Zeiss moving out of Wetzlar (1 Viewer)

jan van daalen said:

SBB,
I was under the impression Omid was talking about the Swarovski rifle scope
Jan

Click to expand...

Hi Jan,

As you yourself noted, I was talking about Zeiss scopes not Swarovski. Our subject here is Zeiss: a company that I love and respect very much and that's exactly why I care to critique their products. (We can also critique Swarovski product development but that's not the subject of discussion here, I do respect Swarovski and Leica too and I would, in due course, critique their products for exact same reason: I love them, care for them and wish them success.)

the reason to go for a 36mm tube is to make the possibiity to create more clicks for long range distances, something which seems impossible with a 30mm tube. The extra weight is 130 gram.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I called their solution "stupid". It is in fact possible to have a large elevation adjustment range in a 30mm tube scope (and even in a one-inch tube scope) and Zeiss was told about it: I have invented a new riflescope adjustment technique which allows unlimited elevation and windage adjustment in a rifle scope of any tube diameter. In my suggested method, the reticle and the erector lenses are not moved up and down inside the main tube. The riflescope's point of aim is adjusted optically using thin wedge prisms that move longitudinally or rotate about the optical axis. All the lenses and the reticle will remain fixed and centered on the optical axis. See US Patent 8,749,887; US Patent 9,164, 269 and US Patent 9,644, 920.

I have since developed even more elegant concepts that allow unlimited elevation and windage adjustment in a riflescope of any tube diameter while, at the same time, there are no moving parts inside the scope, there are no turrets, all the optical lenses are centered on the optical axis! Patent applications for these concepts are still pending

Like Dr. Dobler earlier mentioned; solutions comes with compromises.
Others might call it stupid

Click to expand...

Well, as I demonstrated in my comments above, sometimes an amateur might come up with a better solution than a whole team of experts. Dr. Dobler is very nice man and avid birdwatcher. He is not a hunter though (as far as I know). He is not the cause of Zeiss failing financially. He is one component in a large corporate culture that prevents a manager from taking risky decisions. As a result, NOTHING NEW HAPPENS. Here are the exact words of my friend (former Director of Product Management/Hunting at Zeiss) written to me in 2013:


It seems inevitable that any big company ends up turning into a giant mechanical machine which perpetuates its initial motion under inertia. I wouldn't blame Zeiss for not adapting or making my inventions after an initial test. But they didn't even do that, they got busy inventing the next "big thing" on their own and they achieved it [literally ].

-Omid

PS. SBB, I appreciate your supportive comments in Post #15. It is good to know I am not alone in my opinion about Zeiss V8 scopes. I recently purchased about $5000 worth of Zeiss optics but they were the previous Varipoint models; outstanding products from every aspect..

Omid, it is sad that such a wonderful company is turning to such. I guess Zeiss is typical of the new management type of companies where they are run by MBA/ bean counters vs technical people. This is especially evident in high tech environments where we have seen massive failings. Eg BP Macondo disaster was cause by cost cutting, Enron, Kodak, Nokia, etc... Good luck with your patents. They look to be amazing and hopefully working scopes will comeout soon which we can buy.

Jan,
very interesting, didn't know that Dr Dobler was at Leica. I always wondered why the Leicas Magnus scopes looked so similar to Swaros. Now I know.

have a great weekend boys!
Alex

Omid said:

Hi Jan,

As you yourself noted, I was talking about Zeiss scopes not Swarovski. Our subject here is Zeiss: a company that I love and respect very much and that's exactly why I care to critique their products. (We can also critique Swarovski product development but that's not the subject of discussion here, I do respect Swarovski and Leica too and I would, in due course, critique their products for exact same reason: I love them, care for them and wish them success.)



This is exactly why I called their solution "stupid". It is in fact possible to have a large elevation adjustment range in a 30mm tube scope (and even in a one-inch tube scope) and Zeiss was told about it: I have invented a new riflescope adjustment technique which allows unlimited elevation and windage adjustment in a rifle scope of any tube diameter. In my suggested method, the reticle and the erector lenses are not moved up and down inside the main tube. The riflescope's point of aim is adjusted optically using thin wedge prisms that move longitudinally or rotate about the optical axis. All the lenses and the reticle will remain fixed and centered on the optical axis. See US Patent 8,749,887; US Patent 9,164, 269 and US Patent 9,644, 920.

I have since developed even more elegant concepts that allow unlimited elevation and windage adjustment in a riflescope of any tube diameter while, at the same time, there are no moving parts inside the scope, there are no turrets, all the optical lenses are centered on the optical axis! Patent applications for these concepts are still pending




Well, as I demonstrated in my comments above, sometimes an amateur might come up with a better solution than a whole team of experts. Dr. Dobler is very nice man and avid birdwatcher. He is not a hunter though (as far as I know). He is not the cause of Zeiss failing financially. He is one component in a large corporate culture that prevents a manager from taking risky decisions. As a result, NOTHING NEW HAPPENS. Here are the exact words of my friend (former Director of Product Management/Hunting at Zeiss) written to me in 2013:

"The reasons for my leave are diverse – but in a nut shell – ZEISS and myself are deriving from totally different cultures: In my previous jobs I was used to work very independently based on ‘trust’ shown by the executive board (Swarovski Optik, Leica Camera) or the shareholder (Gerhard Swarvoski, Andreas Kaufmann) respectively. So we had lots of discussions in ‘qualitative’ terms (brand/line strategy, positioning, performance, features) and very little in ‘quantitative’ terms (business plans, exchange rates, volume estimates, regional forecasts). At ZEISS – dealing only with strangely aloof bean counters with no-whatsoever understanding of the sports optics market (actually of consumer markets as a whole) – every project started (and very often ended) with nigh-shift Power Point and Excel battles throwing numbers at each other just to get some ‘no-brainer’-project released. And I am not only talking a million or two investments, I am talking releases of 10,000 EURO-budgets for inititialization projects (pre-pre-development / proof of concept).

That said, many of my promising, disruptive innovation projects (including the topics with you) ended before the actual evaluation phase as my German bean counters where looking for a ‘guaranteed’ payback of each EURO spent within a year or so. Ridicolous – and not a viable business culture (at least in the consumer market world)."​

It seems inevitable that any big company ends up turning into a giant mechanical machine which perpetuates its initial motion under inertia. I wouldn't blame Zeiss for not adapting or making my inventions after an initial test. But they didn't even do that, they got busy inventing the next "big thing" on their own and they achieved it [literally ].

-Omid

PS. SBB, I appreciate your supportive comments in Post #15. It is good to know I am not alone in my opinion about Zeiss V8 scopes. I recently purchased about $5000 worth of Zeiss optics but they were the previous Varipoint models; outstanding products from every aspect..

Click to expand...

Hi Omid,

First of all, personally I would not be amused to find a private conversation on a public Forum but that's up to you.

I am not in the position to Judge over your invention and the 36mm Zeiss scope. I don't see Swaro/Leica/Zeiss/Schmidt&Bender going into your direction, but who knows in future?

I think we are in general agreement about "management" and your correspondence with the man we all know on this Forum prooves it all.

Jan

Omid said:

Hi Jan,

As you yourself noted, I was talking about Zeiss scopes not Swarovski. Our subject here is Zeiss: a company that I love and respect very much and that's exactly why I care to critique their products. (We can also critique Swarovski product development but that's not the subject of discussion here, I do respect Swarovski and Leica too and I would, in due course, critique their products for exact same reason: I love them, care for them and wish them success.)



This is exactly why I called their solution "stupid". It is in fact possible to have a large elevation adjustment range in a 30mm tube scope (and even in a one-inch tube scope) and Zeiss was told about it: I have invented a new riflescope adjustment technique which allows unlimited elevation and windage adjustment in a rifle scope of any tube diameter. In my suggested method, the reticle and the erector lenses are not moved up and down inside the main tube. The riflescope's point of aim is adjusted optically using thin wedge prisms that move longitudinally or rotate about the optical axis. All the lenses and the reticle will remain fixed and centered on the optical axis. See US Patent 8,749,887; US Patent 9,164, 269 and US Patent 9,644, 920.

I have since developed even more elegant concepts that allow unlimited elevation and windage adjustment in a riflescope of any tube diameter while, at the same time, there are no moving parts inside the scope, there are no turrets, all the optical lenses are centered on the optical axis! Patent applications for these concepts are still pending




Well, as I demonstrated in my comments above, sometimes an amateur might come up with a better solution than a whole team of experts. Dr. Dobler is very nice man and avid birdwatcher. He is not a hunter though (as far as I know). He is not the cause of Zeiss failing financially. He is one component in a large corporate culture that prevents a manager from taking risky decisions. As a result, NOTHING NEW HAPPENS. Here are the exact words of my friend (former Director of Product Management/Hunting at Zeiss) written to me in 2013:

"The reasons for my leave are diverse – but in a nut shell – ZEISS and myself are deriving from totally different cultures: In my previous jobs I was used to work very independently based on ‘trust’ shown by the executive board (Swarovski Optik, Leica Camera) or the shareholder (Gerhard Swarvoski, Andreas Kaufmann) respectively. So we had lots of discussions in ‘qualitative’ terms (brand/line strategy, positioning, performance, features) and very little in ‘quantitative’ terms (business plans, exchange rates, volume estimates, regional forecasts). At ZEISS – dealing only with strangely aloof bean counters with no-whatsoever understanding of the sports optics market (actually of consumer markets as a whole) – every project started (and very often ended) with nigh-shift Power Point and Excel battles throwing numbers at each other just to get some ‘no-brainer’-project released. And I am not only talking a million or two investments, I am talking releases of 10,000 EURO-budgets for inititialization projects (pre-pre-development / proof of concept).

That said, many of my promising, disruptive innovation projects (including the topics with you) ended before the actual evaluation phase as my German bean counters where looking for a ‘guaranteed’ payback of each EURO spent within a year or so. Ridicolous – and not a viable business culture (at least in the consumer market world)."​

It seems inevitable that any big company ends up turning into a giant mechanical machine which perpetuates its initial motion under inertia. I wouldn't blame Zeiss for not adapting or making my inventions after an initial test. But they didn't even do that, they got busy inventing the next "big thing" on their own and they achieved it [literally ].

-Omid

PS. SBB, I appreciate your supportive comments in Post #15. It is good to know I am not alone in my opinion about Zeiss V8 scopes. I recently purchased about $5000 worth of Zeiss optics but they were the previous Varipoint models; outstanding products from every aspect..

Click to expand...

Omid,

Your frustration is understandable, and in fact I have heard similar complaints about the lack of flexibility when it comes to innovations at Zeiss Sport Optics. It seems that the professional section of Zeiss (optics for medical applications, for industrial microchip production and so on) are so much remote from the consumer optics section, that it might be better to separate them entirely and make Sport Optics a separate company. Whether or not they would be able to survive is, of course, a matter of question.

You don't worry: If you manage to produce your idea together with another manufacturer, and it turns out to be useful, then you might find Zeiss, Swaro, Blaser and others being in a battle to take over that company

Good luck,
Holger

Interesting that you mention Blaser, Holger.
They are new in the market, so I wonder whether they will be ready to make a move as you suggest.
Canip

Holger Merlitz said:

Omid,

You don't worry: If you manage to produce your idea together with another manufacturer, and it turns out to be useful, then you might find Zeiss, Swaro, Blaser and others being in a battle to take over that company

Good luck,
Holger

Click to expand...

That would be funny.

Talk about the "last laugh".

Holger Merlitz said:

Omid,

Your frustration is understandable, and in fact I have heard similar complaints about the lack of flexibility when it comes to innovations at Zeiss Sport Optics. It seems that the professional section of Zeiss (optics for medical applications, for industrial microchip production and so on) are so much remote from the consumer optics section, that it might be better to separate them entirely and make Sport Optics a separate company. Whether or not they would be able to survive is, of course, a matter of question.

You don't worry: If you manage to produce your idea together with another manufacturer, and it turns out to be useful, then you might find Zeiss, Swaro, Blaser and others being in a battle to take over that company

Good luck,
Holger

Click to expand...

Hi Holger!

It is very nice hearing from you! I agree with you in that a likely scenario where I can get Zeiss or Swarovski's attention is to have these inventions made by another company or, even better, create a startup company. After a few years, they will come and want to buy the little new company

I have been investigating the possibility of starting an optics company that can manufacture (or outsource the manufacturing of) some of my ideas. I'll keep you posted. Another thought that I have been entertaining for quite sometime is this: It is very unlikely that large and prestigious optics manufacturers will produce any radical and excitingly new product in the next 10 years (the best they might do is stay in business and not become bankrupt, currently Schmidt and Bender and Leica are near bankruptcy, both for the second time in the past few years. Swarovski is the only one doing OK). But, it is quite possible that knowledgeable enthusiasts such as you could come up with innovative ideas. I mentioned this in a separate post a few days ago and specifically referred to you as someone who is capable of innovating in the field of binoculars. It would be nice if some of us (interested and knowledgeable people here at Birdforum) could form some sort of "optics think tank" and invent some new binocular concepts. Otherwise, in a few years, we have to rename birdforum's binoculars section "binocular history forum".

Sincerely,
-Omid

jan van daalen said:

Hi SBB,

Actually Dr. Dobler went from Swarovski to Leica (which costed Leica a significant amount of money) and was there reponseble for the development of the Magnus riflescope. After that he went to Zeiss and developed the V8 (among other innovating items).
The difference in weight between the Zeiss V6 (30mm tube) and the Zeis V8 (36mm tube for longe range) is just 130 gram.

The Swarovski riflescope DS is indeed an "innovating" piece of work.
For those who don't now: Swarovski brought recently a riflescope on the market which enables to "hit" an animal from a distance up to 1300 metres. The red dot in the scope automatically elevates with the variabel distance. The only thing is does not compensate is the side wind factor.
One could ask him/herself wether a "birding" brand like Swarovski should innovate in such equipment, but that's a quite different story.

Jan.

Click to expand...

Hi Jan :hi:

Not directed at you, and Just my personal opinion of course (and my addition of the quotation marks to "hit") , but that sounds highly unethical. Unless a living creature can be guaranteed of dying painlessly in 1/10,000th of a second - ie. a brain shot, then the "HunTer" has no business in taking that creatures life IMHO - it's just cruelty and to do it for "fun" or "sport" is macho bullsh*t :storm: :-C

There are companies in America that are developing "Expert" systems for long range aiming to be plugged in like an "app" so that any monkey off the street can make "kills" (though not instantaneous) at ridiculous distances of circa 1000yd using tactical sniper type calibers - .338, .416, .50 etc. .... Fantastic ay? It's not 'murder' at all --- just one big video game :storm:

Add this to the robotized mobile automatic weapons platforms and we are only one AI slip away from some sort of 'Terminator Skynet' nightmare coming to pass. :eek!:

I agree with you that the business bottom line must be sustainable - after all, there are not nearly as many mechanical watch and clock makers, and horse and buggy workshops around as there used to be! 3

With Germany's (lax) product labeling laws and the inevitable march of globalisation, I doubt this move will be such a major upset (except perhaps for some individual families that may not want to move, or have any work to move to).



Chosun :gh:

Omid said:

..... "That said, many of my promising, disruptive innovation projects (including the topics with you) ended before the actual evaluation phase as my German bean counters where looking for a ‘guaranteed’ payback of each EURO spent within a year or so. Ridicolous – and not a viable business culture (at least in the consumer market world)." ......

Click to expand...

That sounds like a luxury! I have worked for companies where the board works off a zero payback period and goes from there - that's right - immediate profits!

sbb said:

.....I guess Zeiss is typical of the new management type of companies where they are run by MBA/ bean counters vs technical people ....

Click to expand...

Actually, the opposite is true - a good company will closely integrate strategic direction with commercial return and financial sustainability. I have worked for companies with a 100 year strategic plan! If only some countries put as much thought into where they are heading! .....

It is quite normal for a company's governance model and legal compliance framework to include rigorous financial controls ("beancounting"). The first and foremost mandatory responsibility of a board is to ensure that the company is solvent. There are substantial civil penalties, criminal charges, and even personal financial compensation payable by individual directors for insolvent trading.



Chosun :gh:

Omid said:

..... That's the sad faith of a prestigious company that is run by bean-counter managers. If Dr. Dobler would have listen to me back in 2010 and maybe adapted one of my inventions into a product, this could have been prevented .....

Click to expand...

Hi Omid,

For the casually interested such as myself, and without pointing me to read reams of patents or your life's work, with regard to binoculars, could you simply and concisely list the inventions or innovations that you think are applicable and state their benefits (and drawbacks if any).

For context, I am pretty much only interested in classical optical instruments - not electronic whizzbangery assaulting my eyeballs.

I require wide abberation free fields (70° AFov plus), sufficient eye relief for eyeglasses wearers, light weight (lighter than the 2/3 kg of some of the best 42mm instruments currently available), no increase in size, as good or improved ergonomics and balance, over 96% transmission, and reduction in glare with commensurate ease of eye positioning beyond the best of the best available today, and with perfect resolution exceeding twice say 20/10 vision over the whole field, neutral colour cast (tabletop flat transmission curves), better MTF curves and microcontrast than the best available today, and a large smooth clockwise focuser!

Whaddyagot that will improve on that lot? TIA.



Chosun :gh:

Omid said:

Hi Holger!

It is very nice hearing from you! I agree with you in that a likely scenario where I can get Zeiss or Swarovski's attention is to have these inventions made by another company or, even better, create a startup company. After a few years, they will come and want to buy the little new company

I have been investigating the possibility of starting an optics company that can manufacture (or outsource the manufacturing of) some of my ideas. I'll keep you posted. Another thought that I have been entertaining for quite sometime is this: It is very unlikely that large and prestigious optics manufacturers will produce any radical and excitingly new product in the next 10 years (the best they might do is stay in business and not become bankrupt, currently Schmidt and Bender and Leica are near bankruptcy, both for the second time in the past few years. Swarovski is the only one doing OK). But, it is quite possible that knowledgeable enthusiasts such as you could come up with innovative ideas. I mentioned this in a separate post a few days ago and specifically referred to you as someone who is capable of innovating in the field of binoculars. It would be nice if some of us (interested and knowledgeable people here at Birdforum) could form some sort of "optics think tank" and invent some new binocular concepts. Otherwise, in a few years, we have to rename birdforum's binoculars section "binocular history forum".

Sincerely,
-Omid

Click to expand...

Hi Omid,

Thanks for your trust regarding my innovative powers

Quite generally, I don't believe that the plain optical parameters of binoculars can be improved significantly: A little bit of extra edge-sharpness, transmission, slightly reduced weight - not much left to improve here. Instead, I see two major directions for further improvements:

1. Image stabilization. This is high tech and could only be achieved with a team of experts and huge investments.

2. The interface between eyepiece and eye. Here, current binoculars are probably less than perfect. A couple of smart ideas may help improving the 'ease of view' and thus the usability of the instrument. This is the area in which people like you and me could possibly contribute most. We shall find some time for discussions about that.

Cheers,
Holger

Canip said:

Interesting that you mention Blaser, Holger.
They are new in the market, so I wonder whether they will be ready to make a move as you suggest.
Canip

Click to expand...

Hi Canip,

Right, Blaser is a new player on the binocular market. But: I heard that Blaser has been selling rifle scopes for quite a few years and has gained (among the hunters) a considerable reputation. I may have misunderstood something, since I am not really interested in the rifle scope market ...

Cheers,
Holger

Chosun Juan said:

Hi Jan :hi:

Not directed at you, and Just my personal opinion of course (and my addition of the quotation marks to "hit") , but that sounds highly unethical. Unless a living creature can be guaranteed of dying painlessly in 1/10,000th of a second - ie. a brain shot, then the "HunTer" has no business in taking that creatures life IMHO - it's just cruelty and to do it for "fun" or "sport" is macho bullsh*t :storm: :-C

There are companies in America that are developing "Expert" systems for long range aiming to be plugged in like an "app" so that any monkey off the street can make "kills" (though not instantaneous) at ridiculous distances of circa 1000yd using tactical sniper type calibers - .338, .416, .50 etc. .... Fantastic ay? It's not 'murder' at all --- just one big video game :storm:

Add this to the robotized mobile automatic weapons platforms and we are only one AI slip away from some sort of 'Terminator Skynet' nightmare coming to pass. :eek!:

I agree with you that the business bottom line must be sustainable - after all, there are not nearly as many mechanical watch and clock makers, and horse and buggy workshops around as there used to be! 3

With Germany's (lax) product labeling laws and the inevitable march of globalisation, I doubt this move will be such a major upset (except perhaps for some individual families that may not want to move, or have any work to move to).



Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Hi:gh::gh:

Believe me when I say that the Zeiss building in Wetzlar is still shaking upto its fundaments. They are still digesting this reality. The impact is HUGE.

I think you and I are on the same page regarding long range hunting.
Long range is military stuff/sports long distance target shooting (done it, seen it, got the T-shirt) and it should stay there.

Jan

Holger Merlitz said:

Hi Omid...improving the 'ease of view' and thus the usability of the instrument. This is the area in which people like you and me could possibly contribute most...

Click to expand...

Good luck, and in your solution/s don't forget us spectacle wearers! From www.allaboutvision.com: "The prevalence of myopia is about 30 to 40 percent among adults in Europe and the United States, and up to 80 percent or higher in the Asian population, especially in China...the incidence and prevalence of myopia are increasing." Minus contact-lens wearers, plus those (few?) who wear glasses for other reasons, the bird and the sky watchers among those billions also await news from you!

adhoc said:

Good luck, and in your solution/s don't forget us spectacle wearers! From www.allaboutvision.com: "The prevalence of myopia is about 30 to 40 percent among adults in Europe and the United States, and up to 80 percent or higher in the Asian population, especially in China...the incidence and prevalence of myopia are increasing." Minus contact-lens wearers, plus those (few?) who wear glasses for other reasons, the bird and the sky watchers among those billions also await news from you!

Click to expand...

Maybe I am mis-informed, but I thought that refractive errors (myopia) could be compensated for by focusing the instrument, thus obviating the need for spectacles when using binoculars and such.

Astigmatism is, of course, an entirely different thing.

Maljunulo said:

Maybe I am mis-informed, but I thought that refractive errors (myopia) could be compensated for by focusing the instrument, thus obviating the need for spectacles when using binoculars and such.

Astigmatism is, of course, an entirely different thing.

Click to expand...

But how the heck! do you know anything is there to look at when without your glasses everything just becomes a big blur!? 3

It is a giant hassle to take your glasses off and then back on, then off again all the time. Best just make sure there is some decent ER bins out there, and that the fit is good :t:



Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

But how the heck! do you know anything is there to look at when without your glasses everything just becomes a big blur!? 3

It is a giant hassle to take your glasses off and then back on, then off again all the time. Best just make sure there is some decent ER bins out there, and that the fit is good :t:
Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

I see your point.

You fortunate beings! Also (apart from what Chosun Juan says) that can only be done if the diopter compensation (set with the knob/ring for it) is adequate for the user's myopia (short-sighted-ness). Among Zeiss (this being the subforum for that make) models the compensation range is (+4) to -4 in the non-pocket Victorys and the Conquests and (+3) to -3 in the pocket Victorys and the Terras (minus is for myopia). That is what Zeiss state; in reality it seems to stretch at least a bit more. We run up against the limit at the "infinity" end.

Omid said:

currently Schmidt and Bender and Leica are near bankruptcy, both for the second time in the past few years. Swarovski is the only one doing OK).

Click to expand...

Just curious: do you have any inside information on Leica? News reports a few months ago talked about a rather healthy situation of Leica, that they are making a decent profit.

Chosun Juan said:

But how the heck! do you know anything is there to look at when without your glasses everything just becomes a big blur!? 3

It is a giant hassle to take your glasses off and then back on, then off again all the time. Best just make sure there is some decent ER bins out there, and that the fit is good :t:



Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

No taking them off and on. I just lift or raise them a couple of inches and they rest on the forehead. It only takes a 1/4 of a second and works great for me. I have never been able to get comfortable using binoculars with eye glasses. Luckily I do not have any significant astigmatism to address.