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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 3257937" data-attributes="member: 665">Taking a quick break from the monotony to put in my 2 cents (3 cents adjusted for inflation). No, I'm not one of the 20 people on the US who owns an SF, nor the 100 people who have tried one, but it seems that what users are dealing with is a case of growing pains. None of these issues are fatal flaws. The worst is the stains and that seems to be user dependent (as do most "issues" that users report about bins on BF). When Nikon made the HGL, it chose to use a softer rubber than it had on the original Venturer, which could in time become a bit slippery (or "slippy" as the locals say here). It had a nice feel in the hand, as does the soft rubber armoring on the M5, M7 and P7, but it attracted dust easily like those bins do, too, and handling the HGL caused the armoring to blotch in spots where you fingers/palms contacted it the most, which sounds similar to what we've heard about the SF's armoring except people are calling it "stains." Whenever I look at used HGL for sale, it usually looks blotchy. I had mine only two weeks, and already it was getting blotchy ("stained" if you will). Fortunately, some rubbing with a cloth in one direction minimized the appearance of the blotches and I sold it before it looked like it was 10 years old rather than two weeks old. Finding a material that is at once supple and resistant to marks is probably not easy. From what I've seen from handling about 40 binoculars, you seem to get one or the other, but not both. It's in the molecules. Two have seen specks in their samples (a lot more have seen specks in Leica UVs), and one has rust on the hinges "thrust washer" (say it three times and it's yours forever). And, what started the ball rolling (no pun intended) was HN's infamous drop test, which the SF failed. Of course, if I had just plucked down $2,600 on a bin, I certainly would expect it to be without flaws, but if I downloaded Windows 10 for free, I'm sure I would find it annoyingly filled with "bugs." So, no thank you, I won't be your guinea pig, MS. But those who decided to jump on the "latest and greatest" from Zeiss are the guinea pigs. They are Zeiss' field testers. So the stains, the rust, the specks, and now possible differences in coatings between two lenses (can't see it in the photos, but the users would be in a better position to tell) are all part of the experiment. Fortunately, it seems that if you're not happy with your sample, Zeiss will give you another one, and if that one doesn't suit you either, they will send you yet another, and this might go on and on until finally they have worked out all the "bugs" in a year's time and you won't find these issues with the perfected SF. It reminds me of the differences in J.D. Power's Initial Quality Reports and Car & Driver's year-long driving test of the same vehicle. A car that might rank high in initial quality might show serious flaws at 50,000 miles and one that might have had some problem going out the gate might prove very reliable 50,000 miles later. You can't know until you get them out there and use them. I agree about the Swaro/SF comparisons, some of those seem to be aimed at promoting one's favorite brand, which is a problem I personally run into time and time again on these forums. As Arthur point it succinctly: Some binocular owners believe that their favourite glass deserves reverence, even obeisance, as their binocular becomes a fetish, [they] seem to identify far too closely with their possessions.Well, that's my break, for those who are off today, what the hell are you doing inside on a Saturday afternoon. Good out and watch some birds! Brock</blockquote>

Verification