A NEW Product? (1 Viewer)

In just scanning this and other binocular forums, one will note that new binocular companies are popping up like dandelions, with so many of them talking about what THEY MAKE or what glass THEY USE, etc. Although it often meets with disapproval, the fact remains that virtually none of these companies actually MAKE binoculars. Like David Bushnell before them, they just sell what a few manufactures—usually Asian—have to provide. And although the race for improved AR coatings is in full swing, it should be known that some of these NEW products might be products that are decades’ old that have been tweaked in name, cosmetics, and, of course, price.

The reason we are now seeing so many new products is that more people, wanting their own business, have learned they can take two empty suitcases and $1,000 to Kunming and return to the States as binocular moguls. Then, spend an evening building a website, and, if you have a good story, can put lots of money in the bank before running out of interest or steam.

I am frequently in trouble for telling people what they already know. But what about the guy or gal who just joined BirdForum yesterday, last week, or even a month ago. Do we expect them to have put the picture together, yet? Do they not deserve to know? And should telling the truth be injurious to a given “importer,” especially if they have no qualms about being disingenuous with us?

There are two important things to remember, here:

First, it is not uncommon for one basic binocular to enter the market sporting a dozen or more names, cosmetic changes, and price; that’s the model for most Asian optical companies.

Secondly, with so many instruments being virtually the same, with performance differences being below the average observer’s threshold of recognition, the value of the instrument should lie as much in the integrity, warranty, and commitment of the importer as in the optical or mechanical performance of the instrument itself.

Those who have been members of this forum for a good while will remember a certain NEW and exciting company with a great product. Then, the company lost steam, interest, or money. And what positive news have we heard lately about this company?

I am not throwing stones, just addressing facts. I did more than my logical best to publish Amateur Telescope Making Journal for ten years. And lost over $20K in the process. I couldn’t do more; I failed; it happens. :cat:

Yes we are destroying the planet but hey it's progress.

Now everyone get into their car and drive somewhere as where you are is no good and when you get there then drive somewhere else as the same applies and keep going around and around endlessly. Never ever use your legs or if you absolutely must then make sure you have one of those phones where you don't have to look up at traffic lights as your phone will tell you when to step out into the road.

Yes China are mainly behind it all with being able to supply all this stuff but we're all to blame. It's a consume and destroy bug in our program and one which is strongly encouraged if you look for example at the targeted advertising all around. It's some kind of ponzi scheme requiring continual growth and then the inevitable disaster.

Maybe we'll escape to other worlds to destroy them also?

I think my brain is most flexible (not with the program) in the morning :eek!:

I read a comment about some undersea photos the other day which said something like "their world (the animals natural world) is beautiful while ours is somewhat horrific". I think they have something of a point although of course nature is also red in tooth and claw and apparently farmers suffer the most depression and suicide but it was dentists last week.

Now should I post this? What the heck 8-P

Hope my new super cheap Bluetooth speaker (have you seen the staggering choice in those !!!) from China arrives today. Yeah! Drat.

An intractable problem.

WJC (post #1),
Thank you for that - I couldn't agree more, esp. with your third last paragraph.
Of course, what we can do about it is limited (Tony Blair would have said: education, education, education ...)
Canip

I honestly don't follow. Are you saying we shouldn't use the word "make" when we talk about companies selling binoculars? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it anyone who uses outsourcing at all?

They are not makers.

They are importers and sellers.

They are in the binocular trade.

They are binocular traders.

I was in sales all my working life, with trade names.
I did not make anything.
I did not pretend to make anything.

P.S.
Some firms are hybrid.
They are traders and makers.

Some traders are held in very high regard, having been in business for decades, selling good products, often under their own trade names as well as imported goods with established trade names.

Some makers, say the Chinese junk optics makers make just that. Junk.

So you want to replace the word "make" with "sell" whenever there is discussion. I guess that is possible.

The only issue I see is when we have a question about how the binos are made, it will be hard to figure out exactly how to phrase it. Unless the person actually knows the manufacturing facility's name.

I do think this would apply to many companies that actually make binoculars also though. E.g. if they outsource the manufacturing of their lower end models.

A Zeiss binocular is a Zeiss binocular, whether own made or imported 100% outside made, or partly assembled by Zeiss.
The trade name is Zeiss.
Some may object to a Zeiss binocular not actually made by Zeiss, but enthusiasts get to know the difference.

Unfortunately, because the name is respected, there are numerous fakes made or badged Zeiss by imposters out for financial gain.

It’s a great point that Bill makes and also that Peter Quad makes too.

It begs the question what does the statement ‘manufactured by XYZ Co’ mean any more than ‘manufactured in country XYZ’? Bearing in mind that the world is a global market these days.

What are the most important parts of the bins we use? The glass that manages the image? The mechanism that brings this image into focus? The armour that our hands are wrapped around for hours and hours? All of these?

Take a look at Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski. Do they make their own glass? Well, even Zeiss that has a sister company called Schott also buys glass from other sources and quite properly too. We wouldn’t want Schott taking Zeiss Sports Optics business for granted and upping the price over and above the market rate would we?

OK so if they don’t make the glass, what about the focus mechanism? AFAIK none of these brands manufactures the precision-made gears/shafts that power the focusing mechanisms, and if the cradle housing the moving focusing lens is a moulded plastic component, I’ll bet you an ice cold beer that they buy these in as well. Why? Because a CNC lathe could probably produce the required annual quantity in no time at all and the machinery would be stood idle for 95% of the year.

