Cornell Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (6 Viewers)

[elkcub]

Mike,

It's not a secret that Gerhard Dobler designed the Chinese made Terra with such built in quality limitations to stay within the budget.
If this is an example of your statement how the Zeiss Board of Directors invests millions in Sport Optics, then -in my book- we will soon carry Zeiss Sport optics as an A-fabric to it's funeral.

I followed your reaction on Gijs his disclosure of the "Made in Germany" with great interest and I had prefered to see an reaction from Zeiss from this side of the ocean.

How Jerry reacted is below any civil communication level. Shame on you Jerry. Why you are present is on an international forum when your only contribution on this subject is bashing and narrow focust. Quote: I only believe people I trust and work for Zeiss.
And than you start insulting!!

But you gave me reason to react.

Mike states that Gijs's statement is not accurate and that he paints a very false picture.
And then there is no further explanation on the subject and we are to believe him, because, after all, he is the representative of Zeiss and says so.

Now I know Gijs his source also and knows he visits Zeiss Wetzlar more often than I take my dogs to the park.
I can imagine Zeiss wants to know who this person is. If you see how Gijs is treated, what will the Zeiss treatment be? Kill the messenger?
There is no reason for this person to lie about this subject because for us this item is not an issue.
It is long known that Kamakura builts the Conquests. It was denied by Zeiss first, but now they admitt.
Kamakura has the capacity of mass production. Something Zeiss does no longer has. Isn't the shipment to te US not 25000 pieces every time, Mike?
Labour prices in Japan is as high as in Germany, so sending Zeiss parts to Japan for further work, sending them back for assambly does not make any sense.
But now comes the little point of the "made in" issue, which by itself is no issue unless Zeiss wants his customers to believe they buy a Made in germany product instead of an blue labelled oriental product.

In that case Jane, our Canadian crocodilehunter is right when he stated that if that would be the case Bushnell could stamp "Made in Germany" in it and......double the prices.

Jan

Hear, hear. :t:

Ed

 

[kbrabble]

Mike,

It's not a secret that Gerhard Dobler designed the Chinese made Terra with such built in quality limitations to stay within the budget.
If this is an example of your statement how the Zeiss Board of Directors invests millions in Sport Optics, then -in my book- we will soon carry Zeiss Sport optics as an A-fabric to it's funeral.

I followed your reaction on Gijs his disclosure of the "Made in Germany" with great interest and I had prefered to see an reaction from Zeiss from this side of the ocean.

How Jerry reacted is below any civil communication level. Shame on you Jerry. Why you are present is on an international forum when your only contribution on this subject is bashing and narrow focust. Quote: I only believe people I trust and work for Zeiss.
And than you start insulting!!

But you gave me reason to react.

Mike states that Gijs's statement is not accurate and that he paints a very false picture.
And then there is no further explanation on the subject and we are to believe him, because, after all, he is the representative of Zeiss and says so.

Now I know Gijs his source also and knows he visits Zeiss Wetzlar more often than I take my dogs to the park.
I can imagine Zeiss wants to know who this person is. If you see how Gijs is treated, what will the Zeiss treatment be? Kill the messenger?
There is no reason for this person to lie about this subject because for us this item is not an issue.
It is long known that Kamakura builts the Conquests. It was denied by Zeiss first, but now they admitt.
Kamakura has the capacity of mass production. Something Zeiss does no longer has. Isn't the shipment to te US not 25000 pieces every time, Mike?
Labour prices in Japan is as high as in Germany, so sending Zeiss parts to Japan for further work, sending them back for assambly does not make any sense.
But now comes the little point of the "made in" issue, which by itself is no issue unless Zeiss wants his customers to believe they buy a Made in germany product instead of an blue labelled oriental product.

In that case Jane, our Canadian crocodilehunter is right when he stated that if that would be the case Bushnell could stamp "Made in Germany" in it and......double the prices.

Jan

I see the Terra a little different than you apparently. It is a well designed product that preforms as well or better than others in its price bracket. From comments made by Zeiss reps, its design necessarily had limitations to meet the target selling price, but it is still a solid performer with great build quality. Their mid-range and alpha level products are top notch, and competitive with anything out there. How is this leading to their funeral?

