Swarovski EL Range water resistance ?
- Thread starter AJW
- Start date
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Andrew
Definitive response from Jo @ Swaro:
[FONT="]Good Morning[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The EL RANGE 10X42 is water resistant up to 4m/13ft.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Regards[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Jo[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]SWAROVSKI OPTIK VERTRIEBS GMBH
Representation: Swarovski U.K. LTD.
[/FONT][FONT="]Joanne Ludlow[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Credit Control [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Swarovski Optik UK [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Unit 11 (Tarbot House)
[/FONT][FONT="]Perrywood Business Park, [/FONT]
[FONT="]Honeycrock Lane[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Salfords, Surrey.[/FONT]
[FONT="]RH1 5JQ[/FONT]
[FONT="]UK[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Tel. +44/1737/856812[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Fax +44/1737/856885[/FONT]
Cheers
iain
Definitive response from Jo @ Swaro:
[FONT="]Good Morning[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The EL RANGE 10X42 is water resistant up to 4m/13ft.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Regards[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Jo[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]SWAROVSKI OPTIK VERTRIEBS GMBH
Representation: Swarovski U.K. LTD.
[/FONT][FONT="]Joanne Ludlow[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Credit Control [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Swarovski Optik UK [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Unit 11 (Tarbot House)
[/FONT][FONT="]Perrywood Business Park, [/FONT]
[FONT="]Honeycrock Lane[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Salfords, Surrey.[/FONT]
[FONT="]RH1 5JQ[/FONT]
[FONT="]UK[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Tel. +44/1737/856812[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Fax +44/1737/856885[/FONT]
Cheers
iain
Last edited:
Just curious, are you taking them diving?
I can't think of anywhere I stalk that I could put my EL RF's into anything deeper than 6" and that would be crossing a ditch on my belly when approaching a deer to shoot it.
TJ
prometheus
Well-Known Member
I don't think it really matters how deep they go - they would just fix em FOC
That's a stupid statement to make (and share). Can't believe you didn't challenge it.
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Ok, care to explain?
I'm just reading what they said. So it's ok if they leak at 1m depth? Should say they're water proof to at least 4m. I don't think their statement would help if lawyers got involved in a challenge.
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Eh?
If you're going to be pedantic, you could argue that "up to 4m" means "to 3.99999999999 recurring m" as they don't state "up to and including 4m".
If you're going to be really pedantic, you could argue that 4m is actually 13.1233596ft not 13ft.
They are stating that they are water resistant TO 4m for one really simple reason. AT LEAST 4m implies "and any depth thereafter", and no-one will offer that under warranty. A warranty is to cover both the customer and the vendor, so the vendor will generally put a maximum limit on anything that falls under warranty ie Water resistant to 4m
If they leaked at 1m, then you are going to go back and claim that your pair of Swarovski 10x42 EL-R binos clearly aren't water resistant at that depth, and get a replacement pair of binos. However, if you took them diving to a depth of 30m and they leaked, well...tough
Given all this, I have a pair, and am very, very happy with them. I don't think I'm that stupid to be honest, and I'm not overly happy being told that I am, but you are clearly entitled to your opinion.
Cheers
iain
I'm happy with my ELs also and the lifetime guarantee that I've unfortuately had to use on the scope I bought from them. I highly recommend the ELs.
I'm all too aware of issues with limits, accuracy, conversions, resolution and pressure/leak testing as I deal with them daily. To interpret "at least 4m" as implying "and any depth thereafter" is an interesting and wrong conclusion to draw.
Their statement implies that they're all ok at least to 4m depth BUT that's not what it says. It's a weak guarantee due to the wording. Yes that's pedantic but not incorrect.
I'm all too aware of issues with limits, accuracy, conversions, resolution and pressure/leak testing as I deal with them daily. To interpret "at least 4m" as implying "and any depth thereafter" is an interesting and wrong conclusion to draw.
Their statement implies that they're all ok at least to 4m depth BUT that's not what it says. It's a weak guarantee due to the wording. Yes that's pedantic but not incorrect.
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Do you know, I have better things to do with my life...
Out
Out
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Having just dealt with an earlier ambiguous post I'm now puzzling over the OP's question here. What was the point of it? What's more, is there any point at all in arguing over whether the threshold is only up to 4M or somewhere beyond it?
Whether optics are 'water resistant' to 4 metres doesn't mean a thing, and it doesn't matter a jot whether it's brand 'Z' or 'S'.
It's whether it's 'waterproof' that counts, and neither brand claims to be. Drop either off the pier into two fathoms of seawater, get your kit off, and dive down to make the retrieval. Assuming you survive submersion without your ribs caving in I'm sure you'll find that these much feted binoculars from either stable will have sprung a leak.
It must be the heat
Whether optics are 'water resistant' to 4 metres doesn't mean a thing, and it doesn't matter a jot whether it's brand 'Z' or 'S'.
It's whether it's 'waterproof' that counts, and neither brand claims to be. Drop either off the pier into two fathoms of seawater, get your kit off, and dive down to make the retrieval. Assuming you survive submersion without your ribs caving in I'm sure you'll find that these much feted binoculars from either stable will have sprung a leak.
It must be the heat
Last edited:
Similar threads
