March FX 1-10x24mm Shorty Gen II Focus Question

[warrantchief]

Hi folks, I just mounted up my new march and I'm struggling a little bit with the focus. When shooting other optics with my corrective glasses I don't have to adjust the reticle focus. As in, I've never adjusted one ever except to make sure it's set approximately neutral.

With the March I have to dial it to -2 diopter in order to get it to come into focus. (I asked my wife to adjust it into focus and she dialed it to -1.75.) Even when I have it "in focus", it appears that the first and second focal plane are not in focus at the same time. I can either get the sfp cross hairs really crisp or the ffp numbers and hash marks, but not both. It's not far off, but it doesn't seem $3k awesome, either.

Anyone have first hand experience with this same optic?

Thanks

 

[warrantchief]

Update - I emailed March and here is what they said:

When a person looks through the eyepiece of an optical instrument, the ciliary muscle that adjusts the lens tenses when the eye is brought close to the eyepiece, resulting in myopia of around -1 to 2 diopters in any person. This is called instrument myopia. Therefore, it is normal for you to be adjusted at -2D when you are -0.75D. The reason why you did not need to be adjusted with other optical instruments is probably due to a coincidence of various conditions. Since the human eye's acuity varies from morning to night, from tired to not so tired, and from day to day, it is recommended that you adjust the eyepiece each time you want to shoot accurately. Please try the eyepiece adjustment system of this product, which can be adjusted from -3D to +2D for easy and simple adjustment.


I'm still skeptical that I've just never had to do this before but all of a sudden this scope requires dialing in the focus...

 

[sf135]

I don't have any technical knowledge in optics but maybe because the SFP and FFP reticles are slightly different distances from your eyes that it's hard for them to keep them both in focus at once?

A practical solution I guess would be to accept the slight blurriness for the SFP as it doesn't matter as much for short range shooting and go for clearest distance reticle since that's where a crisp reticle would be most useful?

On a side note, I was wondering if you could help me answer some questions with this scope. Dealers around me don't have them in stock so I can't get hands on experience with it. I'd really appreciate it...

At 1x magnification, could you set the parallax to 550 meters and let me know how blurry the image quality is at short (<50 meters all the way down to 5 or 10 meters) distances?

A reviewer online said blurriness up close when the parallax is set far and vice versa was one downside to the scope. I wanted your opinion on whether the image quality at close range and 1x is still workable with parallax set to 550 meters (ie without frequent adjustment).

 

[warrantchief]

Hey, I've actually settled on keeping the SFP crispest as that's used as the "crosshairs" for the target. Getting the numbers and hash marks perfect isn't super critical. I think your description makes sense. It is really good at 1x for 1-10x FFP, so I'll give them that. My only other FFP LPVO is the Trijicon Credo 1-8x28.

At 1x in my mom's basement, I can't tell the difference from 2y to 20y based on where I adjust the parallax. It looks better at all settings than my Trijicon does at 1x at the same "targets".

The reason I upgraded from the Trijicon was so that I could use this rifle for long range competition in a "recce" division but still treat it like a duty rifle. Having a 1-8x that was blurry at 300 yards didn't make sense to me. The Trijicon is moving to my 10/22 Competition...

After some back to back testing with the other scopes I have I decided I was being a bit harsh on the ol' march. I'd probably prefer a FFP only reticle but this combo is a good all-a-rounder.

 

[sf135]

Dang that's fantastic information. Thank you for sharing.

The reason I asked was because of this reddit thread Guide to LPVO selection where the author mentions the Shorty 1-10 and issues with depth of field. Glad to hear it's kind of a non issue. I was trying to decide between going the duty rifle route with a SpecterDR or turn my 14.5 into a recce style with a 1-10. Based on what you're saying the March sounds like a great addition to my rifle.

 

[Convex]

I don't have this scope, but as to their response, I can guarantee you March will not bullshit you, if they know the answer to something they'll tell U, if they don't know they'll tell U they don't know.

Reading what they said, re when it comes to either shooting w/my cameras or looking thru my scope, @75, even though I've had corrective surgery on both eyes, I'll have a certain "window" of time where my eyes are "fresh" where I can trust my eyesight and then when I've been looking thru something too long/my eyes get tired, it's better for me to quit.

I have to keep reminding myself that my eyes can get tired like the rest of me.

 

[Keith E.]