I have no doubt Kamakura plays a part in the production of the Conquest HD, but Zeiss would have to have a bigger part in that production, in Germany, than screwing on a set of eye cups, at least to mark them as 'Made in Germany' for import into the U.S.

I can also understand why some get defensive; there are many here who bash anything that is not from Swarovski no matter how good it is, and think anyone that publishes anything to the contrary must be being paid off. Zeiss's latest offerings are as good or better than the rest, so why is that so hard for some to accept, unless they have some bias of their own?

It would be nice to see an official statement by Zeiss on the production methods used for the Conquest HD, just to clear things up. As long as they are solid performers, and backed by Zeiss's warranty and service, it really does not matter. I doubt anyone at Zeiss is sweating the ramblings on a few internet forums enough to tell all the details.

 

[ceasar]

Bob,

You talk about the Nikon EDG dioptre adjustment being integrated with the focus wheel, but it isn't clear what you mean by that. I think that it is worthwhile differentiating between how it works and how, for instance, the Zeiss FL dioptre adjustment works.

The dioptre adjustment on the Nikon EDG is carried out directly by adjusting a separate dioptre wheel and this isn't connected to the focuser in any way. They are separate with the focus wheel not being used to adjust the dioptre setting as it is with the Zeiss FL. The problem of the moving dioptre on the EDG is due to the focus wheel binding on the dioptre adjustment ring if too much (heavy handed?) pressure is exerted on the objective end of the (floating) focus wheel and dragging it out of adjustment. It happens with the EDG ll as well.

Stan

Stan,

Yes I agree it is confusing.

I have a 10 x 32 EDG I so I understand what you are talking about and I agree with you. The EDG diopter is changed by pulling the cover of the focus wheel back and out of the way. The user then physically turns the diopter wheel to change it and then pushes the cover back over the diopter wheel. I've never seen a cutaway of it to see if it is integrated with the focusing mechanism.

On the Zeiss Victory FL (which I also have) the diopter is also changed by pulling back the focus wheel cover but then the cover has to be turned to change the diopter. There is a glimpse of it here but I can't tell how it works.

http://www.allbinos.com/238-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x42_T*_FL.html

My Swarovski SLC Neu has a button to push on the back of the focus wheel to change the diopter and my Leica Trinovid is also on the focus wheel but it's design is different. I don't know if any of these are integrated in any manner with the focus wheel. If they are, I can imagine that something could go wrong with them causing diopter drift.

I am curious, however, how this drift could be caused by the focusing of a binocular which has a diopter mechanism isolated on one of the objective tubes with one of the oculars as it appears to have happened on a Zeiss Conquest HD. See this recent comment:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2876145&postcount=7

Bob

 

[james holdsworth]

Oh yes James'

Call Mike Jensen.

Run.....

Unnecessary response. I want Mike to clear this matter up, as in provide more details. I don't really care who builds the Conquest, but I am still dubious that it is as easy as you say to slap a ''made in Germany'' label on a product bound for the USA or Canada.

Whoever builds the Conquest, it does seem as though they are not doing a good enough job - Japanese or German. Same goes for many Swaro.s, way too many failures to be considered acceptable.

Edit - re-reading this, I think Jan has just misinterpreted what was meant. I didn't mean I was on the phone to Mike Jensen, it was intended to get Mike to come back and clarify his own comments.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Holger,

On the subject of the "focus drift" you mention that has affected some of the Conquest HDs; I am wondering if this is "diopter drift" or "diopter migration?"

This problem is described in this recent thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2876145&postcount=7

I recall that there were similar problems with some Vortex models which had the diopter adjustment integrated with the focus wheel and with many of the binoculars it's setting would 'drift" or "migrate" during normal focusing. Nikon seems to have had the same problem with their EDG I when they first introduced it in the USA. It's diopter adjustment was also integrated with the focus wheel.

I've never seen the new Conquest HD but from the instructions on the Zeiss website and instructions there it appears that the diopter adjustment is isolated on the right eyepiece.

I am wondering how the diopter drift could happen while it is isolated like this?

Bob

Actually, the problem I faced (with two different 8x32 HD) was possibly of different kind: Whenever turning the central focus wheel, I had to re-adjust the diopter setting. I didn't have the impression that this was causing a systematic drift. Instead, it appeared that the both focusing lenses where tilting a little bit due to some mechanical play. Perhaps, the problem would have developed into a drift as described by Peter Kitchener, and I just owned the binocular over too short a period (just used it over 2-3 weeks during a test) to observe that.

I have mentioned it before: The design of the 8x32 Conquest HD focusing device is very ambitious: A very close focus of 1.5m, a very rapid speed of the wheel in order to cover the large focus-travel of the lenses - you don't need to be an engineer to imagine that these factors lead to rather tight tolerances for the mechanical layout of the gears. Perhaps too tight for a binocular of this price range. If Zeiss were smart, they would simply relax that design a bit, by shifting out the close focus to perhaps 2.5m and at the same time reducing the focus speed, thereby simplifying the entire mechanics (see: Swarovski's strategy with the new SLC).

Cheers,
Holger

 

[NDhunter]

Actually, the problem I faced (with two different 8x32 HD) was possibly of different kind: Whenever turning the central focus wheel, I had to re-adjust the diopter setting. I didn't have the impression that this was causing a systematic drift. Instead, it appeared that the both focusing lenses where tilting a little bit due to some mechanical play. Perhaps, the problem would have developed into a drift as described by Peter Kitchener, and I just owned the binocular over too short a period (just used it over 2-3 weeks during a test) to observe that.

I have mentioned it before: The design of the 8x32 Conquest HD focusing device is very ambitious: A very close focus of 1.5m, a very rapid speed of the wheel in order to cover the large focus-travel of the lenses - you don't need to be an engineer to imagine that these factors lead to rather tight tolerances for the mechanical layout of the gears. Perhaps too tight for a binocular of this price range. If Zeiss were smart, they would simply relax that design a bit, by shifting out the close focus to perhaps 2.5m and at the same time reducing the focus speed, thereby simplifying the entire mechanics (see: Swarovski's strategy with the new SLC).

Cheers,
Holger

Holger:

You seem to know a bit about this issue, and I am wondering if it just
with the 32mm's.

I have been enjoying my recent 10x42 Conquest HD, very nice optics,
the focus is faster than I prefer but it seems to work very well, as in
smooth and precise.
I do not have much of a need for the close focus ability as some do.
I would rather have things work well all around.

Jerry

 

[ceasar]

Actually, the problem I faced (with two different 8x32 HD) was possibly of different kind: Whenever turning the central focus wheel, I had to re-adjust the diopter setting. I didn't have the impression that this was causing a systematic drift. Instead, it appeared that the both focusing lenses where tilting a little bit due to some mechanical play. Perhaps, the problem would have developed into a drift as described by Peter Kitchener, and I just owned the binocular over too short a period (just used it over 2-3 weeks during a test) to observe that.

I have mentioned it before: The design of the 8x32 Conquest HD focusing device is very ambitious: A very close focus of 1.5m, a very rapid speed of the wheel in order to cover the large focus-travel of the lenses - you don't need to be an engineer to imagine that these factors lead to rather tight tolerances for the mechanical layout of the gears. Perhaps too tight for a binocular of this price range. If Zeiss were smart, they would simply relax that design a bit, by shifting out the close focus to perhaps 2.5m and at the same time reducing the focus speed, thereby simplifying the entire mechanics (see: Swarovski's strategy with the new SLC).

Cheers,
Holger

Thanks Holger!

That clears it up. Appreciate your addressing it.:t:

Bob

 

[james holdsworth]

Actually, the problem I faced (with two different 8x32 HD) was possibly of different kind: Whenever turning the central focus wheel, I had to re-adjust the diopter setting. I didn't have the impression that this was causing a systematic drift. Instead, it appeared that the both focusing lenses where tilting a little bit due to some mechanical play. Perhaps, the problem would have developed into a drift as described by Peter Kitchener, and I just owned the binocular over too short a period (just used it over 2-3 weeks during a test) to observe that.

I have mentioned it before: The design of the 8x32 Conquest HD focusing device is very ambitious: A very close focus of 1.5m, a very rapid speed of the wheel in order to cover the large focus-travel of the lenses - you don't need to be an engineer to imagine that these factors lead to rather tight tolerances for the mechanical layout of the gears. Perhaps too tight for a binocular of this price range. If Zeiss were smart, they would simply relax that design a bit, by shifting out the close focus to perhaps 2.5m and at the same time reducing the focus speed, thereby simplifying the entire mechanics (see: Swarovski's strategy with the new SLC).

