Cornell Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (1 Viewer)

[jan van daalen]

Jan, I understand that part, but thinking of company profitabilty as a whole. Looking at reports, in both Swaro and Zeiss sport optics are a minor share of company profits.

Looking at where growth is forecast I wonder if hunters, birdwatchers and safari clients would justify investing euros away from development of the other lines that may show a greater potential for profit. I realize there is some prestige in alphas, but the prestige dulls when it doesnt make the money the owners wish.

I have looked thru top of the line Swaro, Leica and Zeiss, I have looked thru the Vortex razor and Nikon premier, what I took away from it was, that extra $1200 doesnt buy much difference in binocs.

With income going where it's going in the US, I dont see the market here for high end as very bright.

Perterra,

Swarovski Optik is the crown jewell of the whole company and Zeiss optics was the crown jewell of the whole company, but they are polishing.
It's well known that the R&D budget of Swarovski is bigger then that one of leica and Zeiss together. Didn't I read somewhere that Zeiss is a 6 billion company. I don't think Swarovski is much smaller and yet they invest more in R&D and you see the result in the field. The times that Zeiss invested much more in R&D was the period they ruled the scenary. The 10x40 classic was dominant. Those days are gone.

Now a days where ever you look Swarovski dominates as a result of their investments. It pays back!! Trust is earned and pays back.

The market is allways right. We do sell in numbers much more A-fabric than subs, and Swarovski in number one because of the given quality.

The path Zeiss is going on is dangereous. They still have that name and people expect that names quality and go home with a Zeiss Terra, comparing it to friends who have a Leica or Swarovski. The Zeiss goes trough the drain and when the customer buys a better bin it will not be a Zeiss because it was so disappointing.

Most optic salesman are box movers. They will sell the Terra as a serious Zeiss. It's not!! That's my fear and prediction it's Zeiss funeral.

From the chair where you are sitting you're saying: "I can not justify the 1.200,00 extra for that little bit more". From your point of view you're right, but there are plenty of other people who do need that extra or think they do need it. Why else would the Swarovski ATX 95, or the 10x50SV be the best sold scopes/bins by far!

People buy several times in their lifes a new/other car and yes, metallic color, better sound, nicer wheels etc. It's normal. The price is accepted, but when it comes to optics some people say they can't justify the extra grand. They buy a lesser bin and get in the 5000,00 dollar to expensive car, drive it to the dealer and buy a newer model with extra's.

It's just a matter of priorities.

Jan

 

[perterra]

My question was more of a rhetorical one, I understand the concept of 20% of 2,000 is larger than 20% of 300. Mine was more aimed at the market in general. Zeiss is a $4 billion euro comapny, but sport optics is $178 million euros of that amount.

Say they have $50 million for investment and growth, why would they spend it in a smaller portion of sport optics instead of say semi-conductors where the largest euros come from. In my past in a multi national corp, each division had to fight for their piece of the investment pie. If another division did well, and mine did poorly, then they hired, we had lay-offs.

Personally, I think what Zeiss is doing is probably a smart move. To think there is not money (screw prestige, you cant eat it) to be made in the stack'em deep. sell'em cheap business model, discounts the walmarts of the world. The hard part will be holding it all together to compete with the smaller makers and not lose the high end. Theres a hell of a lot of binoculars being sold that arent high end. If Zeiss can nab just a small portion of those, then the investment dollars will flow within the corp to sport optics.

Wasnt really looking for an answer, more just a statement

 

[mjensen6577]

Mike
As mud goes, its not bad at all.

Then there is the question of do you take development costs all in year one of a new product, or amortise them over 2-3 years?

And what happens to the price of out-sourced components if you can't keep buying the quantities that you expected?

Indeed in some organisations, what happens to prices ex your own factory gates if you can't buy in as large a batches as you wished. Internal or 'transfer' prices can be the source of many a 'spirited discussion'.

Not asking you to comment, just making the point to anyone who cares to listen that its a complex picture.

