You might be an expert on plastics but you know nothing about the birder in question who is evidently extremely experienced. Given that he makes his living leading bird tours and lives in a part of the world where obtaining high quality binoculars is likely quite problematic, it seems unlikely he is careless with optical equipment. Despite this, you are clearly insinuating that the fault lies with him.
Fair enough. Of course, that's not what the guy said. He rather dramatically pinned the failure on the use of plastic, adding exclamation points about a small piece of plastic in the design.
Well, that was not my intent, so sorry for giving the wrong impression. It could very well be a poor design. Might be a manufacturing defect. It could be that they were not designed for the type of use they endured.
Yes, Zeiss and Leica use plastic in their lug design, but the lug is non-moving and firmly anchored on the binocular. It is not some contraption that rotates and swivels like a clock. Plastic is not good for moving parts like a Field Pro lug. Plastic works good for non-moving parts like an auto dashboard, but they don't use plastic for the drive shaft or the crankshaft of a car.
That's very regular use compared to the majority of users - glad to see your situation allows you to use your purchase that much.
Likely where the users eyebrows make contact with the eyecups….i get deformation on some of my eyecups from the oil from my skin.I agree with you. The eye cup damage is clearly chemical and not caused by dropping the binocular. If it was from an impact, it would not have the cracks and would be broken off more cleanly. The cracks indicate chemical deterioration because that is how chemicals invade the armor and dissolve it. Here is another picture from the Swarovski Binocular Users Group on Facebook, and you have almost identical cracking on the objective end of the binocular on the armor. Swarovski has admitted the armor deteriorates because of sweat primarily and that is why the eye cups have deteriorated because they are held against your eye sockets, and you can even see that the user probably used a Mosfet technique or held the binoculars against his brow because the eye cups have cracked on the top where they contact his face.
View attachment 1628215View attachment 1628216
Swarovski Binoculars Users | What is the cause of this problem of my Swarovski Binocular | Facebook
What is the cause of this problem of my Swarovski Binocular? I can see it cracking.www.facebook.com
Good point. Leica Retrovid appears to be built like a tank for a more modern viewing option, just don't dunk them in the river.
Sebum uptake and stress cracking is a big problem for many thermoplastic elastomers, sounds very plausible based on the failure location. Sunscreens can also be problematic. Any molded in stress at those areas could exacerbate the issue.
That is because they are a simple functional design. They are not a complicated design like the Field Pro lugs that are designed to be removed. Actually, I would prefer those Bushnell lugs over the Field Pro lugs. It is funny, that Bushnell can design a better lug than Swarovski. The trouble with the Field Pro lugs is they are proprietary for Swarovski straps unless you use the adaptors. If Swarovski wanted the lugs to swivel, they should have just made them like your Bushnell lugs, then you could use any after market strap.
I've gone through 3 sets of these on my ELs in about 15 years. I take the view that this is acceptable wear and tear.
Can't argue with you there, the Fieldpro design seems to answer a question that nobody was asking in the first place. Sometimes keeping it simple is better than the alternative.
I’m in with you as well. A small cohort? Nah.
Reasonably sure that’s not exactly true. Recall pics somewhere(sorry), showing conventional square so-called fixed lugs failing. The pic that comes to mind had its covering removed and showed a lug affixed/riveted to the Bino body where that assembly failed.
Swarovski's optics are great, I will admit that, but their accessories are overdone and way too complicated. They overthink stuff. I think they have the brilliant Optical Engineers upstairs and the slower, not so bright designers that design the accessories downstairs. They try to validate their inflated prices with goofy accessories that you don't need. I think the older EL with the normal lugs was a better binocular than the NL. It had a slightly smaller FOV, was lighter and smaller, and had less glare than the NL. The EL 8x32 Swarovision BEFORE Field Pro was the best binocular Swarovski ever made, and is still their best binocular. If you can find one in good shape, buy it.
Often said here. No amount of hypothesizing the conversation that “prolly” took place in a Swaro product planning meeting has convinced anybody but I’m sticking to it.
Just an oft repeated opinion. To you who buys/sells but provides no evidence of real use OK. We get it. To others who actually buy, hold, use maybe there’s a different opinion.
I'm not a part of those conversations, but my observation of the Field Pro was simply one of applying a design differentiator to their products. Product manager's always want to have some differentiation, and design elements can certainly add value. So I guess we agree?