Cheers,
Holger

Zeiss seemed to have managed the same feat in the $350.00 Terra - a 5 ft. close focus and a total travel of less than one full turn to infinity - in a similar package to the Conquests. Seems like about the same amount of space in the bridge to fit the focus mechanism.

Bausch and Lomb was able to do the same, nearly twenty years ago, with the Elite's - superfast, close focusing. It shouldn't be rocket science.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Zeiss seemed to have managed the same feat in the $350.00 Terra - a 5 ft. close focus and a total travel of less than one full turn to infinity - in a similar package to the Conquests. Seems like about the same amount of space in the bridge to fit the focus mechanism.

Bausch and Lomb was able to do the same, nearly twenty years ago, with the Elite's - superfast, close focusing. It shouldn't be rocket science.

That is right - it shouldn't be rocket science, yet, there are these problems. Perhaps, the mechanism had to be too simple (cost efficiency) or too flimsy (weight reduction) for its task, or the manufacturer has simply forgotten how to make such a device

The Terra is new, and it's users are possibly less critical than the alpha-users, let's wait and see how reliable their focusing mechanism will turn out.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[perterra]

That is right - it shouldn't be rocket science, yet, there are these problems. Perhaps, the mechanism had to be too simple (cost efficiency) or too flimsy (weight reduction) for its task, or the manufacturer has simply forgotten how to make such a device

The Terra is new, and it's users are possibly less critical than the alpha-users, let's wait and see how reliable their focusing mechanism will turn out.

Cheers,
Holger

It is pretty close to rocket science in a lot of ways. The parts dont make theirselves.

It's not hard too see where a design will work great in the prototype stage, or even in an initial run before tolerances start stacking in full production. It's a problem for every producer of all items that are running high production speeds.

 

[Troubador]

It is pretty close to rocket science in a lot of ways. The parts dont make theirselves.

It's not hard too see where a design will work great in the prototype stage, or even in an initial run before tolerances start stacking in full production. It's a problem for every producer of all items that are running high production speeds.

Think you put your finger on it Perterra.

It appears to be a minority of Conquests that are (possibly were, if Zeiss have fixed it) affected, so the question is why this sub-group.

Presumably its a combination of tolerances on several components that come together to produce this, or possibly just one component when it reaches the outer limits of its allowed tolerances.

I am doubtful that 'over-ambition' is the downfall of the focus / diopter system here, and suspect a too-rushed development programme and insufficiently rigorous testing of pre-production batches.

But what do I know?

Lee

 

[Stanbo]

Actually, the problem I faced (with two different 8x32 HD) was possibly of different kind: Whenever turning the central focus wheel, I had to re-adjust the diopter setting. I didn't have the impression that this was causing a systematic drift. Instead, it appeared that the both focusing lenses where tilting a little bit due to some mechanical play. Perhaps, the problem would have developed into a drift as described by Peter Kitchener, and I just owned the binocular over too short a period (just used it over 2-3 weeks during a test) to observe that.

I have mentioned it before: The design of the 8x32 Conquest HD focusing device is very ambitious: A very close focus of 1.5m, a very rapid speed of the wheel in order to cover the large focus-travel of the lenses - you don't need to be an engineer to imagine that these factors lead to rather tight tolerances for the mechanical layout of the gears. Perhaps too tight for a binocular of this price range. If Zeiss were smart, they would simply relax that design a bit, by shifting out the close focus to perhaps 2.5m and at the same time reducing the focus speed, thereby simplifying the entire mechanics (see: Swarovski's strategy with the new SLC).

Cheers,
Holger

A very succinct answer Holger that would indicate that the problem is not the dioptre setting drifting, but a focusing problem with the dioptre adjustment being used excessively to compensate for that rather than for the more normal differences between our eyes. Or have I misinterpreted what you are suggesting.

Stan

 

[Hermann]

It appears to be a minority of Conquests that are (possibly were, if Zeiss have fixed it) affected, so the question is why this sub-group.

Sure, but please note that there are reports of this problem developing over a period of several months. There are also a couple of reports of 8x32s that were sent back to Zeiss and still had problems when they were returned.

I am doubtful that 'over-ambition' is the downfall of the focus / diopter system here, and suspect a too-rushed development programme and insufficiently rigorous testing of pre-production batches.