That leaves the rubber armour and you don’t imagine for one second that any bins makers mix their own rubber compound and have a mould-making shop and a moulding shop do you? All bought-in, and the same goes for moulded plastic eyecups and for rain-guards, objective covers, straps and cases.

So the question, ‘who is most legitimately calling themselves a maker of binoculars’, isn’t one with a black and white answer. It depends on your definition.

And this is not surprising in today’s global market. The UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that 59% of the components used by car/auto factories sited in the UK are sourced from outside the UK. General Motors manufactures a number of vehicles with less than 14% by value of components made in the USA.

Is this a bad thing? Depends on your point of view and, as always, how the purchasing of components is targeted and managed. If a component machined in Italy, say, does the same job in every way and is reliable from batch to batch, and costs less than a German-made component, shouldn’t we demand that Zeiss and Leica buy from the Italian supplier and give us the best value for money? Or should we go all misty-eyed and upset and disappointed that the Germanic nature of their bins has been diluted?

Lee

But a "Binoguy" (made up name) binocular is a Binoguy binocular, regardless of whoever makes it. But you only objected to saying that "Binoguy makes these binoculars." That would be the same as talking about "Zeiss makes these binoculars" when discussing the lower end product.

Troubador said:

...
So the question, ‘who is most legitimately calling themselves a maker of binoculars’, isn’t one with a black and white answer. It depends on your definition. ...

Click to expand...

Without taking the time to write all the things that Lee said, it is what I was thinking and I agree. It seems like an easy thing to dislike the company that buys and markets something someone else manufactured. But so many are doing this in different ways it is not that clear cut anymore. And besides, I don't think a new user is getting very harmed in the process - you still pretty much get what you paid for as it has always been, and people should always keep that in mind and do their research if spending a lot.

PeteQuad said:

I honestly don't follow. Are you saying we shouldn't use the word "make" when we talk about companies selling binoculars? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it anyone who uses outsourcing at all?

Click to expand...

There is MUCH in being a good and honorable resource. So much so, the truth need not be bent. If YOUR company does not manufacture the instrument, don’t pretend it does. How much better off would we all be if we could keep from wandering so far from the truth?

“Honesty is the first chapter in the Book of Wisdom.”—Thomas Jefferson

Troubador said:

....Well, even Zeiss that has a sister company called Schott also buys glass from other sources and quite properly too. We wouldn’t want Schott taking Zeiss Sports Optics business for granted and upping the price over and above the market rate would we?

Lee

Click to expand...

Do they ? The Carl Zeiss Foundation 100% owns Schott AG. who have factories in a number of countries

Nikon's glass division including Hikari glass Co Ltd. have an enormous catalogue.

http://www.nikon.com/products/glass/assets/pdf/hikari-catalog.pdf

http://www.nikon.com/products/glass/downloads/index.htm

Canon have a glass factory in Japan. There is a video on youtube showing it at work.

The largest grower of fluorite crystal is Schott with 80% of the World market with Canon and Nikon the rest.

WJC said:

There is MUCH in being a good and honorable resource. So much so, the truth need not be bent. If YOUR company does not manufacture the instrument, don’t pretend it does. How much better off would we all be if we could keep from wandering so far from the truth?

Click to expand...

I don't have a company. But, it sounds like you would be fine if binocular companies had information in their "About" page stating where they were manufactured. I would like that also. I definitely agree that honesty is the best policy in general. I hope I am understanding you properly this time.

Regards,
Peter

maico said:

Do they ? The Carl Zeiss Foundation 100% owns Schott AG. who have factories in a number of countries

Click to expand...

Yes Maico they do not single-source from Schott. In a video posted by Zeiss Sports Optics some years ago there were O'Hara boxes in the background.

And in-house and external competition is practised widely by Japanese companies. So for example factories in different countries have to bid against each other and outside sources to produce new product or supply components.
This is common practice and ensures the maintaining of pressure to be competitive.

Lee

PeteQuad said:

I don't have a company. But, it sounds like you would be fine if binocular companies had information in their "About" page stating where they were manufactured. I would like that also. I definitely agree that honesty is the best policy in general. I hope I am understanding you properly this time.

Regards,
Peter

Click to expand...

No, I don't think companies need to say where the binocular is manufactured or mention the name of the OEM. But, I find indicating your company (and, of course, I don't mean Pete Quad) "makes" it is an unnecessary falsehood. :cat:

WJC said:

No, I don't think companies need to say where the binocular is manufactured or mention the name of the OEM. But, I find indicating your company (and, of course, I don't mean Pete Quad) "makes" it is an unnecessary falsehood. :cat:

Click to expand...

Bill:

Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help your God ?

Jerry

I am agreement with Bill here, and find the proliferation of rebranders unsettling, especially with the [sometime] less-than-upfront nature of their actual involvement in the process.

NDhunter said:

Bill:

Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help your God ?

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

How could you ask me that? How many times have you seen me taken to task for doing no more than stating the truth, merely because the truth is sometimes unpopular? :cat:

PS Please, no interference from the PC police. Jerry has been a friend a very long time.

PeteQuad said:

But a "Binoguy" (made up name) binocular is a Binoguy binocular, regardless of whoever makes it. But you only objected to saying that "Binoguy makes these binoculars." That would be the same as talking about "Zeiss makes these binoculars" when discussing the lower end product.

Click to expand...

more like Zeiss inspects, markets, and warrantees these binoculars....along with having someone glue a little blue badge on them....:smoke:

Does Zeiss own the plants in China where the 32mm and 42mm Terra EDs are made? I don't think that has ever been addressed but most of us believe that they do not. The binoculars have always had "Made in China" printed on them.