Hey, I've actually settled on keeping the SFP crispest as that's used as the "crosshairs" for the target. Getting the numbers and hash marks perfect isn't super critical. I think your description makes sense. It is really good at 1x for 1-10x FFP, so I'll give them that. My only other FFP LPVO is the Trijicon Credo 1-8x28.

At 1x in my mom's basement, I can't tell the difference from 2y to 20y based on where I adjust the parallax. It looks better at all settings than my Trijicon does at 1x at the same "targets".

The reason I upgraded from the Trijicon was so that I could use this rifle for long range competition in a "recce" division but still treat it like a duty rifle. Having a 1-8x that was blurry at 300 yards didn't make sense to me. The Trijicon is moving to my 10/22 Competition...

After some back to back testing with the other scopes I have I decided I was being a bit harsh on the ol' march. I'd probably prefer a FFP only reticle but this combo is a good all-a-rounder.

Thanks Sir. I needed that one.

Keith

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Hey, I've actually settled on keeping the SFP crispest as that's used as the "crosshairs" for the target. Getting the numbers and hash marks perfect isn't super critical. I think your description makes sense. It is really good at 1x for 1-10x FFP, so I'll give them that. My only other FFP LPVO is the Trijicon Credo 1-8x28.

At 1x in my mom's basement, I can't tell the difference from 2y to 20y based on where I adjust the parallax. It looks better at all settings than my Trijicon does at 1x at the same "targets".

The reason I upgraded from the Trijicon was so that I could use this rifle for long range competition in a "recce" division but still treat it like a duty rifle. Having a 1-8x that was blurry at 300 yards didn't make sense to me. The Trijicon is moving to my 10/22 Competition...

After some back to back testing with the other scopes I have I decided I was being a bit harsh on the ol' march. I'd probably prefer a FFP only reticle but this combo is a good all-a-rounder.

I don't care who you are that's funny

 

[freedom71]

The March 1-10 I owned had a very shallow DOF, so your parallax adjustments had to be spot on and, even then, objects in front and behind often were OOF. I

 

[sf135]

The March 1-10 I owned had a very shallow DOF, so your parallax adjustments had to be spot on and, even then, objects in front and behind often were OOF. I

---

I’m wondering why the info is so contradictory then. Did you play with the diopter at all? Maybe the Gen 2 changed some things

 

[warrantchief]

I'm not sure his comment is inherently contradictory. At 10x it very well might be a narrow DOF. I'm going to get it out on the range soon, so I'll report back.

 

[Denys]

It should be noted that there are at least 3 models of a March 1-10X24 LPVO. There is one that is over 10 inches long and weighs 19 oz. This is an earlier model. The next one is the 1-10X24 "Shorty" LPVO. It is 8 inches long and weighs in at about 17oz. This was the one with the 30mm tube and the 33mm objective diameter. This was replaced by the current March-FX 1-10X24 Shorty with the entire body at 34mm. It's still around 8 inches but weighs 20z. The two shorties have identical optics, as far as I know. The prior model is different. @freedom71 does not specify which model he has, but if the tube was 30mm and could be mounted in regular rings, that would be the earlier, longer version.

 

[sf135]

I'm not sure his comment is inherently contradictory. At 10x it very well might be a narrow DOF. I'm going to get it out on the range soon, so I'll report back.

Looking forward to hearing your findings.

 

[Denys]

Hi folks, I just mounted up my new march and I'm struggling a little bit with the focus. When shooting other optics with my corrective glasses I don't have to adjust the reticle focus. As in, I've never adjusted one ever except to make sure it's set approximately neutral.

With the March I have to dial it to -2 diopter in order to get it to come into focus. (I asked my wife to adjust it into focus and she dialed it to -1.75.) Even when I have it "in focus", it appears that the first and second focal plane are not in focus at the same time. I can either get the sfp cross hairs really crisp or the ffp numbers and hash marks, but not both. It's not far off, but it doesn't seem $3k awesome, either.

Anyone have first hand experience with this same optic?

Thanks

It sounds like an eyepiece adjustment issue. March has some detailed instructions to help you adjust your riflescope to your eye.

Check out the support page with a host of documents.

Support | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

Check out this one specifically.

How to adjust the Eyepiece – with Q&A | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

 

[Faith7]

It should be noted that there are at least 3 models of a March 1-10X24 LPVO. There is one that is over 10 inches long and weighs 19 oz. This is an earlier model. The next one is the 1-10X24 "Shorty" LPVO. It is 8 inches long and weighs in at about 17oz. This was the one with the 30mm tube and the 33mm objective diameter. This was replaced by the current March-FX 1-10X24 Shorty with the entire body at 34mm. It's still around 8 inches but weighs 20z. The two shorties have identical optics, as far as I know. The prior model is different. @freedom71 does not specify which model he has, but if the tube was 30mm and could be mounted in regular rings, that would be the earlier, longer version.

Denys, I am late to this thread, obviously.
Did both Shorty models come in a dual-focal-plane reticle? If yes, model ambiguity exists. If not, then the OP has the latest model. Yes?
Additionally, do you have experience with any of these scopes?
Thanks. F7

 

[Denys]

Yes, the 33/30Shorty was the first DFP riflescope from March, if memory serves. I played with that one a few years back for a little while. It's not something I use as my shooting is almost completely dedicated to F-class competition, mainly LR. I have not had a chance to look through or use the 34mm model with the newer DFP reticle. I will surely have the chance at SHOT Show in a few weeks.

 

[Faith7]

Yes, the 33/30Shorty was the first DFP riflescope from March, if memory serves. I played with that one a few years back for a little while. It's not something I use as my shooting is almost completely dedicated to F-class competition, mainly LR. I have not had a chance to look through or use the 34mm model with the newer DFP reticle. I will surely have the chance at SHOT Show in a few weeks.

Thank you. F7

 

[sf135]

I'm not sure his comment is inherently contradictory. At 10x it very well might be a narrow DOF. I'm going to get it out on the range soon, so I'll report back.

Hey Warrant, did you manage to get any range time with the Shorty yet?

 

[warrantchief]

Not yet! Life is getting in the way of my hobbies again. I'll get it out weekend after this coming one.

 

[warrantchief]

Finally got to go shoot and I can't get the target picture into focus at all. :/ It's unshootable at 100 yards. I guess I'll have to send it back to Japan since the distributer in the US doesn't handle any service. Pretty disappointing for the most expensive scope I've purchased....

 

[sf135]

Huh that is disappointing. Sorry about that Warrant. So you focused the diopter for a clear SFP like you mentioned above and we’re unable to get the target in focus at 100 with a 100 yard parallax?

 

[warrantchief]

Yeah, the reticle focus works as expected and described above–I can get the 2fp super crisp and have the 1fp a little bit less crisp. But now that I'm looking down range instead of out the window of my house, the target picture can't be brought into focus using the parallax adjustment. I can make it better and worse but it never gets close. I tried with and without glasses and messed with both the diopter and parallax at the same time with no progress.

I'm headed to a match this morning so I'm going to bring it with me and have a few other guys try it just to make sure I'm not crazy or have weird eyes, but I'm feeling like there is just something misaligned inside.

 

[sf135]

Hey warrant, any luck today at the match?

 

[warrantchief]

Hey, the match was great, but the glass.... not so much. I'm going to send to back to March and have them look at it. From my ignorant POV it feels like something is misaligned between the two focal planes. It's hard to describe but the blurriness of the sight picture doesn't look quite like normal out of focus optics. I asked a couple other people to try to line up a target at 100 yards and they all couldn't get into focus either.

 

[sf135]

Well at least it sounds like all these issues don’t represent the full potential of this scope. Hopefully once it’s back from warranty you’ll have a much better optic in your hands

 

[Faith7]

Hey, the match was great, but the glass.... not so much. I'm going to send to back to March and have them look at it. From my ignorant POV it feels like something is misaligned between the two focal planes. It's hard to describe but the blurriness of the sight picture doesn't look quite like normal out of focus optics. I asked a couple other people to try to line up a target at 100 yards and they all couldn't get into focus either.

I am sorry to hear this, warrantchief. I second the comments of sf135.
So now we have the report from Glass that the dual focus reticle in the 1.5-15 improved his perceived IQ experience over the regular 1.5-15, and your unfortunate experience, which is presently disappointing.
I sympathize with you, but I also have an interest in all of March’s 1-10 and 1.5-15 lineup. Hopefully better news will come. F7

 

[Denys]

Just as a quick update. I contacted the OP while I was a SHOT with some DEON engineers. They recommended that to get proper focus on the Dual Plane reticle, one should concentrate on setting the diopter of the ocular to present the SFP nice and crisp. The OP provided further information about contacting his reseller and diagnosing the focus problem as possibly being affected by ring torque. I understand the scope is going back to the factory for diagnosis. I'm confident DEON will take good care of the OP's riflescope.

