NL without one. The FP system has been flawless and my straps have never detached in any way, shape or form. I've had an identical experience with an NL 8x32 for about 18 months.

It doesn't seem so controversial to suspect that the palpable general lack of care might well have contributed to premature failure of armour and eyecup rubbers in the complainant's case. Similarly, it doesn't seem terribly controversial to suspect the aftermarket strap lugs or general rough treatment may have contributed to the mechanical failure reported.

The OP seemingly has no empirical experience of ownership or long-term use of the binoculars in question. Nor do you. Notwithstanding, The OP saw fit to start a derisory thread, seemingly as a self-appointed proxy; and evidently in absolute contradiction to his claim: "I am not trying to pour gasoline on any fire nor be provocative". Hmmm...

In spite of your non-empirical experiences of the product in question, both the OP and you have been very quick to take the account of someone who has clearly been far less than careful with his (free?) binocular at face value, and turn it into an opportunity to slate a manufacturer.

I, along with a countless and vast majority of actual NL owners am, on-balance, delighted with the (so-far trouble free) product. Are you or the OP minded to start a thread reporting our delight? If not, why not?

I accept I've challenged your positions as proxy complainants and I do wonder about your agendas, but equally refute the claim my challenges have been ad hominem attacks. If you see them as such, maybe I've simply pricked your conscience?

I reiterate I have no brand loyalty and have previously been empirically critical of Swarovski. For what it's worth, I also own products made by Nikon, Zeiss and Leica.

Just saying what I see...

 

[GrampaTom]

I remember something like this. Probably they introduced the new rubber compound in the later years of the Swarovisions, and as the NL all got those, the problem became clear as the NL obviously sells very well.
Just one, separate (from David's facebook topic) comment on Swaro's armour. I agree it has been beaten to death but it struck me some here didn't want to move on from that known issue and still seem to be in denial.
View attachment 1628206

With regards to the eyecups:

I don't keep records but remember someone on facebook posting a picture of his (obviously also well-used) NL with the same issue. Could it be that the rubber of those eyecups has the same issues with being more brittle than its predecessor? This doesn't look like impact to me, but rather (given the position) detererioration due to e.g. sweat or other chemicals (suncream, DEET,...). In any way, I have seen this before on the very same NL, and I haven't seen it in any other alpha bins, having soft eyepiece rubber (like later Zeiss, Leica) or harder eyepiece rubber (like earlier Trinovid, Zeiss and also a bit harder = EL).

Im skeptical. Why this sort of "catastrophic" wear just there? What possible abrasive condition can happen just there from normal use? Just an idea... Under the rubber is a cylindrical aluminum frame. its what you handle when taking eyecups in/out. That metal under the rubber serves as a sort of anvil. Drop the binos so they land on ocular end onto a hard surface, maybe cement, maybe a rock, that surface serves as the hammer collapsing the rubber against the metal edge under. Rubber splits. The appearance that the rubber failed in just that place on both, coupled with the small but seeable nicks in the adjacent aluminum ring (its anodized so the white Al under shows through) suggests these were dropped. We can wander through possibilities as many have when discussing the rubber armor failure, e.g. its sweat, its DEET, its mustard from your hot dog, but to what end? I think Brillo eyebrows is as good as any of those explanations, tongue stuck firmly in cheek.

 

[temmie]

Good, you say what you see. I tend to do the same and there is zero reason to cast doubt about anyone’s motifs or opinions, just because you don’t like them.
We’re just talking about bins and what’s good and bad. If your NLs have held up, that’s promising and as I said before, I wouldn’t want anything else than they’re near perfect so I can consider buying them. I’ve watched through 12x42 and was in awe.

But I’m done discussing the obvious, which is that there have been issues with the armour.
And while I can’t judge whether the strap joint is a singular case or a design issue, I haven’t seen this in other binoculars. But this cant be discussed within a binoculars forum without being suspected of having an agenda? Binoculars are 0.001% of my hobbies and interests, it’s too much honor suspecting me of having any agenda! Most of the time I’m on this forum to just blabber about whatever, but some take their bin stuff way too seriously. What matters is that it works and when it doesn’t, I’m not diplomatic.
If I have the time I’ll talk a bit about my (subpar) dealing with Zeiss with regards to my latest bin repair…

 

[temmie]

Im skeptical. Why this sort of "catastrophic" wear just there? What possible abrasive condition can happen just there from normal use? Just an idea... Under the rubber is a cylindrical aluminum frame. its what you handle when taking eyecups in/out. That metal under the rubber serves as a sort of anvil. Drop the binos so they land on ocular end onto a hard surface, maybe cement, maybe a rock, that surface serves as the hammer collapsing the rubber against the metal edge under. Rubber splits. The appearance that the rubber failed in just that place on both, coupled with the small but seeable nicks in the adjacent aluminum ring (its anodized so the white Al under shows through) suggests these were dropped. We can wander through possibilities as many have when discussing the rubber armor failure, e.g. its sweat, its DEET, its mustard from your hot dog, but to what end? I think Brillo eyebrows is as good as any of those explanations, tongue stuck firmly in cheek.

I specially mention sweat and DEET as those are, per Swarovski’s own communication, identified as being very harmful for their rubber armour. Even when dropped you don’t get degraded rubber like this: the damage is clearly chemical given the multiple small cracks, rather than by physical impact.