May be both. However, a (very) close focus coupled with a compact body necessitates the use of strong negative elements in the focuser - and the stronger the negative elements in the focuser are, the smaller the tolerances become. Note that the focuser is pretty fast which may lead to additional problems.

The 8x42 and the 10x42 seem to be less critical in that respect, and interestingly virtually all the reports of this problem I've seen concern the 8x32.

Hermann

 

[Troubador]

Sure, but please note that there are reports of this problem developing over a period of several months. There are also a couple of reports of 8x32s that were sent back to Zeiss and still had problems when they were returned.



May be both. However, a (very) close focus coupled with a compact body necessitates the use of strong negative elements in the focuser - and the stronger the negative elements in the focuser are, the smaller the tolerances become. Note that the focuser is pretty fast which may lead to additional problems.

The 8x42 and the 10x42 seem to be less critical in that respect, and interestingly virtually all the reports of this problem I've seen concern the 8x32.

Hermann

And yet the Conquest 42s seem to have their own issues with regard to blackouts, and both appear to have eyecups of dubious functionality, although hopefully the redesigned cups apparently promised for early next year will sort this out.

Lee

 

[dalat]

I followed your reaction on Gijs his disclosure of the "Made in Germany" with great interest and I had prefered to see an reaction from Zeiss from this side of the ocean.

After almost a year of absence, Jan comes back to assist his compatriote in subtle Zeiss bashing and Swaro loving. Am I paranoid, or do I see here an Austro-Dutch anti-German coalition at work? :-O
Come on guys, reserve your emotions for football and keep it out of talk on transmission values and manufacturing legislation 3

 

[Chris 37]

. . . Note that the focuser is pretty fast which may lead to additional problems.
The 8x42 and the 10x42 seem to be less critical in that respect, and interestingly virtually all the reports of this problem I've seen concern the 8x32.

Hermann

As we have discussed in the German Forum, the focus of the 8x42 (not sure about the 10x42) is slower than the 8x32. That could be a reason why the problems seem to be with the 8x32.
.

 

[jan van daalen]

I see the Terra a little different than you apparently. It is a well designed product that preforms as well or better than others in its price bracket. From comments made by Zeiss reps, its design necessarily had limitations to meet the target selling price, but it is still a solid performer with great build quality. Their mid-range and alpha level products are top notch, and competitive with anything out there. How is this leading to their funeral?

I have no doubt Kamakura plays a part in the production of the Conquest HD, but Zeiss would have to have a bigger part in that production, in Germany, than screwing on a set of eye cups, at least to mark them as 'Made in Germany' for import into the U.S.

I can also understand why some get defensive; there are many here who bash anything that is not from Swarovski no matter how good it is, and think anyone that publishes anything to the contrary must be being paid off. Zeiss's latest offerings are as good or better than the rest, so why is that so hard for some to accept, unless they have some bias of their own?

It would be nice to see an official statement by Zeiss on the production methods used for the Conquest HD, just to clear things up. As long as they are solid performers, and backed by Zeiss's warranty and service, it really does not matter. I doubt anyone at Zeiss is sweating the ramblings on a few internet forums enough to tell all the details.

kbrabble,

Being an optic purist an following the market from an professional point of view it breaks (to put it in drama) my heart to see an A-fabric outsources the way Zeiss does.
Zeiss was the proud leader of the pack for over a hundred years and since they lost the battle with the EL/SV they are letting their pants down.
Now a days Zeiss optics generates only a few% to the Zeiss income. But Zeiss is Optics and Optics is Zeiss!!!
Name anywhere in the world the name Zeiss and the response is optics and telescopes. Name Swarovski and you will hear bling bling!
But Swaro has taken over and a bunch of suits who only have eyes for the stockhoulders interest made it happen. The icon, the leader is gone.
And now they are going oriental on a way earlier described.
This will bring them to the funeral as an A-fabric, in my humble opinion.

If Leica or Swarovski would act the way Zeiss does lately I would react the same!
Suggesting bias/hidden agenda's etc. is too easy and stands only a constructive forum info exchange in the way.

