• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32 (3 Viewers)

Why don't they just get rid of the armouring alltogether. They could increase the wall thickness of the magnesium alloy housing and have them cerakoted or something similar. Losing the biodegradable armouring will negate some of the weight increase in using thicker diameter housing.
They could even offer custom cerakoting colours to suit customers preferences.
Given the price Swarovski retail for I don't think it's an unreasonable option.
 
Tenex said it right.
I want reasonably comfortable armour that will last as long as the glass.

Biodegradable armour might be better suited to binoculars with electronics.
 
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what biodegradable mean - it doesn't mean something will naturally deteriorate in the atmosphere, or will innately have a shorter usable life.
 
Why don't they just get rid of the armouring alltogether. They could increase the wall thickness of the magnesium alloy housing and have them cerakoted or something similar. Losing the biodegradable armouring will negate some of the weight increase in using thicker diameter housing.
They could even offer custom cerakoting colours to suit customers preferences.
Given the price Swarovski retail for I don't think it's an unreasonable option.
Or do a leather old school cover.
 
This is what I'm interested in - it is odd that there's no evidence of it happening to the NLs. I've posted a poll in the binoculars section to see what the numbers are really like.
It is interesting that there still does not seem to be a single photograph of an NL Pure with degraded armour. The NL Pure came out around three years ago - surely enough time for the armour to break down if it was affected in the same way?

Just seen this on Twitter this morning...
 
Where are the NL's ? Several stand they suffered from the " defect" as well.. Not one picture to support that. What is this saying about those who are complaining they suffer also from faulty armor?

Not from the NL's by the way. No pics, no negative store reviews. And not a lot negative reviews from the late EL's also.
It's begins to look like an "Apple - Samsung" thing to me....
Well well what do we have here now?

Also, several replies to the tweet indicate more failures on NL (all rights belong to the respective accounts, appending photos for ease of reference for those w/o a twitter account)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230712_233233_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20230712_233233_Twitter.jpg
    134.1 KB · Views: 28
  • Screenshot_20230712_233225_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20230712_233225_Twitter.jpg
    134.9 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
Why don't they just get rid of the armouring alltogether. They could increase the wall thickness of the magnesium alloy housing and have them cerakoted or something similar. Losing the biodegradable armouring will negate some of the weight increase in using thicker diameter housing.
If you use your binoculars not just for pleasant walks in your local park but in more difficult terrain where the binoculars may get bumped on rocks and the like, you need some shock absorbing armour. There are good reasons why most military binoculars are armoured, like for instance the Hensoldt Fero series (Fero-D16, Fero D-17 and so on) and indeed the military versions of the Habicht with their thick green rubber armour.

Hermann
 
Why don't they just get rid of the armouring alltogether.
agree. The "armor" in these photos doesn't look very thick, I doubt it's doing much in terms of shock protection. It doesn't look very soft.

It seems like inertia has built up behind certain aspects of modern binos and there's no stopping that train - 8x instead of 7x. roof prisms and "armor" on everything. (It's not really armor, it's a plastic covering). Trying to make plastic into something earth-friendly. Maybe that wasn't a good goal. Maybe go back to either rubber or metal and ditch the plastic altogether.
 
Rubber armour isn't as effective as some think. My old opticron bga classics didn't have a dent in the armouring after 10 years of use. However, when I threw something on top of them in the boot of my car it still managed to disform the housing of the objective lens overhang out of shape.
Hence why I said; manufactures should make the housing stronger and spend less thought on a rubber sock to put it in.

Perfect example is all the aftermarket protective cases for the Swarovski spotting scopes.

Just make them stronger in the first place.

You'd think the price of Swarovski they'd be made out of titanium anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Rubber armour isn't as effective as some think. My old opticron bga classics didn't have a dent in the armouring after 10 years of use. However, when I threw something on top of them in the boot of my car it still managed to disform the housing of the objective lens overlap out of shape.
Hence why I said; manufactures should make the housing stronger and spend less thought on a rubber sock to put it in.

Perfect example is all the aftermarket protective cases for the Swarovski spotting scopes.

Just make them stronger in the first place.

You'd think the price of Swarovski they'd be made out of titanium anyhow.
i'd rather have the rubber than not (y)
 
Well well what do we have here now?

Also, several replies to the tweet indicate more failures on NL (all rights belong to the respective accounts, appending photos for ease of reference for those w/o a twitter account)
yippyajee, you finally found some pics! You lucky guy!
Something to discuss with your Swarovski CEO contact. He must be thrilled with the fact you’re bashing his brand here on the forum….😂

Yet, I don’t believe unsupported statements on Twitter and that one picture shows a very dirty bino, never cleaned, damaged and by the looks of the armor clearly a DEET case. Owner didn’t took good care of his expensive bino there…
Probably in most cases the problem anyway…
DEET, suncream, sweat……
Ask your CEO contact, he will fully agree…..
 
yippyajee, you finally found some pics! You lucky guy!
Something to discuss with your Swarovski CEO contact. He must be thrilled with the fact you’re bashing his brand here on the forum….😂

Yet, I don’t believe unsupported statements on Twitter and that one picture shows a very dirty bino, never cleaned, damaged and by the looks of the armor clearly a DEET case. Owner didn’t took good care of his expensive bino there…
Probably in most cases the problem anyway…
DEET, suncream, sweat……
Ask your CEO contact, he will fully agree…..
what's the problem ???
 
Yet, I don’t believe unsupported statements on Twitter and that one picture shows a very dirty bino, never cleaned, damaged and by the looks of the armor clearly a DEET case. Owner didn’t took good care of his expensive bino there…
Probably in most cases the problem anyway…
You have a very deficit-oriented view of humanity.
One should first trust people before judging, at least until proven otherwise.

It is not sacrilege to criticize Swarovski for a suboptimal gumming even if many users are not affected.

Andreas
 
You have a very deficit-oriented view of humanity.
One should first trust people before judging, at least until proven otherwise.

It is not sacrilege to criticize Swarovski for a suboptimal gumming even if many users are not affected.

Andreas
Just a good look on the posted picture is quite enough… Critizing is all right, bashing’s not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top