Cornell Lab Review - Zeiss Did Very Well Here (1 Viewer)

[perterra]

While there might an element of risk that some people may try a Terra and because its a Zeiss, be disappointed that it is not a world beating instrument, I don't think this is a big danger Jan.

Lots of people today don't know Zeiss and of course this is because for a time Zeiss fell asleep at the wheel.

Folks can look at the price list and will draw their own conclusions about what they can expect from a Terra at $350 or Conquest HD at $970 or a Victory HT at $2200. I don't think that too many folks are going to expect the same from Terra as from HT and therefore end up being disappointed and anti-Zeiss.

Do I wish that Zeiss could accomplish all of this by manufacturing everything in Wetzlar? In my heart, yes. But my head knows this is impossible in today's world and I think Zeiss's three tier strategy is the best way forward.

TroubaLee

I think you are right, I woke last night and thought about this thread. I didnt wake up to think about it, I woke up because I have pulled a muscle in my foot and it was throbbing, I just happened to think about it while laying there trying to think about anything but the throbbing arch of my foot.

Sales is a hobby of mine, okay, it's my job, but with what I'm making these days I feel better calling it a hobby than a job. And from my perspective I dont see much danger in the Zeiss 3 tier biz model other than getting a high quality product into customers hands at affordable for the masses prices, it may well cut in to the sales of the top tier products. I suspect (similar to think, but less informed) top tier optics is not a self supporting business. If it were we wouldnt see all the other stuff attached to the companies. Zeiss, Swaro, Leica and Nikon would peddle nothing but the best product lines. Dig through the annual reports and sport optics is a drop in the bucket even within the business unit it resides. It's a big drop, but its a big bucket.

If I were an investor I would think Swaro may be the one who's biz model is most fraught with peril, a limited pool of customers with a limited offering. Great optics, but when your selling high end, the world aint your oyster regardless of what you may think. When your biggest goal is to bring a more expensive binocular your pool of customers gets smaller. Sure it's better, but less people will spend.

I would be willing to bet that what Zeiss learns from the foray into the Terra type category will strengthen the company as a whole. Like you, I would love to see a domestic produced product but it is what it is and until the buying public changes it's Walmart mentality it will stay that way.

The sales part is fun, trying to decipher what people are saying and what they mean can be hard to do. I keep hearing Zeiss is/was asleep at the wheel, but then I read the little Conquest is a smokin ass good bino that delivers within a blond hairs performance of binocs costing thousands more. It should be a fun year.

 

[jan van daalen]

I think you are right, I woke last night and thought about this thread. I didnt wake up to think about it, I woke up because I have pulled a muscle in my foot and it was throbbing, I just happened to think about it while laying there trying to think about anything but the throbbing arch of my foot.

Sales is a hobby of mine, okay, it's my job, but with what I'm making these days I feel better calling it a hobby than a job. And from my perspective I dont see much danger in the Zeiss 3 tier biz model other than getting a high quality product into customers hands at affordable for the masses prices, it may well cut in to the sales of the top tier products. I suspect (similar to think, but less informed) top tier optics is not a self supporting business. If it were we wouldnt see all the other stuff attached to the companies. Zeiss, Swaro, Leica and Nikon would peddle nothing but the best product lines. Dig through the annual reports and sport optics is a drop in the bucket even within the business unit it resides. It's a big drop, but its a big bucket.

If I were an investor I would think Swaro may be the one who's biz model is most fraught with peril, a limited pool of customers with a limited offering. Great optics, but when your selling high end, the world aint your oyster regardless of what you may think. When your biggest goal is to bring a more expensive binocular your pool of customers gets smaller. Sure it's better, but less people will spend.

I would be willing to bet that what Zeiss learns from the foray into the Terra type category will strengthen the company as a whole. Like you, I would love to see a domestic produced product but it is what it is and until the buying public changes it's Walmart mentality it will stay that way.

The sales part is fun, trying to decipher what people are saying and what they mean can be hard to do. I keep hearing Zeiss is/was asleep at the wheel, but then I read the little Conquest is a smokin ass good bino that delivers within a blond hairs performance of binocs costing thousands more. It should be a fun year.

