• 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.

Why can't Swarovski get a little thing right? NL Objective cover issues. (2 Viewers)

dries1

Member
It was a joke, I watch some of his videos for a laugh, nothing more. Nothing like getting the glass to my eyes to make any determination of suitability.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
How many faulty assertions must be debunked before the thread becomes more about not being wrong than the topic?
The topic was faulty NL objective covers. My assertion about all professional reviewers getting perks or free binos has been debunked. I was wrong. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
 

dwever

Registered User
Supporter
The topic was faulty NL objective covers. My assertion about all professional reviewers getting perks or free binos has been debunked. I was wrong. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
I had deleted my post some hours ago hoping to beat anyone preserving it with a response. Mine was unnecessary. Peace.
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
The topic was faulty NL objective covers. My assertion about all professional reviewers getting perks or free binos has been debunked. I was wrong. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
You didn't. You only spoke out loud what a lot of people assume happens. Nothing wrong with that and you are quite right about the covers. They suck.

Jan
 

tenex

reality-based
The "last group" listed above are the ones, Ive come to trust. Are there others?
I think there are many others, starting with reviewers on other sites like Roger Vine or Tobias Mennle, and going on to include dozens more here who've shared experiences with at least one binocular in enough detail to be helpful and informative. One's own taste may not always coincide with theirs, but even so one can get a good sense of what one would like (or not) about a particular model.

An obvious thing that may still have to be said about reviews that may seem suspiciously positive is that at the upper-middle to high level of quality most of us here are interested in, there simply are no fatal flaws to conceal, no awful binoculars to expose. Some reviews are obviously rather superficial, but the worst thing they could possibly say about such a model is that it doesn't stand out among the competition as exceptional in some way. They're all very good and eminently usable, while at the same time never quite perfect, so there are only relatively minor complaints to make, which readers will decide how to weigh by their own criteria.

There's so much cynicism today about fake news, dishonest reviews and so on; let's not give up entirely. There are plenty of honest people, good information can still be offered and found if one takes the trouble, and forums like BF or CN are good sources.
 
Last edited:

Scudder

Member
Canada
I wonder how many happy Swarovski users are out in the field who never complain, compared to these complaints?

I have had my NL Pure 8X42 for 5 weeks and I am still in love with them. I have had none of the problems people complain about.

I don't believe Swarovski could ask these prices and be in business for 70 years if people did not love their products...
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Didn't I read that they have something like 80% of the Alpha market, Zeiss 12% and Leica the remaining 8%?

Not sure where that leaves Nikon.

Maybe I mis-remember.
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Back in March I posted a rather long winded thing re Total Quality Management, as a rebuttal to an accumulating myth, (Seldom Perched was merely quoting someone else there/then - sorry Tom), that Swaros prices were inflated do to carrying the costs of their liberal customer service policies. It was here: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-el-w-b-8x32-flare.405739/#post-4156518, specifically #9. Relative to this dialogue, I can save you the pain of the whole with this excerpted paragraph.

"External failures occur when something slips through the system. Blatant failures, like missing, or misaligned parts, cosmetic flaws are mostly, (but not always), caught by the above. The stuff of less than optimum design, process, or materials that're effected by time, wear and tear, tend to show up once the product is in the hands of the end user. External failures are hugely costly for multiple reasons. First, all the material, labor and systems costs are attached to the shipped good. if the product fails and needs to be replaced, that new product now costs at least 2x the price of the first item. If the item is repairable, return,
analysis, dis-assembly, repair, re-assembly, and return costs are incurred. This is very expensive. As is obvious here at Birdforum, humans like to complain. There is a tendency to complain among friends, acquaintances and ahem... forums. Stuff that works tends more often to just be used. The cost of external failure is both the direct cost of replacement or repair and the cost to reputation and even future sales!"

GTom
HI Tom, nothing to be sorry for!

Tom
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Top