Many binocular brands, even relatively high-end ones, are having their products produced in the same main factory, usually in China. This factory offers various levels of quality and the binocular brand can decide which level to choose for a certain model and also make suggestions for the exterior design (e.g., color and shape of the rubber armour). I would like to know if any of you know if there is any additional transfer of technology from the OEM brand to the atcual producer that makes their product in any way optically different from any other brand that have chosen that specific quality level? I could maybe imagine that a certain high-end brand with a long history in optics could have a patent for a lens coating that the producer can use on their products only and not on others, not even their own make. Or is it simply so that it doesn´t matter at all anymore what "classic" brand (like Barr and Stroud) you buy as long as it belongs to the same quality line of the,for instance, Chinese producer?
-
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.
is there technology transfer from OEM brand to producer? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 613Orm
- Start date
WJC
Well-known member
When David Bushnell went to Zeiss in the late 40s, they basically said: “Mr. Bushnell, we’ve been making binoculars since before you were born; we know what the people want.” So, he chose to make a few JAPANESE people rich.
Yes, there is a difference. When ordering certain binos for Captain’s Nautical, I was given a choice of getting the model from Japan OR China. The OEMs have catalogs from which an importer can mix and match.
Some products have such a good track record with a give company they are considered MANUFACTURED by that company.
As for coatings: when you move from the traditional mag fluoride to multi-coatings, you get around 12% more light transmission. Yet, for all the talk and ad campaigns, once into multi-coatings, you’re splitting hairs with an ax. Some people SAY they can see the difference—unless they’re Superman, they can’t. What they’re seeing relates to grinding, polishing, figuring, baffling, blackening, field stops, and aberration control related heavily to EP design.
Bill
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
As Bill noted above, there is little "original" technology left to the major brands. The whole discussion about newer coatings and advantages of Leica HD Plus and Zeiss HT glass and (what's next, Swarovski EL SV UHD ++?)... are hype. The coatings of the past decade (original Leica Trinovid, Zeiss Night Owl, etc) are already fantastic.
There has been a stalemate in progress since the 90's. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and others are are adding refinements to an already perfect Long Bow. What we need is an invention like the compound bow to give a new life to our favorite instruments.
I, for one, am working on such innovative concepts. Have been at it for several years already. I am an amateur optical designer and I believe that this is exactly my advantage. So far, my inventions have been related to rifle-scopes but I have a couple ides for spotting scopes and binoculars too
There has been a stalemate in progress since the 90's. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and others are are adding refinements to an already perfect Long Bow. What we need is an invention like the compound bow to give a new life to our favorite instruments.
I, for one, am working on such innovative concepts. Have been at it for several years already. I am an amateur optical designer and I believe that this is exactly my advantage. So far, my inventions have been related to rifle-scopes but I have a couple ides for spotting scopes and binoculars too
WJC
Well-known member
As Bill noted above, there is little "original" technology left to the major brands. The whole discussion about newer coatings and advantages of Leica HD Plus and Zeiss HT glass and (what's next, Swarovski EL SV UHD ++?)... are hype. The coatings of the past decade (original Leica Trinovid, Zeiss Night Owl, etc) are already fantastic.
There has been a stalemate in progress since the 90's. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and others are are adding refinements to an already perfect Long Bow. What we need is an invention like the compound bow to give a new life to our favorite instruments.
I, for one, am working on such innovative concepts. Have been at it for several years already. I am an amateur optical designer and I believe that this is exactly my advantage. So far, my inventions have been related to rifle-scopes but I have a couple ides for spotting scopes and binoculars too
As long as people are people, there's going to be MUCH more in talking about things that are traditionally misunderstood than in actual advances. If a photon falls between the rods and cones . . . IT AIN'T GONNA BE SEEN! And, if it isn't, what does it matter? To those with little understanding of design principles, a great deal. To those WITH that understanding, it doesn't. It's just the creator of idle chatter.
I have designed a Hougton-Cassegrain that will put all the visible spectrum within an Airy disc so small it looks light a pea lying in the middle of a platter. However, such perfection is great for theorists and that idle chatter. But even if hands could produce it, the eye/brain combination couldn't recognize it. Reality bites . . . but it's always there.
Bill
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
As Bill noted above, there is little "original" technology left to the major brands. The whole discussion about newer coatings and advantages of Leica HD Plus and Zeiss HT glass and (what's next, Swarovski EL SV UHD ++?)... are hype. The coatings of the past decade (original Leica Trinovid, Zeiss Night Owl, etc) are already fantastic.
There has been a stalemate in progress since the 90's. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and others are are adding refinements to an already perfect Long Bow. What we need is an invention like the compound bow to give a new life to our favorite instruments.
I, for one, am working on such innovative concepts. Have been at it for several years already. I am an amateur optical designer and I believe that this is exactly my advantage. So far, my inventions have been related to rifle-scopes but I have a couple ides for spotting scopes and binoculars too
I have the Night Owls and Classics and there is no comparison with the newer glass, like the HT - it's night and day. The older glass looks yellow, dull and murky in comparison, even pristine specimens.
I have kinda given up on individual binocular comparisons, as it mostly seems to boil down to individual perception, eyesight and preference but the difference between new coatings and old, to me, seems pretty much unequivocal.
WJC
Well-known member
Hi James:
What is it in your observation that lets you single out "coatings" as opposed to all the other possibilities I have mentioned?
Bill
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Omid
Well-known member
Good Job!
One of my ideas is making binoculars and spotting scopes with extended exit pupil. In normal binoculars, the exit pupil is determined by the objective lens diameter and the power (e.g., 10x50 binoculars have a 5mm pupil, 10X32, a 3.2 mm pupil, etc). In my design the exit pupil will be virtually as large as the diameter of the eyepiece lens independently of the power and the front lens diameter. Such large exit pupil will also relax the eye relief. The observer can position his eye at any comfortable distance behind the eyepiece and still see a reasonable field of view.
This invention will be particularly useful for spotting scopes. They have such small pupils that its very difficult for any "lay person" to use them. With the new design, older people, young students and many other people will find using the scope much easier.
The price to be payed for having such comfortable view is some loss of light and a bit less contrast. But I think the benefits can outweigh the drawbacks for many applications.
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
OK, we can have different opinions on this issue. There are some improvements in coatings and glass quality for sure but their practical value is not significant. Look, for example, at Leica binoculars. The optical design and the arrangement of lens elements of 5 generations spanning nearly 20 years is exactly the same: Trinovid BA, Trinovid BN, Ultravid, Ultavid HD and Ultravid HD Plus. The difference is only in the plastic cover material, coating and for the HD plus the glass type.
The following is a quote from Allbinos Website's reviewing 10X50 Ultravid HD and comparing them to the original "low definition" Ultravids. I have highlighted some key phrases in red. As the review shows, the benefit of improved coatings in the HD model is marginal.
Hermann
Well-known member
An even better example than the Leica is the Swarovski Habicht. Optical construction unchanged since 1949, a true dinosaur of the optical world. But the difference the continually updated coatings make to the image quality is truly astounding.
As far as Leica is concerned: The difference between my 8x32BA (produced in 1992) and a late-model Ultravid 8x32 is quite obvious. Even between my 8x32BA and an 8x32BN made about 10 years later than my BA there's a noticeable difference in contrast and brightness.
You still trust Allbinos? I don't. There have been a few too many strange "test results" on their website.
Hermann
WJC
Well-known member
Roger on that! But still, how much BETTER can we go? Many people are short of seeing the differences, now.
Bill
Herman,
Do you think it would make a difference in contrast and brightness if you sent your 20 year old Leica 8x32 BA back to the company for a 20 year check up and cleaning?
Bob
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I totally agree about the Leica 8x32 series--the differences in color, brightness, and (maybe) contrast are not at all subtle between BA and BN and Ultravid. I've always assumed that the difference mostly had to do with improvements in the reflective coatings on the roof prisms, and that lens coating improvements were much less important. Roofs have improved quite a bit more than have porros over the last several decades, with most of the gain being from phase and dielectric coatings to catch-up with the already excellent porros. But your comments about the Swarovski would argue that lens coating improvements have also played a large role. I don't have much experience w/the Swarovski porro, but that is an interesting case because presumably the gains have been through improved transmission via better lens (and prism face) coatings.
--AP
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Hermann
Well-known member
Not really. We've got more than one of those BAs of that vintage in the family, and one of them went back to Leica for a repair a couple of years ago.
I can't see any difference compared to mine at all.
Hermann
Omid
Well-known member
Our discussion here taught me something important and sad: In post #8 above I mentioned a very unorthodox design concept but not a single person showed any interest or asked even a simple question about it!
We have very knowledgeable binocular and optics enthusiast in this forum but none of you guys - even Bill whom I wrote my note in response to his post- bothered to ask how is it possible to make binoculars whose exit pupil is independently controllable?! Instead, everyone got into the usual discussion about contrast and brightness of Ultavid vs Trinovid model.
I am disappointed
We have very knowledgeable binocular and optics enthusiast in this forum but none of you guys - even Bill whom I wrote my note in response to his post- bothered to ask how is it possible to make binoculars whose exit pupil is independently controllable?! Instead, everyone got into the usual discussion about contrast and brightness of Ultavid vs Trinovid model.
I am disappointed
henry link
Well-known member
Swarovski is a special case. Habicht multi-coating needed a lot of improvement from the early efforts. The first multi-coated Habicht Porros I saw in the 1980's and 90s used a 2-layer coating called "Transmax", which had an extremely yellow bias, apparently to please hunters. It was claimed to have the same transmission as the 3-layer "Swarotop" used on the SL Porros of the same time, but that could only have been true for a very narrow band in the yellow. The image through those Habichts looks somewhat dull and alarmingly yellow. There were much better multi-coatings available on other Porros of the 80s and 90s (Fujinon, Nikon and others). I bought four pairs of Habichts between 1986 and 1996, after which I gave up. I still have a pair of 8x30s, so I'm not just working from memory.
From what I read here it appears that the current Habicht coatings are state of the art, which would be a huge improvement.
Henry
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Our discussion here taught me something important and sad: In post #8 above I mentioned a very unorthodox design concept but not a single person showed any interest or asked even a simple question about it!
We have very knowledgeable binocular and optics enthusiast in this forum but none of you guys - even Bill whom I wrote my note in response to his post- bothered to ask how is it possible to make binoculars whose exit pupil is independently controllable?! Instead, everyone got into the usual discussion about contrast and brightness of Ultavid vs Trinovid model.
I am disappointed
Tell us more!
I always thought it would be neat if you could magnify the exit pupil, so a small aperture bin like an 8x30 could have an exit pupil more like an 8x56! Technically impossible I would imagine but would end the need for big, clumsy binoculars.....
WJC
Well-known member
Our discussion here taught me something important and sad: In post #8 above I mentioned a very unorthodox design concept but not a single person showed any interest or asked even a simple question about it!
We have very knowledgeable binocular and optics enthusiast in this forum but none of you guys - even Bill whom I wrote my note in response to his post- bothered to ask how is it possible to make binoculars whose exit pupil is independently controllable?! Instead, everyone got into the usual discussion about contrast and brightness of Ultavid vs Trinovid model.
I am disappointed
Omid:
I am sorry you are disappointed. I didn't notice your #8 or realize you were wanting us to chime in. Obviously, what you propose is valuable, especially in rifle scopes. But, you need to understand you are speaking to a group of people who may not understand what you are doing. That does't mean they wouldn't care if they had more information. However, this is primarily about binoculars, not optical engineering. Why not provide some OPD plots, MTF data, ray fans, or, at least, spot diagrams.
On this forum, I doubt it will create much participation, But, at least it would be a start. I haven't cranked up my Zemax-EE in 10 years and I'm sure I've forgotten much--that's just an old guy thing.
Forgive me, please. |=)|
Bill
Last edited:
