• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Jan

Do you know whether or not Zeiss sold their military production facilities to one of the companies under their corporate "umbrella."

Bob

Bob,

As far as I know it was sold to an outsider, but Lee would be the right person to answer this question.

Where is Lee on this thread when you need himo:)o:)

Jan
 
Yes, Zeiss sold its optronics branch, which did the military things, to Cassidian (Airbus) two years ago or so. Apparently they wanted to get rid of the image of being associated to the defence industry.

As for Leica, it's a bit confusing, as there are several independant companies that have the name Leica.

Leica also has production facilities for military optical equipment.
Gijs
So the question would be, which Leica is this?

As far as I know, Leica Camera Wetzlar does only Sport optics and cameras, no military. I think the military branch of Leica was for some time part of Leica Geosystems in Switzerland (Wild) and now ended up as a seperate company called Vectronix (also located in Heerbrugg).

As for Swaro, I don't know. They have a special website that advertises their products to authorities, but it's the same products as sold to birders and hunters. As for the Habichts apparently sold to the Chinese, I guess there was not so much research needed for a product that is about 70 years old or so.
 
Last edited:
Bob

It was sold to Airbus Industries not another Zeiss Foundation enterprise.

Lee

Lee,

Is this it? This is the latest date I could find. The Optronics division was sold to Cassadian. Airbus is part of EADS Deutschland, Cassadian's German Legal Entity.

This is complex and it seems that Zeiss still has interests in it. Note the statement in the 4th paragraph by the President and CEO of Zeiss and following statements which are, to say the least, vague.

http://www.defenceandsecurity-airbu...er-shares-in-optronics-division-of-carl-zeiss

Bob
 
Last edited:
Here two more articles about Zeiss selling Optronics to Cassidian in 2012:

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unterne...s-tochter-kauft-sparte-von-zeiss/6878928.html
http://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/indu...-raus-aus-dem-ruestungsgeschaeft/6815102.html

Two quotes:

Die EADS-Rüstungstochter Cassidian übernimmt 75,1 Prozent der Militäroptiksparte vom Optikkonzern Carl Zeiss. Zeiss werde mittelfristig aus der Verteidigungstechnik aussteigen, teilten beide Unternehmen am Freitagabend nach Vertragsabschluss mit.

In short: Zeiss sells 75 % of its shares of Optronics to Cassidan, with Zeiss planning to completely exit defence technology in the mid term.

Der Verkauf der Sparte würde auch das Ende der langen Rüstungstradition von Zeiss bedeuten. (...)

Das alles ist lang her und Zeiss möchte heute lieber mit seinen Innovationen im Bereich der Augenoptik, der Mikrochirurgie mit Mikroskopen und Lasern oder im Bereich Automobil- und Maschinenbau in Verbindung gebracht werden.

Summarized: The sale would mean the end of a long tradtion in the defence sector for Zeiss. But today, Zeiss prefers to be associated with its innovation in consumer optics, micro surgery, microskopy, laser, etc.

I found nothing more recent, e.g. whether these 25 % of shares remain with Zeiss or not.
 
Lee,

Is this it? This is the latest date I could find. The Optronics division was sold to Cassadian. Airbus is part of EADS Deutschland, Cassadian's German Legal Entity.

This is complex and it seems that Zeiss still has interests in it. Note the statement in the 4th paragraph by the President and CEO of Zeiss and following statements which are, to say the least, vague.

http://www.defenceandsecurity-airbu...er-shares-in-optronics-division-of-carl-zeiss

Bob

Yes Bob thats it and Dalat has more info on his post.

It is a complex statement but when all is said and written 75% shareholding means you control the company and when the selling company says the subsidiary being sold will be better off elsewhere then its clear Zeiss was divesting.

I just guessing here but there could be many reasons for Zeiss to hold on to some shares for a while and amongst them could be the completion of research and development programmes that were perhaps contractual obligations as part of sales to customers....