But that's me talking

Jan

 

[hinnark]

Hi Jan,

who have waken you up?
Like most companies Zeiss are reigned by MBAs. These guys are interested in profit and not many more. They want to see profit with every series of binoculars, that's for sure. I don't know where the Conquests are produced. If the speculation about 'Made in Germany' here is correct they had a forerunner to do so and he had success in doing that. MBA thinking says: 'If someone has success just copy him to get a quick success by yourself'. $64 question for you (as you are perhaps the only one who knows the answer here): Who was that forerunner?

BTW, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time that MBAs get takeover at Swaro's.

Steve

 

[mjensen6577]

Unnecessary response. I want Mike to clear this matter up, as in provide more details. I don't really care who builds the Conquest, but I am still dubious that it is as easy as you say to slap a ''made in Germany'' label on a product bound for the USA or Canada.

Whoever builds the Conquest, it does seem as though they are not doing a good enough job - Japanese or German. Same goes for many Swaro.s, way too many failures to be considered acceptable.

Edit - re-reading this, I think Jan has just misinterpreted what was meant. I didn't mean I was on the phone to Mike Jensen, it was intended to get Mike to come back and clarify his own comments.

To best clarify this situation, here is the best corporate view that I can post.

First, my previous comment about "facts are not correct" was totally intended to paint the picture that Zeiss does not simply "purchase and screw on eyecups". Tremendous effort and money has gone into the Conquest HD line and Zeiss is NOT a simple screwdriver shop. The complexities to get this done go far beyond all of our thoughts, mine included. If I insulted anybody with this comment, my apologies.

Next, "Made in" discussion. Zeiss has not hidden the fact that our 3 tier strategy uses different global advantages.
Victory: made in house, best that Zeiss can offer.
Conquest: a complex blend between manufacturing and sourcing.
Terra: designed, engineered, QC and warranty by Zeiss, with production out-sourced

Product management develops the products and determines what we make ourselves and what we source based on the product design, specs and line strategy. When the product build plan is done, it goes to our legal department to evaluate the process and provide us with directions on how to mark the product. We simply follow legal guidelines. In my time at Zeiss, I have not ever heard that product management is building products with specs to attain markings. The Conquest line falls into that strategy. Partially made by us, partially outsourced components and / or sub components, finished and QC'd in Germany, and marked based on the legal guidelines given to us. What is or is not done in house I cannot divulge. I'm sure you understand.

Regarding comment about Zeiss "going away":
We ALL clearly understand that although Zeiss was the leader in optics for 100 years +, we fell asleep and let others take a leading consumer market role. The good news is that Sports Optic is completely awake now and regaining what we have lost. Our 3 tier plan will build a giant base of users that become loyal to the Zeiss brand. Loyal users trade up. As long as we make "best of class" highly competitive products in the Terra and Conquest categories, AND continue to make new HT quality of products and expand the Victory offerings, it's only a matter when we control the top tier, not if. However, investments are substantial to do this. Marketing and communication expenses have to be reinvented. We've made HUGE strides in this over the last 24 month, with a lot more work to do. And for investments in products? A single new Victory product is into the 7 figures of investment. A Conquest product line (HD's), is also into the 7 figure range. In the last 24 months, we've introduced 57 sku's spanning 12 product classes across 3 product tiers... with GREAT things to come. All in, yea, we are pouring investments into our future.

So, I hope this settles some of the questions from this thread and explains a bit better why we do what we do. Also, apologies again for my comment to Giji.

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Jan,

who have waken you up?
Like most companies Zeiss are reigned by MBAs. These guys are interested in profit and not many more. They want to see profit with every series of binoculars, that's for sure. I don't know where the Conquests are produced. If the speculation about 'Made in Germany' here is correct they had a forerunner to do so and he had success in doing that. MBA thinking says: 'If someone has success just copy him to get a quick success by yourself'. $64 question for you (as you are perhaps the only one who knows the answer here): Who was that forerunner?

BTW, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time that MBAs get takeover at Swaro's.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You don't wanna know!!!

Since Leica is bought by a guy called Kaufmann who inhereted an immense amount of money and got the brilliant idea: "What the heck, let's buy Leica", is Swarovski, THANK YOU LORD, a family owned enterprise. That means old money and that means pride to the roots of the family's enterprise first for the long run and NOT for the quick bucks to collect their bonus.

I surely hope not to live long enough to see otherwise!!

Got confirmed that my little House does more in bins than Zeiss does in the entire BeNeLux.

WAKE UP ZEISS.

You can't allways blame it on the cook!

Jan