While at SHOT I had ample opportunity to play with the March-FX 1.5-15X42 with Dual Reticle and with the March-FX 1-10X24 with Dual Reticle. They both worked perfectly for me and for the myriad people who stopped by and wanted to look through them.

 

[Burdy]

Just as a quick update. I contacted the OP while I was a SHOT with some DEON engineers. They recommended that to get proper focus on the Dual Plane reticle, one should concentrate on setting the diopter of the ocular to present the SFP nice and crisp. The OP provided further information about contacting his reseller and diagnosing the focus problem as possibly being affected by ring torque. I understand the scope is going back to the factory for diagnosis. I'm confident DEON will take good care of the OP's riflescope.

While at SHOT I had ample opportunity to play with the March-FX 1.5-15X42 with Dual Reticle and with the March-FX 1-10X24 with Dual Reticle. They both worked perfectly for me and for the myriad people who stopped by and wanted to look through them.

I checked it out as well at SHOT, admittedly, I did have to piddle with the settings quite a bit more than usual. I think it's a pretty parallax sensitive optic which doesn't make things any easier.
With that being said, it was my first time checking out their entire line and I spoke with March for quite some time at the booth.
I walked away really impressed with them as an optic manufacturer. Not only fit and finish but most of the feature sets show me they are listening to the consumer which seems to be a rare thing these days.

 

[Denys]

I checked it out as well at SHOT, admittedly, I did have to piddle with the settings quite a bit more than usual. I think it's a pretty parallax sensitive optic which doesn't make things any easier.
With that being said, it was my first time checking out their entire line and I spoke with March for quite some time at the booth.
I walked away really impressed with them as an optic manufacturer. Not only fit and finish but most of the feature sets show me they are listening to the consumer which seems to be a rare thing these days.

I'm wondering if you mean depth of field (DOF) instead of parallax when you mention it's "parallax sensitive".

If you mean DOF, then I will point out that at low magnification, the DOF is quite extensive, but since this is a 10X zoom, when you get towards the top end, the DOF will shrink rapidly. I think this is what surprise folks who are more familiar with 3X, 4X or even 5X zoom ratio. They just keep on trucking up to 10X zoom and realize the DOF has shrunk much more than they are used to when at the top magnification of a smaller zoom ratio optic.

It's the same with the 1-10X24, people are used to going up to say, 6X and the DOF is still quite good there, but it drops rapidly going to 10X, hence the criticality of the side focus in such optics.

 

[Faith7]

I'm wondering if you mean depth of field (DOF) instead of parallax when you mention it's "parallax sensitive".

If you mean DOF, then I will point out that at low magnification, the DOF is quite extensive, but since this is a 10X zoom, when you get towards the top end, the DOF will shrink rapidly. I think this is what surprise folks who are more familiar with 3X, 4X or even 5X zoom ratio. They just keep on trucking up to 10X zoom and realize the DOF has shrunk much more than they are used to when at the top magnification of a smaller zoom ratio optic.

It's the same with the 1-10X24, people are used to going up to say, 6X and the DOF is still quite good there, but it drops rapidly going to 10X, hence the criticality of the side focus in such optics.

Interesting point, Denys, aside from whether the issue is parallax or DOF. You made me think of this matter for the first time. Thanks. F7

 

[Burdy]

I'm wondering if you mean depth of field (DOF) instead of parallax when you mention it's "parallax sensitive".

If you mean DOF, then I will point out that at low magnification, the DOF is quite extensive, but since this is a 10X zoom, when you get towards the top end, the DOF will shrink rapidly. I think this is what surprise folks who are more familiar with 3X, 4X or even 5X zoom ratio. They just keep on trucking up to 10X zoom and realize the DOF has shrunk much more than they are used to when at the top magnification of a smaller zoom ratio optic.

It's the same with the 1-10X24, people are used to going up to say, 6X and the DOF is still quite good there, but it drops rapidly going to 10X, hence the criticality of the side focus in such optics.

Yup, DOF. But of course, you must use the parallax to reel that in. Having been a photographer back in the day, DOF used to be my friend.
When competing dynamically, it can be an annoyance.
If I shot statically all the time, I wouldn't give it a second thought.

 

[Denys]

Yup, DOF. But of course, you must use the parallax to reel that in. Having been a photographer back in the day, DOF used to be my friend.
When competing dynamically, it can be an annoyance.
If I shot statically all the time, I wouldn't give it a second thought.

What are you talking about? You use the side focus to, wait for it, focus the picture from the objective.