Lee Thickett

Lee, and I promise, "spirited discussions we have". ;-) You are correct, the needle is always moving. Costing from a German perspective is developed from volume forecasts (same in all businesses), of which fluctuate with market demand, local economies, overzealous sales executives..etc..etc..etc. I've always said that when forecasting sales, you live like the American fairy tale "Goldilocks and the 3 Bears" (1/3 of the time you are too low, 1/3 of the time you are too high, 1/3 of the time you are juuuust right) . Products that we have sold for some years, we have history on so we get pretty close. New products make this very difficult and you have to use any data available to guess correctly. Generally, development costs are amortized over some years based on a standard accounting principal. It's the same in all business that I have managed. I don't know from the USA view how it's done exactly in Germany, it's probably similar, but all of this is built into transfer pricing Germany to USA.

 

[jan van daalen]

Didn't Swarovski optik went over 700 million euro's?

I rest my case.

 

[hinnark]

Regarding innovations and R&D we shouldn't forget the DC4 and the Photoscope*. I don't say that these devices were a great success but they are innovative IMO. At Swaro they seem to have less experience with optotronics because the only thing I can see are two type of rangefinders and they were the last that came with those type of device at the market.

* I'd like to add here the 20-75 vario eyepiece too, which is unique and IMO one of the most sophisticated eyepiece currently available.

 

[etudiant]

Regarding innovations and R&D we shouldn't forget the DC4 and the Photoscope. I don't say that these devices were a great success but they are innovative IMO. At Swaro they seem to have less experience with optotronics because the only thing I can see are two type of rangefinders and they were the last that came with those type of device at the market.

Exactly. Innovation is another form of market segmentation.
The real winner in a mature market, at least imho, is the innovator. Visible innovation recasts market categories.
Minolta, previously a no account brand, greatly expanded their franchise in SLR cameras when it introduced autofocus.
Image stabilization transformed the market place for big zoom cameras and brought us bridge cameras, one of the few bright spots in that market today.
There are surely similar openings in sport optics.
For instance, a stabilized scope able to serve without a tripod would be a game changer. A Photoscope binocular might be another. The recording adjunct could be a plug-in, sort of like the IR screen in the old Zeiss 7x40 Checkpoint Charley binoculars.

 

[ceasar]

Here is the profile of Schott AG. It is a member of the Carl Zeiss Foundation which is not a non-profit organization. The Carl Zeiss Foundation is the sole owner of both Schott AG and Carl Zeiss AG.

http://www.us.schott.com/english/company/facts.html

If you look at the company profile you can see how many people it employs world wide and how much money it makes and what businesses it is involved in. The numbers are impressive. There is a Schott Glass plant which employs about 300 people about 20 miles from where I live. There are 21 plants in the USA alone and more in Canada and the rest of the western hemisphere.

http://www.us.schott.com/english/company/subsidiaries/index.html



Here is a Company Overview of the nature of the businesses that Carl Zeiss AG is involved in.

Carl Zeiss AG operates in the fields of optics and optoelectronics worldwide. The company operates in the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology; Industrial Metrology; Microscopy; Medical Technology; Vision Care; and Camera Lenses, Sports Optics, and Planetariums divisions. The Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology division offers lithography optics for the production of microchips. The Industrial Metrology division provides measuring solutions to make various components, such as micro and macro parts, ship engines, and wind turbines. The Microscopy division develops and distributes microscope systems for the biomedical research and materials inspection. The Medical Technology division offers medical systems that are used in the ophthalmology and neurosurgery, as well as ear, nose, and throat surgeries. The Vision Care division develops and manufactures eyeglass lenses and systems for vision testing applications. The Camera Lenses, Sports Optics, Planetariums division provides binoculars, riflescopes, and spotting scopes; camera and cine lenses; and multimedia video glasses, as well as operates planetariums. It serves the biomedical research, medical technology, semiconductor, automotive, and mechanical engineering industries. The company was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Oberkochen, Germany. Carl Zeiss AG is a subsidiary of the Carl Zeiss Foundation.

All this started in 1846 with an optics company. Zeiss is doing alright and there isn't much evidence that they have been resting on their laurels since.

Bob

 

[james holdsworth]

Considering the size and diversity of the company, I had real fears [just a few years ago] that they [Zeiss] had pretty much given up on being a leader in Sport Optics.

So, last year and this have been very encouraging - with more to come. I would agree that Zeiss could be a bit more radical - I said as much to Mike Jensen - give us a new version of the 20x60S!

I hope they don't go the flat-field route but would love to see some ultra-wide field 7's - and maybe wider fields in the 8 and 10 class too.

 

[perterra]

Here is the profile of Schott AG. It is a member of the Carl Zeiss Foundation which is not a non-profit organization. The Carl Zeiss Foundation is the sole owner of both Schott AG and Carl Zeiss AG.

http://www.us.schott.com/english/company/facts.html

If you look at the company profile you can see how many people it employs world wide and how much money it makes and what businesses it is involved in. The numbers are impressive. There is a Schott Glass plant which employs about 300 people about 20 miles from where I live. There are 21 plants in the USA alone and more in Canada and the rest of the western hemisphere.

http://www.us.schott.com/english/company/subsidiaries/index.html



Here is a Company Overview of the nature of the businesses that Carl Zeiss AG is involved in.

Carl Zeiss AG operates in the fields of optics and optoelectronics worldwide. The company operates in the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology; Industrial Metrology; Microscopy; Medical Technology; Vision Care; and Camera Lenses, Sports Optics, and Planetariums divisions. The Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology division offers lithography optics for the production of microchips. The Industrial Metrology division provides measuring solutions to make various components, such as micro and macro parts, ship engines, and wind turbines. The Microscopy division develops and distributes microscope systems for the biomedical research and materials inspection. The Medical Technology division offers medical systems that are used in the ophthalmology and neurosurgery, as well as ear, nose, and throat surgeries. The Vision Care division develops and manufactures eyeglass lenses and systems for vision testing applications. The Camera Lenses, Sports Optics, Planetariums division provides binoculars, riflescopes, and spotting scopes; camera and cine lenses; and multimedia video glasses, as well as operates planetariums. It serves the biomedical research, medical technology, semiconductor, automotive, and mechanical engineering industries. The company was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Oberkochen, Germany. Carl Zeiss AG is a subsidiary of the Carl Zeiss Foundation.

All this started in 1846 with an optics company. Zeiss is doing alright and there isn't much evidence that they have been resting on their laurels since.

Bob

Looks like binoculars are small change (relatively speaking) in the business plan of Zeiss.

I don't think the world is clamoring for a pair of binoculars, never mind $2,000 binoculars.

 

[mak]

Didn't Swarovski optik went over 700 million euro's?

I rest my case.

Swarovski optik or Swarovski with crystal etc.

 

[jan van daalen]

Swarovski optik or Swarovski with crystal etc.

Mak,

Optik.

Jan

 

[jan van daalen]

Looks like binoculars are small change (relatively speaking) in the business plan of Zeiss.

I don't think the world is clamoring for a pair of binoculars, never mind $2,000 binoculars.

Perterra,

It is. That's the whole point. For the optic fan it's a negative thing. If you are in the medical business, Zeiss is great. But I am a optic fan(atic) and the brands imago is Optics. Worldwide. People don't react on Zeiss with Aviation, Defence or Medical. They react with optics. If your brands name/imago is so strong in the market it's the wet dream of every PR guy. I don't see that back in sales results.
Swarovski's imago is bling bling worldwide, but Swarovski is nr. 1 in sales in the optics and has only accomplish this because Zeiss slipped.
OK Zeiss IS coming back and as a result of this coming fight we will see great optic stuff is coming our way. From both sides! And that makes us all the winner.
A wake up call isn't bashing. It's a kick under the ass and fight.