Per Terra,

Looking at your name and job description you've got to be working at/for Zeiss

I personally would not fit in Nikon with the big four as Nikon (at least down here and that's what counts for us) sucks completely on after sales.

Leaves us the other three. Of these, only Zeiss has a three tier sales strategy. Leica and Swarovski don't!! So I can't agree with your statement.
There was a time Leica survived thanks to optics. Maybe now it's a little bit the other way around, but both do their separating things in one company. Swarovski Optik has nothing to do with Crystal, neither does Zeiss Sport Optics have anything to do with Zeiss Medical.

Call it vision. Time will tell. MagLite lost supremacy because they didn't believe in LED. Neither did leica on digital. Maybe Zeiss is right with this vision on the long run.
But sales comes with education. Customers usually upgrade when confronted with quality bins. Given no choice, yes the Conquests level is acceptable. Terra's isn't. No way. Yes, for a Chinese brand label. Not with a Zeiss brand label.
And as long a that brain dead box moving optic salesman sells that level under the argumentation "They are both Zeiss. Same specs. Only this one is cheaper. I would go for this one", there is a long long way to go!

This problem can't occur with Leica and Swarovski. That's the difference.

Jan

 

[perterra]

Per Terra,

Looking at your name and job description you've got to be working at/for Zeiss

I personally would not fit in Nikon with the big four as Nikon (at least down here and that's what counts for us) sucks completely on after sales.

Leaves us the other three. Of these, only Zeiss has a three tier sales strategy. Leica and Swarovski don't!! So I can't agree with your statement.
There was a time Leica survived thanks to optics. Maybe now it's a little bit the other way around, but both do their separating things in one company. Swarovski Optik has nothing to do with Crystal, neither does Zeiss Sport Optics have anything to do with Zeiss Medical.

Call it vision. Time will tell. MagLite lost supremacy because they didn't believe in LED. Neither did leica on digital. Maybe Zeiss is right with this vision on the long run.
But sales comes with education. Customers usually upgrade when confronted with quality bins. Given no choice, yes the Conquests level is acceptable. Terra's isn't. No way. Yes, for a Chinese brand label. Not with a Zeiss brand label.
And as long a that brain dead box moving optic salesman sells that level under the argumentation "They are both Zeiss. Same specs. Only this one is cheaper. I would go for this one", there is a long long way to go!

This problem can't occur with Leica and Swarovski. That's the difference.

Jan

Perterra comes from my ancestry, per terras, per mare. I had the name first. 3 I registered here a couple years before it hit the market, even more so on the SWFA forum. What I sell are chemicals and industrial gases. Dont even own a Zeiss so discount any affiliations.

From an investment standpoint, what Zeiss is doing makes more sense. Dont look at your perception of quality, look at sales. It's pretty simple, if they dont sell enough to pay the bills, they dont stay in business regardless of quality. They are assuring they will be selling into the future almost regardless of market conditions.

I would also warn against assuming because you havent seen your definition of quality come from China that it cant be produced in China. No country has a lock on good engineers and good production techniques. I heard the same assumptions growing up about Japanese automobiles and motorcycles. They were false then, they would be false now.

This story wont play out in a year, but give it five years and we will start to know whether it bears fruit.

For someone who competes with Zeiss products, you do seem very worried about their direction.

 

[mjensen6577]

Wow, really and genuinely a conceptually interesting exchange with a lot of valuable take aways. Thx

 

[perterra]

Wow, really and genuinely a conceptually interesting exchange with a lot of valuable take aways. Thx

The back and forth is fun, I enjoy it. Coming from a business where argon is argon and limonene is limonene you tend to stress service more than product brand name. I'm not as convinced as Jan is that customers automatically upgrade on just quality. I think they upgrade when they can see a clear incontrovertible difference that justifys the upgrade, otherwise I'm not convinced. (this forum is probably an exception)

I tend not to look at people buying the binocular for a binocular as such, he wants to buy a look, to put it another way, in the world of heavy industry the guy wanting to buy a drill isnt wanting to buy a drill, he is wanting to buy a hole in something, the drill is just a means to the end, the guy buying the hammer isnt wanting a hammer as much as he is wanting a driven nail, again, the hammer is the means to an end. If you have a less expensive way to get get him what he wishes, then you are selling something your competitor is not, and thats service.

