Stuarts vision
Well-known member
Seems to be quite a few selling their ELs on the bay of e. Perhaps they have concerns about the armouring. I'm considering selling mine and trying another Alpha.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter bittern
- Start date
dries1
Member
Good summation Hermann, now we know why the soap and brush. Got to get the dirt and sweat out of the pores. Folks remember when you use them this summer. Clean them dailyI don't recall anyone claiming the majority of the owners have problems with the coating of their NLs. Also I'd be quite surprised if the majority of NL owners had a problem. My impression is that many NLs owned by the people on this forum live a sort of "sheltered life" - they are in many cases only one of several binoculars and not used all the time, in all sorts of conditions. Other NLs, however, are used a lot, many hours a day, every day. That obviously does make a huge difference.
By the way, two local birders (who are NOT on BF ...) own NLs, 8x42 and 8x32. They are hardcore birders and use their binoculars a lot, every day. The NLs are the only binoculars they use. Both pairs look pretty worn already, with the armour beginning to show cracks under their thumbs. That's in a moderate climate. Neither uses DEET.
It may be worth remembering what Swarovski says about their armour:
"The armoring on the instruments in question is made of plastic (TPU). This material contains no plasticizers or protective agents, is low in allergens, and is biodegradable. As with all our products, we recommend regularly cleaning the surface of the instrument with a mild detergent and a damp cloth.
The particular properties of this material mean that optical changes such as clear abrasion, tears, and cracks may occur in the armoring when the product is subjected to frequent use." (Quote from EL 10x42 casing deterioration.)
That last sentence says it all.
Hermann
all for the green,. I wonder what it cost Swarovsky for each of these armor replacements.
FWIW, there are plenty of ways to make non-toxic materials that don't degrade. I've been using a brand of plastic garden containers that are made from plant-based resins instead of petrochemical - I think it's called Plasterra. They're extremely durable and last for years, even under daily UV exposure.
Weren't some of the older coverings actual rubber? Isn't Leica still using rubber now? I would think actual rubber is more bio-degradable than plant-based plastic resins. I got a pair of new Ultravids from Leica last year that were covered in what appeared to be latex film that precipitated out of the rubber covering.
Weren't some of the older coverings actual rubber? Isn't Leica still using rubber now? I would think actual rubber is more bio-degradable than plant-based plastic resins. I got a pair of new Ultravids from Leica last year that were covered in what appeared to be latex film that precipitated out of the rubber covering.
It depends on the rubber, but generally it's processed and mixed with other substances and can take over 100 years to bio-degrade. There's also the associated deforestation issues.
Hermann
Well-known member
Interesting. So you shouldn't use them in the heat. You shouldn't use them in the rain. And don't forget to wear latex gloves to protect the armour from sweat.
Maybe it's best not to use them at all.
🐵🙈🙉
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
I'm different. Suppose I had bought a pair of NLs and really, really liked them because they worked for me very well indeed. I wouldn't switch binoculars. I would keep the NLs. And if the armour were to start cracking, I would get in touch with Swarovski and tell them in no uncertain terms what I think about the armour.
But I wouldn't send them in. I'd simply tape over the cracks and carry on using the binoculars. I'd only send them to Swarovski after they announced they had some new armour. Or when the binoculars are getting close to the end of the warranty period.
I personally don't care much how a pair of binoculars looks. I look through them, not at them.
Hermann
Addendum: That's why I personally also wouldn't worry about the problems with the armour that affect some Canon 10x30 and 12x36 binoculars after 10+ years of use. Have a look at the photographs attached to this post: Re: Klebriges Canon 12x36 IS2 bekleben
tehri
Well-known member
It's debatable, lol !!
Even though my 'Alpha' car, full of duct tape, always takes me where I want, it pains me to look at it like that !! Even when I'm not sitting in it, I enjoy a lot looking at it !!
😜
SGBirder could you check if the "top" bino´s armor is different?
From the posted picture, to my eyes, the top bino (guessing a 32), has a slight different armor, like a more granulated one....
I guess Singapore weather does not go well with Swarovski.
If armors are different that means that Swarovski modified the armour mix time ago, that they were aware.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
To much information on the lack of hygiene😧.
I’m sure many Swaro EL and NL owners will be watching this very closely. I have a call into my source at Swaro to see how to handle this. I still wonder if this is an affliction to all the newer (post 2016) biodegradable armor, or just a certain lot. If this degradation is the eventual outcome to all of them who use them vigorously, then id think we would have to send them in at the slightest sign of peeling or cracking. This would be like a two to three year service interval, to get re-armored , cleaned , aligned if necessary, and re-gassed. That might work for me, I always like when binoculars come back to me looking brand new after sending in for some minor service. Not going to be to good for Swarovski’s bottom line for sure.
Stuarts vision
Well-known member
Nor will it be good for the environment having to ship them every 3 years for re-armouring. It also means you'll be without your binoculars whilst they are being re-armoured. Swarovski might have reasonable turn around times now but what will their turn around times be once everyone needs to send them back for re-armouring.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
In Germany there is a term for it..."verschlimmbessern"...slightly bad in English to translate, it means in approximately you have a good intention but that makes everything worse.
Andreas
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
All very true. Maybe Swarovski will come to the realization the specific material being used isn’t working out and come up with a better salutions , something more robust. I commend them for trying to lean green, I guess even small steps ad up. Of course while the masses of people are buying optics MIC who give a rats butt about the environment.
dries1
Member
I would gather, after all the reasons given for this question, it really is all about the money.
Swarovski acknowledged the issue with the material but told me that the "Review of better armouring will take for sure some years.
So it is clearly better to exchange your armouring meanwhile."
What I don't get is they already have a material that is tried and tested on the pre-FP ELs, how difficult is it to revert to it.
Disagree with you on the exterior looks of the binoculars, not at this price point where no compromises should be expected. Also, the armouring serves a protective purpose (paint wear on the EL bridge is common), and also functionality (e.g. insulation in hot or cold temps), so its not a mere cosmetic issue.
Not when the shipping cost is over 120 dollars each time. And what if Swarovski imposes a repair fee after the warranty ends?
The binoculars should look brand new after 2-3 years of weekend use (not sure what qualifies as "vigorous" to you), but they cannot endure "sweat, heat and moisture", major fail in my eyes and a real pity given how well the rest of it works.
It's the same, probably a lighting/angle and focus difference in the pic. The other 3 with more advance degradation have also turned shinier and tacky with time - when I first got mine they were matte and granulated.
From Swarovski's emails to me, they acknowledged the issue of the material but to my similar suggestion to defer repair till the material is changed, they said that
"Review of better armouring will take for sure some years.
So it is clearly better to exchange your armouring meanwhile."
My conclusion is that the armour material hasn't changed across EL production or with the introduction of NL, and unlikely to change anytime soon either.
Attachments
Based on the four ELs I own, it may not be that simple. My oldest is a pre FP 8.5x42 ,@ 10 years old. The armor on the 8.5 is noticeably shinier, a slightly brighter shade of green and with a bit more texture/ grippy than that on my newer pre FP 8x32 and early FP models 10x32 and 12x50. The armor on all the last three, including the late pre FP 8x32, does appear and feel identical, again noticeably different from my earlier pre FP 8.5. Based on this experience my guess is SW switched to the new armor on the later pre FP models. I have not yet seen an NL in person, so can't comment on that.
I've had no problems with the armor at all in spite of never having cleaned the exterior with anything other than a soft brush to remove dirt and sand.
Mike
Sorry, I meant unchanged across the EL FP production.
Aware of the difference between pre-FP and FP (and per your data they may have made the switch earlier, just before the FP generation)
