• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Swarovski - odd business policy - near point (1 Viewer)

OhWeh

Well-known member
I took a look at the website:

The 8,5x42 EL has only a close-up limit of 3,3 meters (formerly 1,5 meters!)
10x42 EL has only a close-up limit of 3.3 meters (formerly 1.5 meters!)

8x32 EL still 1,9 meters
10x32 EL still 1.9 meters

both 42 SLCs 3.2 meters (formerly much closer)

CL Pocket 8x25 2,5 meter

CL Companion 8x30 3 meters
CL Copanion 10x30 3 meters

1. Swarovski deliberately deteriorates its 42 FGs in order to keep the technical distance to the respective top model.

2. If I want to observe butterflies, newts, lizards, wild bees, flowers with Swarovski, then I can either use the 32 EL series, or the super expensive NL series! All other FGs, now also the 42 ELs, are not to be recommended any more, except for pure birdwatchers and other long-distance watchers, due to the bad near point.

3. IMHO the 8x42 SLC is so good that you can leave the 8,5x42 behind, because the real advantage of the EL, the near point, is no longer there.

Tried and tested models, and "legends" to deliberately worsen - not nice!

So if you still want a 42 EL, you should hurry up and see if you will still can get an old model before you buy it.
 

The BulbMogul

Well-known member
what's really the big deal..? All of a sudden everyone is looking for a reason to .... All you had to do was buy then and surely stock in stores like B&H has your "MEGA CLOSE" Focusing..
 

Ries

Well-known member
Netherlands
Well, I'm annoyed by marketing techniques like this as well but don't share the surprised comments. As if Swaro never would do something like that. They really aren't saints either, really... They're running a business. Loads of other quality products to choose from, best thing: almost always cheaper!
 

tenex

reality-based
Swaro had already reduced the close focus in the latest version of the 42mm SLCs a few years ago. I wonder whether that makes for a smoother or more robust focus system, but it sure looks like arbitrarily crippling a product to make it less competitive with the higher-end one, which of course at the time was... EL 42!
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
The answer is NO, it wasn't improved. As a matter of fact focus speed was slowed down within the overlap range of the new and old models. We had a long thread on that subject at the time. The results have presumably been good for the bottom line, however, since they're using the same playbook today. Interesting strategy, but it makes me cringe.

Ed
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
I took a look at the website:

The 8,5x42 EL has only a close-up limit of 3,3 meters (formerly 1,5 meters!)
10x42 EL has only a close-up limit of 3.3 meters (formerly 1.5 meters!)

8x32 EL still 1,9 meters
10x32 EL still 1.9 meters

both 42 SLCs 3.2 meters (formerly much closer)

CL Pocket 8x25 2,5 meter

CL Companion 8x30 3 meters
CL Copanion 10x30 3 meters

1. Swarovski deliberately deteriorates its 42 FGs in order to keep the technical distance to the respective top model.

2. If I want to observe butterflies, newts, lizards, wild bees, flowers with Swarovski, then I can either use the 32 EL series, or the super expensive NL series! All other FGs, now also the 42 ELs, are not to be recommended any more, except for pure birdwatchers and other long-distance watchers, due to the bad near point.

3. IMHO the 8x42 SLC is so good that you can leave the 8,5x42 behind, because the real advantage of the EL, the near point, is no longer there.

Tried and tested models, and "legends" to deliberately worsen - not nice!

So if you still want a 42 EL, you should hurry up and see if you will still can get an old model before you buy it.

The original 8x42 SLC-HD and 10x42 SLC-HD had a close focus of 1.8m or 5.9ft. The replacements focused to 10.5ft, nearly twice the distance.
Apparently, Daniel Swarovski's principle of "constantly improving what is good," was interpreted to mean "... for the bottom line." ;)

Ed
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
The original 8x42 SLC-HD and 10x42 SLC-HD had a close focus of 1.8m or 5.9ft. The replacements focused to 10.5ft, nearly twice the distance.
Apparently, Daniel Swarovski's principle of "constantly improving what is good," was interpreted to mean "... for the bottom line." ;)

Ed
Ed,

An Engineering 'cost-down' modification is one thing (especially if it brings some other performance benefits - faster focus where needed, or smoother etc) - but I don't think it is ever good business to treat your customers with contempt ! :eek!:






Chosun :gh:
 

Sebzwo

Well-known member
Do these new close distance specs reflect actual hardware changes or could this maybe just be a different tune in advertising? In order to keep the new flagship shiny and undisputed?
Could it be that they technically still build the very same binocular? Or has the manufacturing site or partner changed somehow?
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I don't think the close focus on the SLC stopped anybody from buying them nor will it the EL. I don't think too many people buy a $2K binocular for bug's. If you want a bug binocular just buy a Papilio for $129.00. Hunter's and birder's will still buy the EL's because they are priced considerably lower than the NL and they know they are an excellent binocular and a 10 foot close focus is fine for both sport's. If you want the best then you buy the NL. Swarovski will sell a lot of the NL's in 10x42 and 12x42 for the bigger FOV because you can glass faster with it covering more area and with the head rest you can use it one handed holding your bow or gun in the other hand. Birder's will like the 8x42 NL for the huge FOV, head rest and fast focuser. There are 22.5 million birder's and 12.5 million hunter's so together they are a big market compared to the bug watcher's. Swarovski doesn't care about bug watcher's because they are such a small market segment!
 