 

[Troubador]

The back and forth is fun, I enjoy it. Coming from a business where argon is argon and limonene is limonene you tend to stress service more than product brand name. I'm not as convinced as Jan is that customers automatically upgrade on just quality. I think they upgrade when they can see a clear incontrovertible difference that justifys the upgrade, otherwise I'm not convinced. (this forum is probably an exception)

I tend not to look at people buying the binocular for a binocular as such, he wants to buy a look, to put it another way, in the world of heavy industry the guy wanting to buy a drill isnt wanting to buy a drill, he is wanting to buy a hole in something, the drill is just a means to the end, the guy buying the hammer isnt wanting a hammer as much as he is wanting a driven nail, again, the hammer is the means to an end. If you have a less expensive way to get get him what he wishes, then you are selling something your competitor is not, and thats service.

Perterra

What you describe is undoubtedly true. But there is another factor. If the binocular analogy to the drilled hole is the view it provides (and while a hole is a hole, a 'view' is beset with subjective factors) there is also the way the binoculars handle as they deliver the view. The way they feel in the hand (size, shape, texture, weight, balance), the way the focuser allows, or doesn't allow, a fast focus capture or exquisitely fine focus adjustment, the way they hang on the chest comfortably (or not). I am sure there are parallels with drills too.

In other words its not just whether the bins (or drill) get the job done and deliver the end result, its also whether you enjoy the process of doing it.

Providing that little sprinkle of magic is what can separate the excellent from the merely 'very good'.

Lee

 

[perterra]

Perterra

What you describe is undoubtedly true. But there is another factor. If the binocular analogy to the drilled hole is the view it provides (and while a hole is a hole, a 'view' is beset with subjective factors) there is also the way the binoculars handle as they deliver the view. The way they feel in the hand (size, shape, texture, weight, balance), the way the focuser allows, or doesn't allow, a fast focus capture or exquisitely fine focus adjustment, the way they hang on the chest comfortably (or not). I am sure there are parallels with drills too.

In other words its not just whether the bins (or drill) get the job done and deliver the end result, its also whether you enjoy the process of doing it.

Providing that little sprinkle of magic is what can separate the excellent from the merely 'very good'.

Lee

I would agree that there are many different types of users. I think birding may be the one user who really pays attention to the nuances of the view. But I still say for the masses, for the folks that may be the target audience for a low to mid range that the terra comes in on the high side of, the binoc is a tool first and foremost, and not a objet d'art. I could be wrong, it's just my view that in many cases the reason the super premium product may be purchased is the status it affords the user. As I read in one of the threads somewhere on here, the ability to holds ones head up and stick out their chest when they use it.

I think jremmons said that the field biologist he worked with tended to use less than top of the line binocs, so these folks spend a lot of time in the field but carry less than prime in many case. To thim, it's a tool. I once spent $60 on one of the first Hart hammers that came out. When the guy made them in California in his garage. It was a masterpiece of a hammer, looked great, polished steel, hand chosen wood. What I found out with it was it didnt really drive nails any better than my $16 Estwing and the average Joe Lunchbucket saw no status as he didnt know what it was, or even really care. My view on many things has been changing every since that day 25 years ago. Heck, my truck has roll up windows. ||

I guess I would concede the argument if I felt like super premium binocs made up the lions share of binocs sold. But I dont think so, it seems the average wage of us earthlings is falling every year. If that is true, then where would the most growth potential lie?

 

[lmans66]

Which bino to purchase depends on the 'use' and also who is buying it. I have been part of government organizations where they will purchase bino's for their employees but they have to fit within the budget. I might guess that the budget will not always fit the desire, thus a lower priced bino might be purchased.

