Zeiss Jena Jenoptem quality testing (1 Viewer)

PennineBirder · Dec 24, 2017

A current thread (lemons) on the scope forum had me thinking about binocular quality control. Back in the mid 1970s I bought a pair of Zeiss Jena Jenoptem 10x50 binoculars - my first decent optics. After comparing the five or so examples which were in stock in the shop (in London, but can't remember which one) against each other I chose the best of the bunch. My Jenoptems were optically very fine binoculars in their day and lasted me a few years before selling them.

My point about quality testing was in this case, the extreme variation between these five examples made me think there probably wasn't any quality control being exercised in this make and model. The ones I bought were excellent, the worst of the bunch were terrible. Later, I was told that the only difference between the Jenoptem 10x50 and the much more expensive Dekarem 10x50 was that the latter was subject to a quality control process in the factory and so the buyer was less likely to end up with a poor example. Optically the two models were identical.

Does anyone know if this story is true?. Have things improved in binocular quality control testing over the intervening years?.

Binastro · Dec 24, 2017

Probably true, but not deliberately.
Russian binoculars also varied a lot but export ones coming through TOE were generally better.
I would always try to go through 6 binoculars and buy the best one. This also applied to Japanese binoculars.

In some Chinese binoculars there is no quality control at all.
With the 6x18 waterproof one in three was good. one in three terrible.
50% should have been thrown in the bin and gone straight to landfill before leaving the factory.

With the mad high powered small Chinese zoom binoculars I would think only 2% work at the highest magnification.
To me this is sales by false pretences, but the public lap them up. They believe what they want to believe even though it is fantasy.

It is like the politicians, they elect the ones whose tall stories they most want to believe. They do not want to be be told truth.

I think that quality control is now worse, but manufacturing techniques possibly better.

Cluster · Dec 26, 2017

In common with many other equipment manufacturers in China, and as I've read in other forums, the customer performs the QA.. That's not to say everything from China receives no QA checks, different brands and distributors will specify (and price accordingly) the level of QA required.

WJC · Dec 27, 2017

PennineBirder said:
A current thread (lemons) on the scope forum had me thinking about binocular quality control. Back in the mid 1970s I bought a pair of Zeiss Jena Jenoptem 10x50 binoculars - my first decent optics. After comparing the five or so examples which were in stock in the shop (in London, but can't remember which one) against each other I chose the best of the bunch. My Jenoptems were optically very fine binoculars in their day and lasted me a few years before selling them.

My point about quality testing was in this case, the extreme variation between these five examples made me think there probably wasn't any quality control being exercised in this make and model. The ones I bought were excellent, the worst of the bunch were terrible. Later, I was told that the only difference between the Jenoptem 10x50 and the much more expensive Dekarem 10x50 was that the latter was subject to a quality control process in the factory and so the buyer was less likely to end up with a poor example. Optically the two models were identical.

Does anyone know if this story is true?. Have things improved in binocular quality control testing over the intervening years?.

Who on this forum can quantify "quality"? After decades in optics, I couldn't do it. :cat:

Bill

james holdsworth · Dec 27, 2017

WJC said:
Who on this forum can quantify "quality"? After decades in optics, I couldn't do it. :cat:

Bill

When Quality was part of my job it was described as ''fitness for use in the eyes of the consumer.''

Different consumers have different eyes so to each their own...we often said - if it works for you, that's quality.

WJC · Dec 27, 2017

james holdsworth said:
When Quality was part of my job it was described as ''fitness for use in the eyes of the consumer.''

Different consumers have different eyes so to each their own...we often said - if it works for you, that's quality.

But, if it works for you and does not for someone else, WHO is the arbiter? If there are clinically quantifiable standards there is an unchangeable benchmark. If it lis left to physiological acceptance, there is no standard or benchmark. One person's OPINION is all that is really important FOR THAT PERSON. However, although his opinion may be perfect for him, it might be so much hot air for any number of others. :cat:

Bill

PennineBirder · Dec 28, 2017

The meaning of quality in my post , ie ‘quality control’, simply refers to consistency of product leaving the production line, not that impossible to define aspect, which I agree is very personal. Quality control has a more measurable definition as you are comparing a known factor which is the optical and mechanical characteristics of the binoculars as they were designed. Any unit of the binocular , or any other manufactured product for that matter, that falls short of the standard of the best, could be said to have failed the quality control. This however depends on where the manufacturer sets his threshold of acceptable ‘failures’.

We would all like this to be 100% but we know this isn’t the case because it costs money to check and adjust every unit and many dud units leave the factory - even in the most expensive Alpha brands. But quality control is not some abstract concept in this meaning. The manufacturer could test each instrument scientifically against defined standards. As in my personal experience with the Zeiss Jena Jenoptems abaove, I could see differences in sharpness, collimation, chromatic aberration, etc, between units that in theory should all have been exactly the same. This is not opinion as might be the case when comparing different instruments from different manufacturers as all the parameters are constant, or should be - the characteristics of the binoculars and the characteristics of the viewers own eyesight are fixed, so any differences observed have to be due to variations within the batch. Surely?