Jan

 

[Hermann]

We ALL clearly understand that although Zeiss was the leader in optics for 100 years +, we fell asleep and let others take a leading consumer market role. The good news is that Sports Optic is completely awake now and regaining what we have lost. [...] In the last 24 months, we've introduced 57 sku's spanning 12 product classes across 3 product tiers... with GREAT things to come. All in, yea, we are pouring investments into our future.

That sounds very good indeed. I thought it was tragic when Zeiss seemed to fall asleep, as you put it, after the introduction of the Victory FL range, and basically left the high-end market to Swarovski. I'm not sure about the Conquest and the Terra, but the HT, a fantastic binocular, is a sure sign things are moving in the right direction again.

So, what can Zeiss do, given that there are already some excellent binoculars and scopes on the market, not just from Swarovski, but also from Nikon? It's hard to see an increase of 1 or 2 percent in transmission making much difference, anything over 90% transmission is already very good indeed. With modern coatings and AK prisms it may just be possible to get to something like 96% - but would that really matter all that much?

I personally feel there are two areas where some really significant progress can still be made:

- An increase in the field of view to about 70 degrees AFOV (or more). That's in my opinion perhaps the most obvious way forward, provided the sweetspot is large enough. No need for absolute sharpness to the edge, not with such a large field of view. But a field of view of 130m/1000m for a 10x, that's something I'm sure many birders would like to see because it does make quite a difference in the field. Alright, a large field of view necessitates large prisms, but the Zeiss 10x50 porro with its over-sized prisms still only weighed about 1000 gr.

- A stabilizer that doesn't introduce any funny artifacts like the Canon stabilizer and is at least reasonably robust for field use. What's the efficiency of a handheld 10x binocular nowadays, given the progress made in ergonomics? 60-65 percent? The old studies (e.g. Brunnckow, Reeger, Siedentopf 1943) suggested it was something like 56 percent. But even if it's a bit higher nowadays, it's still surely around 60 percent, perhaps a bit more. With a stabilizer I suspect it would be closer to 80+ percent, and that *does* make a difference in the field.

My guess is the next big step forward will be the introduction of binoculars with larger fields of view. The interest that followed the launch of the Kite 8x30 with 150m/1000m and the love afforded on this forum to the Nikon 8x30 EII (which isn't really *that* good optically) seems to vindicate this view.

And a 10x or 12x binocular with a good (preferably mechanical) stabilizer would be a killer like anyone who ever used a binocular with a good stabilizer can attest. Zeiss already has the technology, the 20x60S and the 20x60S Mono are proof of that, even though I don't of course know if that kind of stabilizer can be used for smaller binoculars.

Hermann

 

[Troubador]

Looks like binoculars are small change (relatively speaking) in the business plan of Zeiss.

I don't think the world is clamoring for a pair of binoculars, never mind $2,000 binoculars.

Perterra

The world wasn't clamouring for an over-inflated pumped up pimped up Mini car either but BMW can't make enough of the darn things.

You could say MINI is something original (or derivative) but on the other hand some people regard it as just another car and don't 'get' the attraction.

Nikon's EDG, Swaro's EL SV, Zeiss's HT and (a few years ago) Leica's Ultravid HD were borne out of those companies seeing that sales of bins are still continuing and they want to find the MINI-magic formula that the bins-buying people will flock to.

Once upon a time Leica was the MINI of its day, now its Swaro, and soon (I hope) Zeiss will be the next 'must-have' bins.

The world doesn't need or clamour for lots of things that the world buys by the boat-load.

Lee

 

[perterra]

Perterra

The world wasn't clamouring for an over-inflated pumped up pimped up Mini car either but BMW can't make enough of the darn things.

You could say MINI is something original (or derivative) but on the other hand some people regard it as just another car and don't 'get' the attraction.

Nikon's EDG, Swaro's EL SV, Zeiss's HT and (a few years ago) Leica's Ultravid HD were borne out of those companies seeing that sales of bins are still continuing and they want to find the MINI-magic formula that the bins-buying people will flock to.

Once upon a time Leica was the MINI of its day, now its Swaro, and soon (I hope) Zeiss will be the next 'must-have' bins.

The world doesn't need or clamour for lots of things that the world buys by the boat-load.

Lee

I agree, but you are looking (I think) at a niche market for both the Mini and $2,000 binoculars. What I think (emphasis on think) is that Zeiss is trying to move beyond a niche market and in to mainstream. If it is what they are doing, and they are successful you will probably see Swaro attempting the same. If so, then Zeiss will certainly appear to be a leader regardless of where they are made.

Binoculars purity (must be euro made mindset) may get the attention of many on this forum, I'd bet money gets attention of the many at Swaro and Zeiss.

In the business world, sales cures all.

 

[perterra]

Didn't Swarovski optik went over 700 million euro's?

I rest my case.

Jan, just a thought here, but in 30 years of sales I have learned, if you are in it for the long haul every day you are on the top, is one day closer to someone knocking off the throne, and every day you are on the bottom puts you one day closer to getting back on top. It's a fact of life. I'd be prepared for it.

 

[jan van daalen]

Jan, just a thought here, but in 30 years of sales I have learned, if you are in it for the long haul every day you are on the top, is one day closer to someone knocking off the throne, and every day you are on the bottom puts you one day closer to getting back on top. It's a fact of life. I'd be prepared for it.

Perterra,

Assuming you are not rhetorical (I had to look that word up )

Isn't that not one off the greatest drives; to achieve the maximum out life.
It counts for every one of us.
Personally I prefer, if I have to go under, it will be under full throttle fighting and when I go it will be heads up and not during a long nap.
If you don't learn from the past....
Food for thought indeed.

Jan

Jan

 

[perterra]

Perterra,

Assuming you are not rhetorical (I had to look that word up )

Isn't that not one off the greatest drives; to achieve the maximum out life.
It counts for every one of us.
Personally I prefer, if I have to go under, it will be under full throttle fighting and when I go it will be heads up and not during a long nap.
If you don't learn from the past....
Food for thought indeed.

Jan

Jan

Your only looking at a small part of the picture though. Alpha binoculars are important to you, but by offering the Terra, Zeiss has just gotten thousands of customers that would never take a look at an alpha seriously and will never take a look at a Swaro.

Most will not go under fighting, they will cut their losses and move on.

I wouldnt sell Zeiss short, they arent likely to make a lot of false steps as a company, they just might not be going the direction you want them to go.

 

[jan van daalen]

Your only looking at a small part of the picture though. Alpha binoculars are important to you, but by offering the Terra, Zeiss has just gotten thousands of customers that would never take a look at an alpha seriously and will never take a look at a Swaro.

Most will not go under fighting, they will cut their losses and move on.

I wouldnt sell Zeiss short, they arent likely to make a lot of false steps as a company, they just might not be going the direction you want them to go.

Parterra,

Couldn't agree more with your last remark:t:

Jan

 

[Troubador]

While there might an element of risk that some people may try a Terra and because its a Zeiss, be disappointed that it is not a world beating instrument, I don't think this is a big danger Jan.

Lots of people today don't know Zeiss and of course this is because for a time Zeiss fell asleep at the wheel.

Folks can look at the price list and will draw their own conclusions about what they can expect from a Terra at $350 or Conquest HD at $970 or a Victory HT at $2200. I don't think that too many folks are going to expect the same from Terra as from HT and therefore end up being disappointed and anti-Zeiss.

Do I wish that Zeiss could accomplish all of this by manufacturing everything in Wetzlar? In my heart, yes. But my head knows this is impossible in today's world and I think Zeiss's three tier strategy is the best way forward.

TroubaLee