Also...what is the use? If I am in the field every day and I don't need a bino that is particularly sharp, such as when I did research on the salt water with whales...why use an expensive pair that might get dropped in the ocean or caked with salt? Also, whales do not usually need a sharp pair to ID or scout out. I might add that I don't use my best camera lens either. My Tokina 80-400 will work do just the job as my Canon L's.

If I am a field biologist scouting out deer or elk to ID ranges or numbers...again, you can do that with a Tasco.

But if I have a keen interest in bird ID's for a hobby...well,...the use of a sharp bino is what is called for, in my thinking. They make my hobby more pleasurable, which is the goal of a hobby, right?

 

[perterra]

But if I have a keen interest in bird ID's for a hobby...well,...the use of a sharp bino is what is called for, in my thinking. They make my hobby more pleasurable, which is the goal of a hobby, right?

I agree completely with your whole post

 

[Troubador]

I would agree that there are many different types of users. I think birding may be the one user who really pays attention to the nuances of the view. But I still say for the masses, for the folks that may be the target audience for a low to mid range that the terra comes in on the high side of, the binoc is a tool first and foremost, and not a objet d'art. I could be wrong, it's just my view that in many cases the reason the super premium product may be purchased is the status it affords the user. As I read in one of the threads somewhere on here, the ability to holds ones head up and stick out their chest when they use it.

I think jremmons said that the field biologist he worked with tended to use less than top of the line binocs, so these folks spend a lot of time in the field but carry less than prime in many case. To thim, it's a tool. I once spent $60 on one of the first Hart hammers that came out. When the guy made them in California in his garage. It was a masterpiece of a hammer, looked great, polished steel, hand chosen wood. What I found out with it was it didnt really drive nails any better than my $16 Estwing and the average Joe Lunchbucket saw no status as he didnt know what it was, or even really care. My view on many things has been changing every since that day 25 years ago. Heck, my truck has roll up windows. ||

I guess I would concede the argument if I felt like super premium binocs made up the lions share of binocs sold. But I dont think so, it seems the average wage of us earthlings is falling every year. If that is true, then where would the most growth potential lie?

PT

Once again, I wouldn't argue against any of that. I was talking about bins in general and not focusing on the middle and lower end, and for sure, I agree with you, that what I was positing applies more to the alpha level bins and the more dedicated users.

While Jan has his doubts and I can see where they come from, I think that Zeiss's provision of a good value basic tool (Terra) also provides the first rung on the ladder for those who develop a taste for bins and the enjoyment they can bring.

As Mike Jensen said, there has been much to ponder about in this thread and not least have been your contributions.

By the way your motto of 'by land, by sea' would sit well in the vicinity of the Scottish Western Isles where we do much of our binoculars-wielding as a 19th century visitor to the islands described them in this way: 'All the sea is land and all the land is water', referring to the staggering interconnected ribbons of land, fresh water and sea.

Lee

 

[dwever]

Dialogue At Some Levels For It's Own Sake

I am all for going from better to best, but this part

 

[perterra]

PT

Once again, I wouldn't argue against any of that. I was talking about bins in general and not focusing on the middle and lower end, and for sure, I agree with you, that what I was positing applies more to the alpha level bins and the more dedicated users.

While Jan has his doubts and I can see where they come from, I think that Zeiss's provision of a good value basic tool (Terra) also provides the first rung on the ladder for those who develop a taste for bins and the enjoyment they can bring.

As Mike Jensen said, there has been much to ponder about in this thread and not least have been your contributions.

By the way your motto of 'by land, by sea' would sit well in the vicinity of the Scottish Western Isles where we do much of our binoculars-wielding as a 19th century visitor to the islands described them in this way: 'All the sea is land and all the land is water', referring to the staggering interconnected ribbons of land, fresh water and sea.

Lee

When you put it that way it is easier to see as a stepping stone to higher quality and I think it covers both sides, those of us who look at it as a tool, and those who are interested in the intricacy of the bino.


225 years ago would have found my ancestors on the isles, we left during the lowland clearances to end up in Tennessee, 160 years ago found us in Tejas. My direct ancestors were gone by the time of the highland clearances.