Last edited:

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Ed,

An Engineering 'cost-down' modification is one thing (especially if it brings some other performance benefits - faster focus where needed, or smoother etc) - but I don't think it is ever good business to treat your customers with contempt ! :eek!:

Chosun :gh:

Hi Chosun,

My feeling is that the company has a very unique and (apparently) effective way of product marketing, but I don't think it involves customer contempt. Rather it's simply cold dispassionate reasoning designed to maka da monyee.

I got my first dose of this sort of thing years ago when the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles. They left all their lifelong fans behind.

Psychologically, we customers somehow believe that manufacturer's "care" for us. But caring is something humans do, not corporations. The blunt reality is they just have to maka da monyee.

So long as SONA provides great customer service, which they continue to do, I can live with it. But, by the same token, it's appropriate to discuss how they do business since it grounds us in reality.

Ed
 

Dale Forbes

SWAROVSKI OPTIK Austria
To cut a long and (somewhat painful) story short, we really wanted to find a way to be able to keep the EL alive. After all, many of us are still very emotionally attached to the EL. But it arguably could never have survived at its current price position alongside the NL Pure, and simply reducing the selling price just creates losses.

Regardless of how much we did not want to change the performance of the EL, Ed was not too far from the truth in that we we forced to take a cold business decision to save costs - and that is exactly what simplifying the focusing mechanism allows us to do. I never heard a single person mention hamstringing.

Long story short: we were proud of the 1.5m we achieved with the EL. Reducing it to 3.3m was incredibly painful. But it does help to allow us to significantly save costs and sell the EL at a much reduced price.
 

temmie

Well-known member
Long story short: we were proud of the 1.5m we achieved with the EL. Reducing it to 3.3m was incredibly painful. But it does help to allow us to significantly save costs and sell the EL at a much reduced price.

that's a pretty honest and clear answer. As I understand (with my limited understanding of how binoculars work and close focusing works), the focus wheel travel to go from shortest distance to, let's say, 3-4 meters is as much as the travel from 3-4 meters to infinity.

So the short distance focus takes a lot of the focus wheel travel, and in terms of design, a big chunk out of the length / width of all parts (be it internal wheels, shafts,...) of the focus mechanism. So I can understand that restricting the focus distance to 3-4 meter effectively makes it easier to produce and reach strict tolerances.

And as the Bulbmogul mentioned: if you go out now to the shop, you can have the opportunity to find a short-distance focusing EL x42 for the reduced price, that is, if the shopowner doesn't have 2 price settings (one for the old, one for the 'new' EL ;) )
 
Last edited:

nodd

Neil
To cut a long and (somewhat painful) story short, we really wanted to find a way to be able to keep the EL alive. After all, many of us are still very emotionally attached to the EL. But it arguably could never have survived at its current price position alongside the NL Pure, and simply reducing the selling price just creates losses.

Regardless of how much we did not want to change the performance of the EL, Ed was not too far from the truth in that we we forced to take a cold business decision to save costs - and that is exactly what simplifying the focusing mechanism allows us to do. I never heard a single person mention hamstringing.

Long story short: we were proud of the 1.5m we achieved with the EL. Reducing it to 3.3m was incredibly painful. But it does help to allow us to significantly save costs and sell the EL at a much reduced price.

Hi Dale,

Thank you for clarifying this I thought this was the case for the change in spec. I can only imagine the amount discussion that went on to be able to keep the iconic EL in Swarovski’s line up. I have had a pair of EL field pros now for about five months and am very pleased with them.

Neil
 

Ries

Well-known member
Netherlands
Classy to get an honest explanation from a, seemingly, Swaro rep :t:

Guess some will hunt down pre-2020 EL's now :D
 
Last edited:

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
To give some idea of what Dale is talking about (post #14) in terms of focuser mechanisms, compare . . .

a) The simplicity possible with a full length bridge:
- the Nikon HGL

b) The complexity required to route the focuser movement through a narrow bridge arm:
- two images of the original EL, and
- the original EL SV (totally redesigned but also very complex)


John
 

Attachments

  • Nikon HGL.jpg
    Nikon HGL.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 139
  • 2001 US patent for EL.jpg
    2001 US patent for EL.jpg
    166.6 KB · Views: 129
  • EL.jpg
    EL.jpg
    161.8 KB · Views: 200
  • EL SV.jpg
    EL SV.jpg
    468.8 KB · Views: 161
Last edited:

The BulbMogul

Well-known member
Classy to get an honest explanation from a, seemingly, Swaro rep :t:

Guess some will hunt down pre-2020 EL's now :D


Thats what I am planning on doing today on a 10X42 as my 10X42 Rangefinders have a longer "SHORT DISTANCE" of 16ft
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Dale

Does this increase in close-focus distance only apply to EL 42 or will EL 32 be treated the same way?

Lee
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top