• 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.

Zeiss moving out of Wetzlar (1 Viewer)

PS

I do believe in time there will only be direct sales from manufacturers to the end consumers, by way of consumer trades, internet sales and brand pilotstores.

Jan, I think you have a pretty good read on things, and are positioned quite nicely to navigate these changing waters too - the brands would be well advised to keep in your good books .... :t:


Chosun :gh:
 
It is simply not true that producing or coating lenses is hugely expensive.
Nor does it cost much to add image stabilization. The evidence is all around us in the form of cheap point and shoot cameras.
Consider that the new Sony RX10 IV offers a 24-600mm zoom, five stops or better image stabilization and 4K video, for $1700 on Amazon, about $1100 less than the Zeiss 8x42 SF.
The Sony lens is a Zeiss design and I'm confident it sports the latest Zeiss coatings. The number of units sold is probably in the same ballpark, as the RX10 IV is a pretty specialized camera.
Yet the main objection indicated by RX10 IV reviewers was the excessively high price. That suggests the alpha binoculars are in pricing bubble. Eventually, that will burst.

Remember the Sony's 8.8-220mm lens has a 35m equivalent aperture range of only F6.5-10.9
https://www.dpreview.com/learn/2799100497/equivalence-in-a-nutshell
The equivalence calculation needs to be done for focal length and aperture.
This means some of the internal elements are small and cheaper to produce despite being moulded aspheric.

The Japanese made Canon 10x42 IS L has 2 largish IS elements moving in each barrel (shown in blue and the ultra low dispersion glass in the objective and field flattener in green ) increasing cost significantly. It could be argued that a European produced conventional 10x42 binocular shouldn't cost significantly more. I spent 6 months in Japan, it's a high cost country.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0238-2.jpg
    DSC_0238-2.jpg
    193.4 KB · Views: 30
  • DSC_1027-2.jpg
    DSC_1027-2.jpg
    183.7 KB · Views: 29
  • DSC_1028-2.jpg
    DSC_1028-2.jpg
    165.5 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
The Japanese made Canon 10x42 IS L has 2 largish IS elements moving in each barrel (shown in blue and the ultra low dispersion glass in the objective and field flattener in green ) increasing cost significantly. It could be argued that a European produced conventional 10x42 binocular shouldn't cost significantly more. I spent 6 months in Japan, it's a high cost country.

The Canon 10x42 is indeed a case in point.
It sells in small numbers and is clearly an expensive glass to build. The current price on Amazon is $1150, versus $2900 for the Zeiss SF, $2600 for the Swaro EL and $2700 for the Leica Noctivid. Something here is out of whack imho.
 
Part of the additional cost of the Zeiss, Swaro, Leica may be to cover the superior warranty compared to what is offered by Canon.
 
The Canon 10x42 is indeed a case in point.
It sells in small numbers and is clearly an expensive glass to build. The current price on Amazon is $1150, versus $2900 for the Zeiss SF, $2600 for the Swaro EL and $2700 for the Leica Noctivid. Something here is out of whack imho.

See post no.166, at that price I took a punt on the short warranty and bought the Canon last week.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=336320&page=7
Luxury premium brands go to great lengths to create orderly markets so I don't suppose I'll ever see a new Noctivid or Swarovski EL so deeply discounted...
 
Last edited:
The Canon 10x42 is indeed a case in point.
It sells in small numbers and is clearly an expensive glass to build. The current price on Amazon is $1150, versus $2900 for the Zeiss SF, $2600 for the Swaro EL and $2700 for the Leica Noctivid. Something here is out of whack imho.

As far as I know Canon forces their bigger photo dealers to also sell binoculars. As the demand for the 10x42s is low, they sell at ridiculous prices just to get rid of the "junk". It´s a unique glass but I never feel ready to carry it around.

But maybe it´s time to order one... they may not be around for much longer.
 
(...) So why complain about a few more euros to be paid if we can be sure of a life long pleasure of top quality instruments if we are certified of top quality, excellent service and long lasting pleasure of the instruments made?.
Gijs van Ginkel

Basically I agree, but the market seems so saturated that quite a lot of dealers sell new bins as "demos" just to be able to lower the price and get rid of a couple more. There is no point to resist. On the other hand, this brings the alpha bins too close to the upper middle class, so why take a Conquest HD or Trinovid when you can have an FL/Ultravid for a couple of hundred more.

I agree with Chosun about the need for leaner marketing and distribution. I would love to order my bins directly from the manufacturers, order two different ones for comparing, pay say a handling fee of 100.- which will be subtracted once I keep one. If it helps the manufacturers, get rid of the dealers, I have none anyway close enough to make me want to visit them. I´d also rather not choose a bin due to a 10mins observation in a shop. Even more, dealers tend to collect the lemons in their shelves instead of throwing them back at the manufacturers.

I´d love to see your calculation for producing say a Zeiss HT or SF with a QC and tolerances that would truly satisfy 95% of all users including Henry Link using it with a booster... where would prices go then? 3000EUR? Or to Nikon WX level???

Maybe the alpha bin will become a luxury item. Still, most people who really need or want one would be able to buy one. Cars and travels are way more expensive.

I´d also love to get to know if Swarovski does indeed have a better QC than Zeiss - very probable - and what are the differences in their processes or attitudes. I assume Leica is somewhere inbetween.

It´s not long ago that the hunting market accounted for about 75% of Zeiss Sport Optics, so I was told by a representative. What is going on with hunting world wide? And will there be an increase in nature observation? Looking at my country, I can only guess that hunting is decreasing, with older generations of hunters dying away and hunting definitely being perceived as outdated, cruel, useless by a majority. A lot of Victory FL 8x56 on eBay...
 
If the floor drops out of the market it doesn't matter where your factory is... ! https://www.dpreview.com/news/41348...ctory-in-china-blames-the-rise-of-smartphones

Good piece of news. Thank you for sharing.

In my view, there are similarities and differences between the "binocular market" and the "consumer imaging/camera" market.

New technologies in the consumer electronic market can make an existing product obsolete so that the market for that product reduces to practically zero. Examples are desktop computers making typewriters obsolete, digital cameras making film cameras obsolete and, now, smart phones making compact digital camera obsolete.

However, "new technologies" do not make certain products obsolete. Just might change their status from a mainstream product where everyone uses them all the time to a product that only some professional or hobbyists use them. Examples are "knife", "bow and arrow", "bolt-action rifle" and binoculars".

All sort of "cutting machines" have been invented both for household use, and for other purposes but a knife is still not obsolete. All soldiers and hunters still carry a knife. The invention of a rifle did not make bow and arrow obsolete. It only changed its use. The invention of semi-automatic and automatic rifles did not make bolt-action rifles obsolete. Nearly all rifles used for hunting are bolt-action despite semi-automatics being available and legal for hunting in many countries. Similarly, I believe digital technology, will not replace binoculars not now and not anytime in the next 100 years.

That said, it is also true that the binocular market is probably not expanding either. It is a highly-durable product that works for 40-50 years at least (good for the consumer, bad for the manufacturer), there is no service fee attached to it (unlike mobile-phones) and it's not marketable to kids or teenagers.
 
Last edited:
I´d also love to get to know if Swarovski does indeed have a better QC than Zeiss - very probable - and what are the differences in their processes or attitudes. I assume Leica is somewhere inbetween.

/QUOTE]


I've heard this said a few times and it seems as though people don't see [many!] faulty focusers as a QC problem for some reason. I would opine that the alpha QC level is too low for almost all brands, judging by complaints and returns from forumers.
 
Surely true, but weird, given that most professional photographers use Canon glass.

...but Leica or Zeiss camera lenses of similar specification are still more expensive than Canon L lenses.

Image stabilization in cameras/camera lenses also strikes me as being a bit of a different kettle of fish to IS in binoculars - camera lenses need to be steady for only that 1/50th of a second (or much less) that the shot is being taken, while IS in binoculars may need to be activated for hours.

Regarding the 10x42L - its basic design is a porro II which should make it easier to manufacture than roof designs. And (admittedly this is a subjective opinion), to my eyes this device does not offer comparable image quality to the true alphas - although I'd certainly agree that the image stabilization is a unique and impressive feature. Nikon's models that compete with alphas in image quality are also in a similar bracket in terms of price.

I've heard this said a few times and it seems as though people don't see [many!] faulty focusers as a QC problem for some reason. I would opine that the alpha QC level is too low for almost all brands, judging by complaints and returns from forumers.

Complaints aired on the forums may not reflect a large number of users who are perfectly happy with their product and therefore see no reason to complain. The adage that a dissatisfied customer spreads the word to 10 times more people than a satisfied one is very true I think.
 
Last edited:
Video cameras and modern still cameras that take movies for perhaps 30 minutes at a time are I think able to use stabilization.

I have been surprised at the quality of the movies taken with the Canon 5D Mk II and I am just watching one taken perhaps on a Canon 5D MkI, though not sure if that did video, so it may also be Mk II.
One movie in particular seemed to have staggeringly high quality, although it was set to high contrast, high colour mode. It cost around $5,000 including travel.

Some of these movies have cost as little as £1,500 all in, but the one I am watching cost £55,000, I presume including paid actors.

What bothers me about the modern world is that people are losing their value, their jobs and their reasons for just being.
One of the most depressing things is being without employment, if that is what one wants.
It has happened in the past, but modern day changes are too rapid.

Some families are quite happy to have had no one working for generations, but many are not.

It was mentioned that the exit pupil on binoculars is small compared to camera sensors, but a camera lens is imaging a sensor, whereas a binocular is using an eyepiece. The binocular objectives illuminate the eyepiece field stop not the exit pupils.

I use old compact cameras that cost £30 secondhand. They are actually made in China by Canon, although the earlier version was Japanese made. Canon seem to know what they are doing in China. I have taken up to 175,000 individual photos on a single camera. They are remarkably reliable. although a recently purchased one is faulty, but it is ten years old. I don't have a smart phone and don't want one.
 
Last edited:
..... I would opine that the alpha QC level is too low for almost all brands, judging by complaints and returns from forumers.

James, I would agree entirely with this.

A look through and play with multiple bins at shows, fairs, and at retailers will show too much variation for my liking (and importantly for the price being charged).

Even if the dissatisfied canaries in the forums and online feedback coalmine are more vocal than those happily out enjoying their bins, to think that those unsatisfactory purchased bins are just sent back to the large online marketplaces (Amazon etc) for recycling to the next unsuspecting Joe Blow that comes along is truly concerning .....



Chosun :gh:
 
:hippy: To be complete...... There are many other ways to increase energy efficiency applicable to such an environment, and really if it's not a key part of the Group's broader sustainability and revenue generation outlook then they've missed something.

...

Chosun :gh:

Hehehe, Peace Chosun!

I totally understand what you are getting at and the work, create, conquer, innovate strategy has brought a lot of good stuff, but it does entail a risk. What if we do not find a way to keep up with humanity's ever growing needs for food, goodies and energy. I mean, for example the solar panels are very nice, but in order to produce them you need quite some expensive and not abundantly available materials such as silver and to keep up with the pace of of consumption growth, we need to import raw materials from mars and other planets by the end of this century :smoke:

I do not want to sound pessimistic or overly futuristic here. for reference: Bill Gates says we are in big trouble if we do not solve our energy issues and is quite skeptical of solar panels and Jeff Bezos recently said that he is heavily investing in space travel to avoid the so called "homeo stasis" due to lack of raw materials... o:D:bounce:
 
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