50mm Zeiss SF --- When??! (1 Viewer)

Chosun Juan said:

Some here think that the market for a 50mm would be limited, yet all agree that they either love their 10x50 SV's, and/or would appreciate a lighter 50mm. Didn't one of your famous, veteran US birders exclusively use a beat up old pair of 10x50's ??? ..... :smoke:

Click to expand...

In theory everyone would love 8x60s or 10x70s, with 98% transmission and >70 degrees AFOV. Oh, and a weight below 800gr. Of course.

In reality the great majority of birders use 42mm bins, with 32mm bins a distant second. And 50mm binoculars are a distant third, even in countries with long and dark winters like Sweden.

You don't believe that? Go to one of the places where lots of birders meet in the autumn. Falsterbo, Öland, the Scillies, Helgoland, to name a few places in Europe.

All this talk that Zeiss "needs" to design a 10x50 SF is utter nonsense. What they need to do to compete in the market place is making binoculars a sufficiently large number of people will actually *buy*. Not what some forum heroes on Birdforum deem desirable. And if you're serious about wanting a 9x50 SF - well, ask them to make you one.

BTW, all those comparisons with Swarovski don't really make much sense. Swarovski can afford to make binoculars that don't make much profit. They make their money with other products. And judging my what I see they sell a heck of a lot more 42mm (and 32mm) bins than anything else.

Hermann

Hermann said:

In theory everyone would love 8x60s or 10x70s, with 98% transmission and >70 degrees AFOV. Oh, and a weight below 800gr. Of course.

In reality the great majority of birders use 42mm bins, with 32mm bins a distant second. And 50mm binoculars are a distant third, even in countries with long and dark winters like Sweden.

You don't believe that? Go to one of the places where lots of birders meet in the autumn. Falsterbo, Öland, the Scillies, Helgoland, to name a few places in Europe.

All this talk that Zeiss "needs" to design a 10x50 SF is utter nonsense. What they need to do to compete in the market place is making binoculars a sufficiently large number of people will actually *buy*. Not what some forum heroes on Birdforum deem desirable. And if you're serious about wanting a 9x50 SF - well, ask them to make you one.

BTW, all those comparisons with Swarovski don't really make much sense. Swarovski can afford to make binoculars that don't make much profit. They make their money with other products. And judging my what I see they sell a heck of a lot more 42mm (and 32mm) bins than anything else.

Hermann

Click to expand...

According to the statistics 2016 it is 50% for the 42; 30% for the 32 and 20% for the 50mm.
10x is double in sales compared to the 12x50.

Jan

jan van daalen said:

According to the statistics 2016 it is 50% for the 42; 30% for the 32 and 20% for the 50mm.
10x is double in sales compared to the 12x50.

Jan

Click to expand...

Jan, Thanks for the constructive input :t: I take it that the 50mm figure would be 50mm+ and include larger sizes, 52mm, 54mm, 56mm, 58mm, and the one 20x60 IS that gets sold every year! :-O

Still 20% is not an insignificant number, especially when we consider that these current optical brick offerings don't exactly make a compelling argument outside of the largely? specialist need customers that buy them. I am sure that a lightweight 50mm as I have described would snag the odd customer or two from other categories ....

Perhaps our forum is populated by lots of ex-sawmillers, with 4 fingers left on each hand, and for whom a missing 20% is entirely inconsequential?! :-O :brains: o

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the other "keyboard warriors", I've had an absolute gutful! :C :storm: ...... what's with all the thinly veiled ad hominem attacks?!¿

I can guarantee you that unless you are 30 stone Tongan with a 2nd degree black belt, there is no way you would say such things if we were in the same room together (or at least not twice!)

NDhunter said:

.... I see no reason for your dreamer attitude, and your business plan ignorance.....

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry, I'd ask you to explain, but unless you've got a Doctorate in Business Administration, I'm probably not interested ..... |=o|

Hermann said:

.....All this talk that Zeiss "needs" to design a 10x50 SF is utter nonsense. What they need to do to compete in the market place is making binoculars a sufficiently large number of people will actually *buy*. Not what some forum heroes on Birdforum deem desirable.....

Hermann

Click to expand...

Hermann, who are these forum heroes that you speak of? .... can I get an autograph? .... and does dennis know?? :king:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, several on this forum have "form" ....... and that's not a good thing .........

The disgusting performance on John Cantelo's "Ethics" thread, by Jerry, and stephen b (whose girl's blouse display over an Internet search term of all things! .... I'm still counting to 10 million before addressing that), does you guys no favours at all. If you want to look like a flock of short neck geese - fine. But do it somewhere else .....

Now, can we get back to the topic at hand with some constructive discussion? .......

Chosun :gh:

jan van daalen said:

According to the statistics 2016 it is 50% for the 42; 30% for the 32 and 20% for the 50mm.
10x is double in sales compared to the 12x50.

Jan

Click to expand...

I saw hundreds of birders in the past month and only a few had 50mm+ bins. Perhaps 5%. The black Zeiss SF is showing up more and more but Swaro is still king. FWIW...there are a whole lot of 8X32 SV's out there and people seem to love them.

Chosun Juan said:

Jan, Thanks for the constructive input :t: I take it that the 50mm figure would be 50mm+ and include larger sizes, 52mm, 54mm, 56mm, 58mm, and the one 20x60 IS that gets sold every year! :-O

Still 20% is not an insignificant number, especially when we consider that these current optical brick offerings don't exactly make a compelling argument outside of the largely? specialist need customers that buy them. I am sure that a lightweight 50mm as I have described would snag the odd customer or two from other categories ....

Perhaps our forum is populated by lots of ex-sawmillers, with 4 fingers left on each hand, and for whom a missing 20% is entirely inconsequential?! :-O :brains: o

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View attachment 603384
As for the other "keyboard warriors", I've had an absolute gutful! :C :storm: ...... what's with all the thinly veiled ad hominem attacks?!¿

I can guarantee you that unless you are 30 stone Tongan with a 2nd degree black belt, there is no way you would say such things if we were in the same room together (or at least not twice!)


Jerry, I'd ask you to explain, but unless you've got a Doctorate in Business Administration, I'm probably not interested ..... |=o|


Hermann, who are these forum heroes that you speak of? .... can I get an autograph? .... and does dennis know?? :king:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, several on this forum have "form" ....... and that's not a good thing .........

The disgusting performance on John Cantelo's "Ethics" thread, by Jerry, and stephen b (whose girl's blouse display over an Internet search term of all things! .... I'm still counting to 10 million before addressing that), does you guys no favours at all. If you want to look like a flock of short neck geese - fine. But do it somewhere else .....

Now, can we get back to the topic at hand with some constructive discussion? .......

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Sorry love,

This was the SV picture. Take the SLC also in consideration, nothing changes.
At Zeiss it's different:
32 is 7.5%
42 is 80%
>50 is 2.5%

J.

jan van daalen said:

According to the statistics 2016 it is 50% for the 42; 30% for the 32 and 20% for the 50mm.
10x is double in sales compared to the 12x50.
This was the SV picture. Take the SLC also in consideration, nothing changes.

At Zeiss it's different:
32 is 7.5%
42 is 80%
>50 is 2.5%

Click to expand...

Thanks Jan,

Those 56mm A-K prism SLC's are mighty big bricks! Certainly weighing as much or more than the Z offerings .....

Perhaps those Zeiss figures say that they should have updated the 32mm FL with HT glass prisms long ago? ..... and I won't even go into the 54mm ......

Or perhaps folks are just really taken with the 42mm's? .....
Do you have a breakdown of that 80% Z 42mm's between the 3 tiers -
1. Entry = Terra,
2. 2nd tier = Conquest HD, and
3. Alpha = FL, HT, and SF ?

I would imagine that the situation for Leica is closer to Zeiss than Swarovski?

Also, are Swarovski still outselling the other two, many times to 1 ? (I think you mentioned the exact figure somewhere in the past .....)


Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Thanks Jan,

Those 56mm A-K prism SLC's are mighty big bricks! Certainly weighing as much or more than the Z offerings .....

Perhaps those Zeiss figures say that they should have updated the 32mm FL with HT glass prisms long ago? ..... and I won't even go into the 54mm ......

Or perhaps folks are just really taken with the 42mm's? .....
Do you have a breakdown of that 80% Z 42mm's between the 3 tiers -
1. Entry = Terra,
2. 2nd tier = Conquest HD, and
3. Alpha = FL, HT, and SF ?

I would imagine that the situation for Leica is closer to Zeiss than Swarovski?

Also, are Swarovski still outselling the other two, many times to 1 ? (I think you mentioned the exact figure somewhere in the past .....)


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

1=30%;
2=34%;
3=36%

With the arrival of the HT and SF's the quality of Zeiss is equal to Swaro, which also turns out in sales.
It is now 35 (Zeiss) to 65% (Swaro).
Zeiss misses the 32/50SF and that sales goes for 100% to Swaro.
Also ladies loves the tan color both in SV and CL. Zeiss doesn't offer any other color than black (the Terra excluded).

Jan

Chosun Juan said:

Guys, I will address these all together as there is somewhat of a common theme.

In order for an Alpha 50mm bin to be a mainstream 'birding' bin, it needs to light - I'd suggest somewhere around the 900gram (~32oz) mark would be possible even with the old magnesium technology, and this would still retain all the SF goodies - great balance, sharp edges, negligible CA, wide Fov, and great (18-20mm) ER; +++

I would also think that a weight down around 850grams (30oz) or less is possible if Zeiss stepped into the 21st Century and went with a CFRP chassis - I don't care for blasting my bins with a shotgun, driving Hummers or Tanks over my bins - strong enough to maintain dimensional stability, and survive an accidental drop or pedestrian! stack will do .....

The opportunity is there to make the absolute best binocular in the world. After all, if the Swaro 10x50 SV was lighter, and with a few other minor nicety tweaks, it could realistically be a mainstream bin.

The notions that the 42mm SF has taken up some of the function carries some merit - up to a point ...... The one thing a 50mm can do that the 42mm can't, is deliver that 5mm EP at 10x. The others (54mm HT's etc) are too heavy and compromised to consider.

A 50mm SF would need to move the game on through several evolutionary improvements:-
1. Must hit that weight target ~850-900grams or less. CFRP, Titanium shafts, the works.
2. Must utilize HT glass prisms, and in other appropriate lenses to offer a perfectly neutral colour rendition and flat transmission curve (and as least Ed for one understands) to increase the brightness.
3. Must offer 70° AFov's along with that 18-20mm ER.
4. Must 'smooth' the distortion profile by offering a less radical slope and inflection point to the mustachio curve. This will address some of those who are seeing RB in the 42mm SF but not the SV. It seems that some degree of 3-D simulation (without losing the sharp edges) is also needed to compete with the NoctiVids.
5. Must improve CA handling so that results are no worse than the 42mm - more FL glass (helps with the lightness as well) - and there are other ways too!
6. Must move the glare control bar higher to be a clear leader.
7. Must sort the attachment and longevity quality of the armouring out while retaining lightness.
8. Must come to market fully sorted - no design, material, parts, supply, quality, delays as before AND DEFINITELY NO shipping of this early pilot, pre-production, and initial runs of product out the door to use customers as Beta testers. I would suggest Zeiss needs to soundly trounce the resolution standards so that even the most alien savant eagle eyed among us detects no spherical aberration, or softness.
9. Niceties would be a slightly quicker focus (in real terms) - I think 2m CF would be sufficient.

I would buy one of these in a heartbeat - especially the limited edition tan coloured perforated kangaroo leather model in 9x50 format :t:


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

CJ


Certainly if these could be made they would get some customers. How many customers would be determined by their price of course. (Kangaroo leather and like accoutrements excepted! )

I am assuming that they would be state of the art Alpha binoculars.

Do you have an idea what their price range would be?

Bob

Over $3000 street price I would think, at least until a (Super Closeout) comes along, maybe they'll start the 50 out in black with the good eyecups. :king:

ceasar said:

CJ

Do you have an idea what their price range would be?

Bob

Click to expand...

SD, haha (actually, I shouldn't laugh), I'm glad that you can laugh about "closeout" situations now .... I know the wounds run deep .....

I just dropped over a grand today on reno stuff at the hardware store, only to hear advertised tonight that they're having a snap sale over the weekend with 10% off storewide ...... grrrr !


Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Vespo, that's in the ballpark - many of the big guns (50-54-56mm) fall in the ~190 - 210mm range for physical length. This is where the beauty of CFRP comes in - extra length doesn't come at a deleterious weight penalty - it's largely just inert gas in a very lightweight tube. Top grade Synthetic fluorite (as used by everybody bar Canon - who grow their own real crystals) has practically the same performance but is much easier and more economical to work. It is lighter than lesser grades too. In a 50mm SF, Ultra-FL and HT glass would be de rigueur ..... :king:

Such a Vunderbin could be made at 850grams or less - and I agree, that's probably as much as you would want to carry (actually, it's probably more, but I think the satisfaction of having such a high performing 50mm bin would make it psychologically seem lighter!

Much the same as in the photographic world where the big CaNikon duopoly neatly segments categories and conducts development at a glacial pace, the Alpha big dawgs of binoworld also stifle innovation (within the confines of non-digital classical troglodyte optics) to protect established segments and markets. Maven is one company (Kamakura designed and manufactured) with the vision to upset the apple cart -- the only downfall here is too much weight in their products (I wonder how much longer dennis's biceps will continue to hold up :cat:

The opportunity for a game changing 50mm SF is there --- Is Zeiss "bold" enough to make it? , or will it futilely try and protect its outdated legacy designs, and cede market share to Swarovski, content in the trickle of income coming from it's Schott glass subsidiary ...... :h?:

Click to expand...

Calcium fluorite crystal grown for optical use is synthetic. Schott have 80% of the World market and much of it ends up in industries like semi-conductor production.
Other companies growing it are Hikari Glass Co. owned by Nikon and Canon.
A detailed article about fluorite can be found here translated from the French.


http://translate.google.com/transla...ttp://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_cristal.html

Fluorite glass found in binoculars is a glass mix not crystal.

It's a shame nobody produces animations like this for binos

http://www.pierretoscani.com/images/echo_divers3/Figure-1-01-anim.swf

ceasar said:

CJ


Certainly if these could be made they would get some customers. How many customers would be determined by their price of course. (Kangaroo leather and like accoutrements excepted! )

I am assuming that they would be state of the art Alpha binoculars.

Do you have an idea what their price range would be?

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob,

That's a good question! :cat:

The short answer is that I think there is room to (and I would) keep the RRP under $3K, say $2888 (which should be a big lucky hit with the emerging Chinese bourgeois class). I wouldn't necessarily go for full immediate cost recovery (absorbing some through the profit margin) , but rather really set it up to be the clear cut premier bin on the market. This would place pressure on competitors. :king:

Without having access to private company financials, I would hazard a guess that the binocular top dogs are making quite handsome profits .... certainly much more than the brutal world of global electronics companies (where 10% or less can sometimes be considered a rip roaring success! . The marketing budgets seem fairly luxurious considering the base, and I would again guess that development (design and manufacturing processes /supply) amortization, and processing transformation is a fair chunk given the relatively low quantities.

Alpha pricing seems to have as much to do with competitive pressures, positioning, and game theory, as it does with cost recovery and target profit margins. There doesn't seem to be the expected cost reductions due to scale economies and the experience curve, for something that has been around so long. :h?:

They'd definitely have to be "halo" models with the highest spec glass - Ultra FL in every applicable position (not just the objectives), HT prisms and other matching glass (a quick look at the catalogue shows it available as most types), and all in the highest grade = least amount and smallest inclusions. This is as much to increase the 'cleanliness' and contrast of the view as it is for the small increases in transmission, and reduction of distortions. Material variable costs would take a slight increase, but I'd expect they could use the 42mm optical design 'template' with a few tweaks here and there. :t:

The weight target will be key, with the segment growing for each additional gram dropped (provided they stay within the Alpha ballpark price wise). To that end, I would bite the bullet and go CFRP for the chassis (or at the very least GRP as in the FL). Just as Ferrari does with it's Formula One program, the cost of developing this headline phase can be recouped over a family of ensuing formats and model cycles.

Also, just as the Korean Hyundai did in the automotive world, the 2nd tier (think Vortex Razor HD, Maven A-K's, Conquest HD's, etc, and now apparently the Tract Torics with dennis as recent convert for what that's worth) is making inroads in classical binoworld. It's hard to make optical gains at the top end since we are into incremental territory (having said that, I think the next 3-5% will show gains in practice that outweigh what their small numerical value would indicate). There is a big opportunity to differentiate with lightweight materials, so that's where I would expect the next lot of big gains to come from.

Well, at least before the inevitable disruption and unpalatable assault of our eyeballs by digital jiggerypoo .....

Ps. AFAIK, kangaroo leather is the lightest and strongest available - much beloved by Moto GP riders :t:


Chosun :gh:

maico said:

Calcium fluorite crystal grown for optical use is synthetic. Schott have 80% of the World market and much of it ends up in industries like semi-conductor production.
Other companies growing it are Hikari Glass Co. owned by Nikon and Canon.
A detailed article about fluorite can be found here translated from the French.


http://translate.google.com/transla...ttp://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_cristal.html

Fluorite glass found in binoculars is a glass mix not crystal.

It's a shame nobody produces animations like this for binos

http://www.pierretoscani.com/images/echo_divers3/Figure-1-01-anim.swf

Click to expand...

Maico, thank you for the contribution, and thank you for the interesting and informative article. :t:
I will have to leave reading it in full for a few days, but initially I think the term "synthetic" is a terminology issue perhaps caused by translation. In this usage 'synthetic' seems to refer to artificially grown Fluorite CaF2 crystals as opposed to naturally occuring. This is different to my understanding of the usage of the word 'synthetic' which refers to 'glass' seeded with various compositions (but performing very close to the pure crystal), such as the Ohara FPL53, to which I was referring. Hope that helps clarify.


Chosun :gh:

jan van daalen said:

1=30%;
2=34%;
3=36%
Jan

Click to expand...

Thanks for all your stats, Jan! I'd also be interested what's the ration between 8x and 10x you sell (regardless of brand)?

jan van daalen said:

1=30%;
2=34%;
3=36%

With the arrival of the HT and SF's the quality of Zeiss is equal to Swaro, which also turns out in sales.
It is now 35 (Zeiss) to 65% (Swaro).
Zeiss misses the 32/50SF and that sales goes for 100% to Swaro.
Also ladies loves the tan color both in SV and CL. Zeiss doesn't offer any other color than black (the Terra excluded).

Jan

Click to expand...

Stunning, these percentages, alphas outsell betas outsell gammas.
Zeiss sells more Ferraris than Fiats, truly a high class problem.

Still, it is surely a disappointment to Zeiss's marketing department that their lowest price gear is not bringing in more new converts. Seems that growth is not greatly spurred by entry level pricing.
Maybe they should talk to Chosun Juan to get ideas for market expansion.

dalat said:

Thanks for all your stats, Jan! I'd also be interested what's the ration between 8x and 10x you sell (regardless of brand)?

Click to expand...

Taking the sub brands models in consideration which are available in both 32 and 42 configuration you get 60% share in 42 and 40% in 32mm.

Jan

etudiant said:

Stunning, these percentages, alphas outsell betas outsell gammas.
Zeiss sells more Ferraris than Fiats, truly a high class problem.

Still, it is surely a disappointment to Zeiss's marketing department that their lowest price gear is not bringing in more new converts. Seems that growth is not greatly spurred by entry level pricing.
Maybe they should talk to Chosun Juan to get ideas for market expansion.

Click to expand...

Not quite the case.
78% of total sales is A-brand and 22% are sub brands.
Just a matter of which target group you aim on as a shop.
Other shops might aim for a different consumer/ target group and will have different numbers.
Ours is travel and leasure to different continents. That makes almost 100%
A-brand. The sub sales percentage is caused by the customer who is in need for a binocular/scope but not for use in Antartica/Africa/Spitsbergen/South America etc.

Dennis excluded. He goes to Africa with a chin bin because he is afraid to ruine his SwaroB

Jan

etudiant said:

Stunning, these percentages, alphas outsell betas outsell gammas.
Zeiss sells more Ferraris than Fiats, truly a high class problem.

Still, it is surely a disappointment to Zeiss's marketing department that their lowest price gear is not bringing in more new converts. Seems that growth is not greatly spurred by entry level pricing.
Maybe they should talk to Chosun Juan to get ideas for market expansion.

Click to expand...

That's what Jan sells in his specialist store, unlikely to be representative for sales overall. A lot of Terras and perhaps also Conquests are probably sold through big retailers, online, etc, while alphas are mostly sold in stores like Jan's.

jan van daalen said:

Taking the sub brands models in consideration which are available in both 32 and 42 configuration you get 60% share in 42 and 40% in 32mm.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jan. And what about 8x/10x?

dalat said:

That's what Jan sells in his specialist store, unlikely to be representative for sales overall. A lot of Terras and perhaps also Conquests are probably sold through big retailers, online, etc, while alphas are mostly sold in stores like Jan's.



Thanks Jan. And what about 8x/10x?

Click to expand...

8x is 70% and 10x is 30%.
Both counts for 32 and 42 model.

Jan

Hi James.
Post 37.

A c.1955 Hensoldt 16x56 would have I think, machine grinding and initial polishing maybe, but hand finished to the highest standards by skilled technicians who are a very rare breed now.
There would be a lot of man hours.

A top professional tells me that top lenses have to be hand figured still.

I understand that many binocular optics are not even ground now but formed into shape. As soon as you remove skilled labour, lots of it, prices tumble.

Sony are proud of their new aspheric machine producing large optics to about 1/40 wave.

I mainly use binoculars for astronomy, stars, which are very high contrast objects. Loss of contrast is not serious but loss of transmission is a problem, giving a 0.5mag loss in star brightness compared to modern best.

I tested the 16x56 against 14 good resolving binoculars. 12x to 20x. 50mm to 70mm.
Only the Zeiss 20x60 is much better, but has a seriously curved field. It is of near astro quality.

A top maker nowadays can make a special demonstrator of a best model to near astro standards. Most stock will not be the same.

Astro standard means at least 50 per inch magnification without the image breaking down and the best achieve 75 per inch at least.
This is very tough for a short focus binocular.