Lee
 
There was a big discussion here a couple of years ago about Zeiss's unique Corporate Structure.

It is known as the Carl Zeiss Foundation. Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung.

http://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en_de/about-zeiss/foundation.html

It has a very close relationship with the German government. Even through this year:

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/125-years-of-the-carl-zeiss-foundation/

You can see therein that the Foundation is the "sole shareholder" of both Carl Zeiss AG and Schott AG. See the paragraph titled "Foundation model allows for long-term focus."

Schott Glass is a part of this Foundation. As of March 2014 Schott Glass was still part of the Foundation so the Carl Zeiss Foundation very likely is selling Schott Glass to Cassidian for use in its newly purchased Optonics Division; if Optronics uses glass. That is my guess anyway.

So, I do not believe that Zeiss has divested itself completely from military concerns. All that Schott Glass cannot be going solely into civilian binoculars, telescopes microscopes and civilian cameras.

Here is the Schott Company Profile: Note that one of its businesses is Defense.

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

Bob
 
The Cassidian sale involves only 780 out of 24,000 employees at Zeiss, about 3% of the total. This was clearly a specialty subset of the business, IR and multispectral sensors, submarine periscopes and such, all quite a ways from the Zeiss mainstream.
It does not have anything to do with Schott, 15000 employees and a separate corporate entity from Carl Zeiss AG. Schott and Zeiss are the two core components of the Zeiss Foundation, which owns 100% of both firms.
 
The Cassidian sale involves only 780 out of 24,000 employees at Zeiss, about 3% of the total. This was clearly a specialty subset of the business, IR and multispectral sensors, submarine periscopes and such, all quite a ways from the Zeiss mainstream.
It does not have anything to do with Schott, 15000 employees and a separate corporate entity from Carl Zeiss AG. Schott and Zeiss are the two core components of the Zeiss Foundation, which owns 100% of both firms.

Well put ET.

I wonder if Zeiss saw a contradiction between their commitment to medical products and their involvement with the military.

Lee
 
I wonder if Zeiss saw a contradiction between their commitment to medical products and their involvement with the military.

This is moreless what says the second article I linked above. Zeiss' selling optronics may also be related to military business in Germany becoming more difficult, as the current Government is slightly less keen than previous ones on permitting exports to countries like Saudi Arabia etc.

It is known as the Carl Zeiss Foundation. Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung.
http://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en_de...oundation.html
It has a very close relationship with the German government.

Not sure if you think this would indicate anything regarding Zeiss' involvement in military products. But Zeiss Company or the Zeiss Foundation do not have any direct link or a relationship more close than others to the Government. Zeiss ist just one of the bigger and more prominent companies in Germany and Merkel showed up for the birthday party. Different to Airbus, the current owner of Zeiss former optronics department, of which the German state still owns about 12 %.

As for Schott, this has been discussed extensively in another thread, they are a different company from Zeiss (just both owned by the same foundation), so the policy of one company to get rid of military stuff, does not necessarily exclude the other one to continue being active in this.

Finally here another article, about Optronics now being 100% owned by Airbus, so 0% by Zeiss. http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/cassidian-optronics-now-airbus-ds-optronics/
 
Last edited:
Well put ET.

I wonder if Zeiss saw a contradiction between their commitment to medical products and their involvement with the military.

Lee

Lee,

I don't see any contradiction. And I don't have any money invested in the company. I don't see how the Carl Zeiss Foundation will lose much, if anything, as long as Schott AG still has Defense clients.

Bob
 
Bob, I posted so much stuff in reply to you, and you still only want to talk to Lee. :-C So that's how it feels to be one someones ignore list :-O
 
I was flattered by the response of illustrious contributors, to my post regarding Zeiss Marketing and perhaps sports optics being a cottage industry.
A few response to the comments:-
1) A well known marketing/sales mantra "Deliver what you promise, Never promise what you can't deliver.
2) Social media sites media such as Birdforum need to be monitored and analysed because of the quantity of usable feedback, positive and negative.
3) I suggested sports optics might be a cottage industry, it occurs to me that binoculars (and telescopes) are relatively low tech and low cost products. What percentage of the turnover of Zeiss and Nikon relate to sports optics?
My son, a research physicist in the defence industry regards optics as 19th century physics and to quote a well known phrase, "rocket science" as 18th century. This partly explains why a relatively small company such as Swarvoski, better known for glass ornaments and jewellery can take on the optical giants such as Zeiss and Nikon, in binocular and telescope manufacture. Niche marketing?
I suspect many ordinary birdwatchers buy alpha binoculars for self esteem (Maslow), because we all know that for half or less of the cost of an alpha, we can purchase binoculars that are fit for purpose. I would dearly love a pair of Zeiss SF 8x32s, for that precise reason (status) but doubt I'll live that long.
 
ET,

Wasn't Bushnell sold this year for $980.000.000,00!!
IMHO the example of the Photoscope is not well choosen. If Zeiss had made the camera modular (take it out and put a new generation in) into the scope it was a different story. The camera development goes so fast that the camera in the Photoscope was "ancient" by the time the scope hit the market.
The new optical technology in the SF is no routine.
The world is filled with big optic fairs where all the brands are present and there are shops everywhere, so customers do have a way to compare.
So I wouldn't call it cottage industry.

Jan

Jan,
The price paid for Bushnell is frankly astonishing, as is the $600mm sales volume achieved by the Bushnell operation that year.
Your comment about the Photoscope is entirely correct, Zeiss was quite wrong to shackle the product to 2008 sensor technology when that segment improves by 30-50%/year. Hopefully there will be a Photoscope 2 that is easier to keep current.
The ability of customers to reasonably compare is very low imho, especially at optics fairs. The manufacturers have their stands, the customer can compare lines within the brand, but it is not easy to get four or five different alphas side by side for a leisurely test. An optics shop offers better access, but usually the view is to a city street.
Even so, Jan, you make good points. Clearly me calling this a 'cottage industry' was over the top.
 
Jan,
The price paid for Bushnell is frankly astonishing, as is the $600mm sales volume achieved by the Bushnell operation that year.
Your comment about the Photoscope is entirely correct, Zeiss was quite wrong to shackle the product to 2008 sensor technology when that segment improves by 30-50%/year. Hopefully there will be a Photoscope 2 that is easier to keep current.
The ability of customers to reasonably compare is very low imho, especially at optics fairs. The manufacturers have their stands, the customer can compare lines within the brand, but it is not easy to get four or five different alphas side by side for a leisurely test. An optics shop offers better access, but usually the view is to a city street.
Even so, Jan, you make good points. Clearly me calling this a 'cottage industry' was over the top.

I couldn't have said this better (except for your last sentence ofcourse;))

Te A brands should have their own plaza on the optic fairs, so comparison could be so much easier in a natural enviroment.
City view is the best we can offer also.
You're so right!!

Jan
 
Bob, I posted so much stuff in reply to you, and you still only want to talk to Lee. :-C So that's how it feels to be one someones ignore list :-O

I'm sorry Dalat! Please accept my apology. It wasn't my intention to ignore you. I guess I figured that my responses would also apply to your comments. Certainly bad manners on my part!

Bob
 
If the view of their optics wasn't superior, Zeiss and Swaro wouldn't have gained the (status) they have in the world. I spent the money on mine for one reason and one reason only, superior view. I firmly believe most buy them for the same reason.

I suspect many ordinary birdwatchers buy alpha binoculars for self esteem (Maslow), because we all know that for half or less of the cost of an alpha, we can purchase binoculars that are fit for purpose. I would dearly love a pair of Zeiss SF 8x32s, for that precise reason (status) but doubt I'll live that long.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top