Troubador · Dec 28, 2017

Quality Control refers to an old concept whereby non-conforming product (duds or lemons) was filtered out and didn't reach the customer.

The more modern concept of Quality Assurance provides work instructions for all personnel and all processes so that all of the product that reaches the end of the production line is as per the company's specifications. In theory.

Unfortunately the QA concept doesn't take account of human behaviour such as the imposition of production targets that can't be reached without rushing some of the processes, and perhaps the mistaken belief that the QA system needs no statistically significant (up to and including 100%) inspection regime of finished product.

Lee

jan van daalen · Dec 28, 2017

PennineBirder said:
The meaning of quality in my post , ie ‘quality control’, simply refers to consistency of product leaving the production line, not that impossible to define aspect, which I agree is very personal. Quality control has a more measurable definition as you are comparing a known factor which is the optical and mechanical characteristics of the binoculars as they were designed. Any unit of the binocular , or any other manufactured product for that matter, that falls short of the standard of the best, could be said to have failed the quality control. This however depends on where the manufacturer sets his threshold of acceptable ‘failures’.

We would all like this to be 100% but we know this isn’t the case because it costs money to check and adjust every unit and many dud units leave the factory - even in the most expensive Alpha brands. But quality control is not some abstract concept in this meaning. The manufacturer could test each instrument scientifically against defined standards. As in my personal experience with the Zeiss Jena Jenoptems abaove, I could see differences in sharpness, collimation, chromatic aberration, etc, between units that in theory should all have been exactly the same. This is not opinion as might be the case when comparing different instruments from different manufacturers as all the parameters are constant, or should be - the characteristics of the binoculars and the characteristics of the viewers own eyesight are fixed, so any differences observed have to be due to variations within the batch. Surely?

Pennine,

One can't/may not compare mid 70s Zeiss Jena with Zeiss Oberkochen.
Zeiss Jena optics were often not traded/exchainged with western currency but more often with supplies like milk, exclusive drinks and other stuff the East Germany Elite wanted.
They were exclusivly traded through a East German Government Department and often built on demand for the consumer market.
The military optic specs were top notch. For the consumer market they were, let's call it, variabel at bestB

Jan

chartwell99 · Dec 29, 2017

jan van daalen said:
Pennine,

One can't/may not compare mid 70s Zeiss Jena with Zeiss Oberkochen.
Zeiss Jena optics were often not traded/exchainged with western currency but more often with supplies like milk, exclusive drinks and other stuff the East Germany Elite wanted.
They were exclusivly traded through a East German Government Department and often built on demand for the consumer market.
The military optic specs were top notch. For the consumer market they were, let's call it, variabel at bestB

Jan

I would agree that CZJ consumer binoculars varied greatly over the years. In my experience, early 1950's Deltrintem and Dekarem models were noticeably better made than the 1980's versions, the Nobilem glasses were at all times exceptional and the trade name dispute with Zeiss Oberkochen made the use of the name "Zeiss" unavailable in the U.S. although the binoculars were sold in the U.S. under the name "aus Jena". That said, I had never heard of CZJ products used as barter for luxury goods for the Party Elite. In my understanding, the CZJ factory in Eisfeld, inefficient as it was, still produced vast numbers of binoculars for the global consumer markets.

jan van daalen · Dec 29, 2017

chartwell99 said:
I would agree that CZJ consumer binoculars varied greatly over the years. In my experience, early 1950's Deltrintem and Dekarem models were noticeably better made than the 1980's versions, the Nobilem glasses were at all times exceptional and the trade name dispute with Zeiss Oberkochen made the use of the name "Zeiss" unavailable in the U.S. although the binoculars were sold in the U.S. under the name "aus Jena". That said, I had never heard of CZJ products used as barter for luxury goods for the Party Elite. In my understanding, the CZJ factory in Eisfeld, inefficient as it was, still produced vast numbers of binoculars for the global consumer markets.

Not only Zeiss Jena products but every industrial products were used as trade material which peaked in the late 70s and 80s when the shops for the locals were empty while the elite shops (locals not welcome) had to be filled.
I remember cargo's flowers and milkpowder. It wasn't he problem to get the East German goodies. The problem was to get the required trade goodies to get the East German goodies:t:

Jan

Zeiss Jena Jenoptem quality testing (1 Viewer)

More options

PennineBirder

Well-known member

Binastro

Well-known member

Cluster

Well-known member

WJC

Well-known member

Attachments

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist

WJC

Well-known member

PennineBirder

Well-known member

Troubador

Moderator

jan van daalen

Well-known member

chartwell99

Well-known member

jan van daalen

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread