Why the terrible minimum focus distance on the ELs? (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

And we don't even ask for a complicated things, only 1.3m and ECO non sticky armor Don't be upset...I didn't ask binocular to fly to the moon, just some normal features of a binocular present in the past in Swaro binos. Why they couldn't keep the 1.3m close focus, that's Swaro job, not ours, the consumers to know. We just suddenly found that some features are missing in the new models, but with some new high prices. I'm just saying...Please don't be upset!

 

[PYRTLE]

Please don't be upset!

I'm not, but you might be.

 

[Maljunulo]

Post #2 rather clearly states that a simplified (and less costly to manufacture) focus mechanism was introduced.

 

[Scott98]

As I've pointed out before, if you still want PFAS on your lenses just buy some anti-fog cloths and rub it on.

Any PFAS that was on the lenses when you bought them is going to come off when you clean the lenses with a solvent anyway. I applaud Swaro and Nikon for getting rid of it, being a cancer survivor myself.

 

[Paultricounty]

They've accepted there is a problem and are working on developing a solution, in the meantime they replace it free of charge - I'm not sure what more they can do, that would meet your satisfaction?

Richard , this armor problem has been going on for ten years or more, seems Swaro has been working on a solution for what seems to be an unacceptable amount of time in my opinion. I’m still a fan of Swarovski but in my mind the warranty should be for fixing manufacturing defects that get repaired or replaced and the fault is cured, similar to recalls on automobiles. This situation is like having an automobile with a manufactures defect recall, and when you bring it in, they replace it with the same part.

When spending what I consider ridiculous amounts of money to purchase the best of the best, issues should be recognized and addressed swiftly. Considering this has been going on for over a decade, , IMO Swarovski should be supplying priority shipping both ways and expedited repair, or if legal, go back to the former armor material until a suitable solution is found. Anything less to me is just inconveniencing your consumer base and as far as I’m concerned, damaging your image and reputation.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

Read post # 2 again, and see me after school!👨‍🎓

You and Durobird both makes good points, as well as Richard. Let’s keep in mind that there is also an economic and environmental cost in returning for the replacement of the armor, there’s packaging, transportation (fuel) to the shipping company, the shipping company transporting the item to the manufacturer, and the whole process in return. Maybe this process is ok for a couple of years , but definitely embarrassing when this is a decade long thing.

As far as the previous close focus EL model, they also had the infamous cracking/peeling environmentally friendly armor.

Paul

 

[Bentley03]

Richard , this armor problem has been going on for ten years or more, seems Swaro has been working on a solution for what seems to be an unacceptable amount of time in my opinion. I’m still a fan of Swarovski but in my mind the warranty should be for fixing manufacturing defects that get repaired or replaced and the fault is cured, similar to recalls on automobiles. This situation is like having an automobile with a manufactures defect recall, and when you bring it in, they replace it with the same part.

When spending what I consider ridiculous amounts of money to purchase the best of the best, issues should be recognized and addressed swiftly. Considering this has been going on for over a decade, , IMO Swarovski should be supplying priority shipping both ways and expedited repair, or if legal, go back to the former armor material until a suitable solution is found. Anything less to me is just inconveniencing your consumer base and as far as I’m concerned, damaging your image and reputation.

Paul

This is all so very, very true, Paul. The delicacy and extent to which Swarovski armour is prone to ridiculously premature degradation is utterly ridiculous, and unacceptable. I have fallen out with two UK retailers due to my frustration regarding the issue.

The last pair of Swaros I purchased were a used example (less than two years old) and I insisted the dealer send them to Absam to be rearmoured as part of the deal, because it was already worn, shiny and very slippery.

Beautiful optics, but the armour is unfit for purpose, in my experience.

Mini rant over...

 

[Bentley03]

You and Durobird both makes good points, as well as Richard. Let’s keep in mind that there is also an economic and environmental cost in returning for the replacement of the armor, there’s packaging, transportation (fuel) to the shipping company, the shipping company transporting the item to the manufacturer, and the whole process in return. Maybe this process is ok for a couple of years , but definitely embarrassing when this is a decade long thing.

As far as the previous close focus EL model, they also had the infamous cracking/peeling environmentally friendly armor.

Paul

In the UK, Zeiss have a local repair centre, as do Kowa, but anything Leica goes to Portugal and anything Swarovski goes to Austria, in this part of the world.

 

[tenex]

The complaints here are entirely understandable. The list isn't even complete yet: EL 32 has been discontinued entirely, the 42s no longer come with a proper case either, etc... Swarovski especially but also Zeiss binoculars (not Leica which seems worth noting) are experiencing quality and feature problems at a much higher rate lately, even as the prices of the same items go through the roof. Where else can one see such nonsense?

The solution is simple. Keep or buy nice durable examples from the previous period as you can, have them serviced as needed, and watch this decline from a comfortable distance.

 

[Ikeman83]

Pretty straightforward, before they raised the close-focus distance, retail on an EL was $2700 in pre-inflationary 2019. Today, you can get an EL for $1999 USD.

If you want the shorter close focus, buy an NL. It's effectively at the same price point as the EL 42 was 4 years ago, and is a superior optic. Or you can save over a thousand dollars and get an EL, accepting that you have to take 1 single step back to look at your subject.

 

[tenex]

accepting that you have to take 1 single step back to look at your subject.

...and buy a YONGWEEZIT case on Amazon. That's just so cheap. (FBP is no longer even made in that size, so better not lose one)

At this sort of price, intangibles also come into play. Swarovski should know that.

And most people's steps are surely shorter than yours.

 

[Patudo]

They're all basically the same coating. and no one has found an effective environmentally friendly alternative. To be honest though none of the coatings are particularly effective in dealing with rain on objectives anyway - it's more a case of marketing hype.

There's also been some discussions that indicate these coatings aren't as permanent as anti-reflection coatings, and can be rubbed off over time. But I'm sure that won't stop the anti-woke marching off, glowing with righteous indignation, to buy binoculars made in the PRC or other countries unfettered by environmental (or to quote David Haig in The Thin Blue Line, "namby-pamby, touchy-feely, argy-bargy") considerations...

 

[quincy88]

There's also been some discussions that indicate these coatings aren't as permanent as anti-reflection coatings, and can be rubbed off over time. But I'm sure that won't stop the anti-woke marching off, glowing with righteous indignation, to buy binoculars made in the PRC or other countries unfettered by environmental (or to quote David Haig in The Thin Blue Line, "namby-pamby, touchy-feely, argy-bargy") considerations...

What? Maybe skip the politics?

 

[quincy88]

I agree that it looks like Swarovski handicapped the ELs to make them less competitive with the NLs.

 

[MiddleRiver]

There's also been some discussions that indicate these coatings aren't as permanent as anti-reflection coatings, and can be rubbed off over time. But I'm sure that won't stop the anti-woke marching off, glowing with righteous indignation, to buy binoculars made in the PRC or other countries unfettered by environmental (or to quote David Haig in The Thin Blue Line, "namby-pamby, touchy-feely, argy-bargy") considerations...

The Quest to Ban the Best Raincoats in the World

Why Patagonia, REI, and just about every other gear retailer are going PFAS-free.

heatmap.news

Change is hard for some people. I'm glad that some companies are taking a stand environmentally. Not a fan of Swaro bins to be honest, but I do hope they resolve the armor issues successfully so they don't get dinged for having tried to do the right thing ;-)

The close-focus issue is a different kettle-of-fish. Marketing, I guess, playing games to increase market share and profits. Not unique to Swaro of course!

 

[tenex]

But I'm sure that won't stop the anti-woke marching off, glowing with righteous indignation, to buy binoculars made in the PRC or other countries unfettered by environmental (or to quote David Haig in The Thin Blue Line, "namby-pamby, touchy-feely, argy-bargy") considerations...

The anti-woke? As if the entire Western world hasn't been doing that since the 1980s?

 

[Ikeman83]

...and buy a YONGWEEZIT case on Amazon. That's just so cheap. (FBP is no longer even made in that size, so better not lose one)

At this sort of price, intangibles also come into play. Swarovski should know that.

And most people's steps are surely shorter than yours.

You're right, as a 6'2 man I enjoy "tall privilege" and only have to take 1 step back to enjoy saving over a thousand dollars. Some people have to take 1.5 or even 2 (!) steps back.

Swaro retails the FBP for around $100, so a hoodie stuffed into a backpack saves you $100. Swaro made the EL42 more accessible than it's ever been while offering the NL, a binocular that's product improved on the EL in every way for the same price.

"Intangibles come into play" how about spending some of the $1000 plus dollars you saved on an aftermarket case. You can probably still afford the 1.5 steps back, and if you can't, buy an NL.

 

[dorubird]

Fewer steps back on the grass, more ECO friendly ...letting the joke aside, it's pure marketing

 

[chill6x6]

Reduced close focus...

Be sure to make sure it IS a problem before turning it into an issue before actually trying one.

It is rare for me to run out of close focus regardless of binocular I am using. I use the Leica HD Plus 8X42 and 7X42 with advertised close focus of 9.8 feet and 10.8 feet respectively, and NEVER an issue. I use the Leica Trinovid 7X35 even MORE....close focus advertised at 13.12 feet....NEVER an issue. Swarovski 8X42 WB...close focus 10.5 feet...never an issue. I'll also say my birding conditions/usage is many times about as close as it gets.

The reduced CF of the current EL 42mm would be of no concern to me unless I looked at insects...and if I did that I would have a different binocular all together.

 

[Maljunulo]

. agree that it looks like Swarovski handicapped the ELs to make them less competitive with the NLs.

Plus they saved a bit on manufacturing costs