I agree that as a photographer, you have a much better understanding and appreciation for DOF, but it's another thing to convey carry that over to riflescopes.

I completely understand how DOF can be an annoyance when shooting a stage composed of varying distances, but even with that, there are steps that can be take to mitigate this annoyance.

 

[Burdy]

What are you talking about? You use the side focus to, wait for it, focus the picture from the objective.

I agree that as a photographer, you have a much better understanding and appreciation for DOF, but it's another thing to convey carry that over to riflescopes.

I completely understand how DOF can be an annoyance when shooting a stage composed of varying distances, but even with that, there are steps that can be take to mitigate this annoyance.

Yes, it's just extra work if the optic is very finicky. I tend to operate in a manner where time is of the essence so my optics choices typically reflect that in nearly every way.

 

[warrantchief]

It looks like a nice scope, but if more than 18 inch-lbs on a unimount scope ring permanently damages the focus mechanism as I was told by the seller, I can't say I am super thrilled.

I received a scope that was non-functional and now it's on my dime to mail it to Japan. The instructions from the seller specifically say not to insure the scope or declare a value over $1500 because it causes customs issues. So thats great too. I love having my broken $3000 scope uninsured while being shipped out of the continent.

Even if it comes back perfectly I can't recommend anyone buy a march scope until the local seller is responsible for actually delivering a functioning product.

I thought it was weird the seller wouldn't take anything other than a wire for payment, but I suspect we can see why. I have no recourse whatsoever unlike if I had used a credit card.

 

[Burdy]

It looks like a nice scope, but if more than 18 inch-lbs on a unimount scope ring permanently damages the focus mechanism as I was told by the seller, I can't say I am super thrilled.

I received a scope that was non-functional and now it's on my dime to mail it to Japan. The instructions from the seller specifically say not to insure the scope or declare a value over $1500 because it causes customs issues. So thats great too. I love having my broken $3000 scope uninsured while being shipped out of the continent.

Even if it comes back perfectly I can't recommend anyone buy a march scope until the local seller is responsible for actually delivering a functioning product.

I thought it was weird the seller wouldn't take anything other than a wire for payment, but I suspect we can see why. I have no recourse whatsoever unlike if I had used a credit card.

Considering he only would take wire, I am pretty sure I have dealt with the same seller before and I can tell you that when there was a problem he absolutely took care of me.

 

[warrantchief]

I'm really just annoyed with myself not him. Longrangesupply is very clear they offer no post-purchase support after you buy the scope and it's on me to deal with it. I decided to take the risk and now I'm paying the price.

I was choosing between the leupold 2-10 and the march 1-10 and should have gone with the leupold.

 

[warrantchief]

For those who are following along, it's been 6 weeks since March received my scope back and so far they have been unable to repair it.

 

[Faith7]

For those who are following along, it's been 6 weeks since March received my scope back and so far they have been unable to repair it.

 

[Faith7]

Gee, that is too bad. It is not exactly expeditious. I am confused by the word “unable.” F7

 

[warrantchief]

Here the update from their rep:

"Your scope is currently undergoing repairs.
We are experiencing some delays in identifying the cause of the focus issue.
I have requested the repair personnel to expedite the process.
I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the wait."

They have so far not been able to identify the problem which means they can't fix it.

 

[Convex]

The instructions from the seller specifically say not to insure the scope or declare a value over $1500 because it causes customs issues.

Maybe I'm missing something, if I am, please tell me; I would never agree to the above, and I bought my March from this guy.


Have you asked March for another scope since you never got the new one you paid for, I'd be curious what their response would be.


"Double Whammy": You're unhappy, and this makes March look bad, maybe asking March to keep the problem scope and send you a new one w/o any problems might be an option they'd agree to.

That is what you paid for.

The 1st sentence in my email would start w/"you folks have my money which was for a new scope, the one I got was broken, and I've waited 6 weeks, can we consider you sending me a replacement, because right now I'm in limbo".

 

[warrantchief]

So, for shipping, I told the seller I was uncomfortable having the scope insured for less than its replacement value. In the end he took care of producing the label using third party insurance and did whatever shenanigans required to get it past customs. March agreed to cover the cost until they could figure out what was going on so I'm not out of pocket anything for the repair at the moment.

My most recent reply to March asked the question you posited, basically if it's not fixed when is it going to be replaced. We'll see what they say!

 

[JWG]

Wow. Im sorry, OP. I was considering this very optic, but will be keeping my nx8, instead. US support, and it works fine.

