Heck of a Friday evening, is it not.
I would be really worried if i had an orange..... it must be really sensitive to peeling 😋
ja ja ja not too bad
But these wouldn't be only Austrian regulations. Where is the disintegrating armor on Zeiss, Leica, Meopta etc? What is Swarovski not acknowledging doing differently? (they are also the only one to phase out hydrophobic coating so far)
So now your calling hundreds of members who bought Swarovski optics clownsI bet the Zeiss advocates are cocking their sides at us muppets buying swarovski, (myself included) especially the clowns that have bought the NLs
As more and more information is coming out from Swarovski , and from users having issues using them in moderate climates, this differs from what my Swaro source had said. But we can extrapolate some information from all of this , and come up with a possible issue scenario. My source said it was a compound used in the armor mixture that they didn’t know would deteriorate as it did, in high humidity environments , which we now know it’s not accurate because of failures in dryer climates.
My guess is that climate may be a contributing factor given the seemingly higher incidence of this in sunny Singapore than in temperate regions. Swarovski in Austria may not have fully considered the tropical weather during product development.
Although the EL 10x42s I reported here in 2019 had been to Spain on a few birding trips (spring and autumn migrations, hot at times, maybe, but not noted for humidity), the rest of their life is spent on the north-east coast of England in Northumberland, an area not noted for its heat, and one of the driest places in Britain, only a couple of inches of rain behind the south-east per year (we get about 24-25 inches locally, so anything but humid). They may claim that heat and humidity are factors, but by no means are they the main contributors. My bins were used often, but treated well, yet the coating fell to bits in only a couple of years (and no - I don't splash myself in DEET or sun cream. I don't have sweaty palms, my binoculars and expensive cameras don't rattle about in the back of a dusty van and I'm not in the habit of attacking them with sharp metal edges). They were properly used, mainly in temperate weather and yet they fell to bits in three years without any outside assistance. I qualified as a land surveyor in 1973, so it's in my blood to look after optics properly.
It was tongue in cheek, have a sense of humour.
Hi Paul, just curious, who's your source at Swarovski?
That's the kind of effect the BF threads have on some of its members: you have never noticed CA? read some posts here and you will see the fringes. not aware of RB (rolling ball/bowl)? info in some threads here will tell you how to notice it and get dizzy. you don't know anything about SA (spherical aberration) of the EP? no problem, read some posts here and the view thru your binos will black out and you'll see kidney beans. you have not noticed that the focuser moves more easily in one direction? that's because you're not paying enough attention, stop looking at birds and pay more attention to the resistance of your focuser. ETC.
No. I’ll post what I want. If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it. I’m bringing up a point that the source admitted an issue , but most likely doesn’t have hall the info. It’s quite definitive if you know how to read. Keep your snide comments to yourself.
A simple estimate of the age of a Swaro binocular can be obtained from the amount of paint loss on the hinge edges, which is caused by rubbing such as when the bino is used bandolier style (by this method the bino in the above pics should be at least 20y old......). I believe this issue is also unique to Swaro, but I am not sure why---maybe the layer of paint on the hinge is too thin?