 

[JWG]

It looks like a nice scope, but if more than 18 inch-lbs on a unimount scope ring permanently damages the focus mechanism as I was told by the seller, I can't say I am super thrilled.

I received a scope that was non-functional and now it's on my dime to mail it to Japan. The instructions from the seller specifically say not to insure the scope or declare a value over $1500 because it causes customs issues. So thats great too. I love having my broken $3000 scope uninsured while being shipped out of the continent.

Even if it comes back perfectly I can't recommend anyone buy a march scope until the local seller is responsible for actually delivering a functioning product.

I thought it was weird the seller wouldn't take anything other than a wire for payment, but I suspect we can see why. I have no recourse whatsoever unlike if I had used a credit card.

Sooo...about that 4mm thick tube being super tough...

 

[01911]

Wow. Im sorry, OP. I was considering this very optic, but will be keeping my nx8, instead. US support, and it works fine.

I went with the Vudu because I couldn’t figure out how a March or a Kahles would get repaired.
@warrantchief
Did they offer to refund your money for the scope ?

 

[Convex]

This is strange. I have absolutely no proof, but I don't believe that amount will jack up the scope. Is it possible that it was broken some other way before it got to you.

Years back, I bought a brand new camera which showed up and I come to pick it up. and several things on it were broken. There was no mystery, looking at the damage, somebody at the store who didn't know this camera "played around" w/it and broke it and boxed it back up.

Store owner gets into the conversation and says "no", it came that way from the factory", I call the factory from the store giving the serial number, the factory who says "no, it was inspected by two people."

"We made the camera, we wouldn't be stupid enough to jam the camera by taking a lens w/an un-cocked shutter off the camera, or the prism off before we took the lens off...and we inspected it twice before we shipped."



You have to make sure both the camera and lens are in the 'shutter cocked' position before you take the lens off or on the camera, and you have to take the lens off before you take the viewing prism off or you damage the linkage between the lens and the prism, all of this causing a total of about a grand worth of damage which the factory will not pay for under warranty



Had to get a statement from the factory sent to the camera store, along w/getting somebody at the factory to talk to the store owner who "squealed and squealed" and then sent me a new camera.


I hate it when other folks fuck up, after you've paid your money, and then you have to wait while all of this is figured out.

 

[JWG]

This is strange. I have absolutely no proof, but I don't believe that amount will jack up the scope. Is it possible that it was broken some other way before it got to you.

Years back, I bought a brand new camera which showed up and I come to pick it up. and several things on it were broken. There was no mystery, looking at the damage, somebody at the store who didn't know this camera "played around" w/it and broke it and boxed it back up.

Store owner gets into the conversation and says "no", it came that way from the factory", I call the factory from the store giving the serial number, the factory who says "no, it was inspected by two people."

"We made the camera, we wouldn't be stupid enough to jam the camera by taking a lens w/an un-cocked shutter off the camera, or the prism off before we took the lens off...and we inspected it twice before we shipped."



You have to make sure both the camera and lens are in the 'shutter cocked' position before you take the lens off or on the camera, and you have to take the lens off before you take the viewing prism off or you damage the linkage between the lens and the prism, all of this causing a total of about a grand worth of damage which the factory will not pay for under warranty



Had to get a statement from the factory sent to the camera store, along w/getting somebody at the factory to talk to the store owner who "squealed and squealed" and then sent me a new camera.


I hate it when other folks fuck up, after you've paid your money, and then you have to wait while all of this is figured out.

Ive had plenty of messed up stuff in factory sealed boxes with QC handwritten initials on it.

 

[Convex]

I don't doubt it.

Somebody gets lazy, stamps something and doesn't bother to inspect it.

Your money is taken quick enough, somebody makes a mess, and you or I have to figure it out/clean it up.


Getting old, so I'm quicker to just ask for my money back instead of waiting.


Whoever picks the music they make you listen to while on hold should be tied up/gagged and made to listen to it for a wk non-stop.



I do think March is still vigilant.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

@Convex I agree. Based on the insanely high quality of my first gen March dual plane lpvo, I also suspect it is most likely that something strange happened after it was shipped. If this was some sort of design flaw, we would be reading about stuff like this happening all of the time.

 

[Denys]

Just some thoughts while we wait for the OP to update us. The rings had nothing to do with the problem. Every company can ship something with an issue that slips through QC. It's how the company handles the issue that is important. March is legendary in how they handle these rare issues, and the important thing is for the customer to get the optics which he purchased, in proper working order.