 

[Troubador]

I am all for going from better to best, but this part

Dwever

Errm. Did you mean to add something else here?
I'm struggling a bit to know what you are saying as it looks as though you stopped in mid-sentence.

Lee

 

[lmans66]

I just saw the latest Cornell Lab Autumn 2013 Living Bird mag in the mail....This is where they have a quick write-up on their bino review. To be honest...they didn't point out a true winner in the Alpha category since the scores were so close. But surely the HT, Swaro and Leica were the best.

But to put forth Zeiss quality...the Conquest was best in the $700-1999 bracket....not bad. And the Zeiss Terra came in second to the Monarch 5 in the 200-399 class.

Clearly Zeiss has it right....

 

[brocknroller]

That sounds very good indeed. I thought it was tragic when Zeiss seemed to fall asleep, as you put it, after the introduction of the Victory FL range, and basically left the high-end market to Swarovski. I'm not sure about the Conquest and the Terra, but the HT, a fantastic binocular, is a sure sign things are moving in the right direction again.

So, what can Zeiss do, given that there are already some excellent binoculars and scopes on the market, not just from Swarovski, but also from Nikon? It's hard to see an increase of 1 or 2 percent in transmission making much difference, anything over 90% transmission is already very good indeed. With modern coatings and AK prisms it may just be possible to get to something like 96% - but would that really matter all that much?

I personally feel there are two areas where some really significant progress can still be made:

- An increase in the field of view to about 70 degrees AFOV (or more). That's in my opinion perhaps the most obvious way forward, provided the sweetspot is large enough. No need for absolute sharpness to the edge, not with such a large field of view. But a field of view of 130m/1000m for a 10x, that's something I'm sure many birders would like to see because it does make quite a difference in the field. Alright, a large field of view necessitates large prisms, but the Zeiss 10x50 porro with its over-sized prisms still only weighed about 1000 gr.

- A stabilizer that doesn't introduce any funny artifacts like the Canon stabilizer and is at least reasonably robust for field use. What's the efficiency of a handheld 10x binocular nowadays, given the progress made in ergonomics? 60-65 percent? The old studies (e.g. Brunnckow, Reeger, Siedentopf 1943) suggested it was something like 56 percent. But even if it's a bit higher nowadays, it's still surely around 60 percent, perhaps a bit more. With a stabilizer I suspect it would be closer to 80+ percent, and that *does* make a difference in the field.

My guess is the next big step forward will be the introduction of binoculars with larger fields of view. The interest that followed the launch of the Kite 8x30 with 150m/1000m and the love afforded on this forum to the Nikon 8x30 EII (which isn't really *that* good optically) seems to vindicate this view.

And a 10x or 12x binocular with a good (preferably mechanical) stabilizer would be a killer like anyone who ever used a binocular with a good stabilizer can attest. Zeiss already has the technology, the 20x60S and the 20x60S Mono are proof of that, even though I don't of course know if that kind of stabilizer can be used for smaller binoculars.

Hermann

Have you tried an 8x30 EII? It is THAT good and then some. But it's not a roof. If there were an 8x roof with as good optical performance and as wide a FOV, you wouldn't be asking Zeiss to make one.

As Jan would say, I rest my case.

Brock

 

[Kevin Conville]

175 posts regarding this yet another poorly done and certainly pointless review.

Bored are we?

 

[John Dracon]

There is an interesting evolution going on in sports optics today which is illustrated by their advertising. Here in the U.S. Swarovski binoculars and spotting scopes have been heavily advertised for years. In places such as Montana, which has thousands of hunters, both resident and non-resident, each year, many hunters of modest means carry Swarovki binoculars.

A standing joke among salesmen in sporting goods stores here is the play-on-words for Swarovki which they refer to as "Divorski." since many household budgets have been strained paying for what some hunters believe will give them an edge.

Both Leica and Zeiss binoculars are not common among hunters here. But inexpensive binoculars and nol so inexpensive binoculars from Nikon, Bushnell, and a host of other companies help fill the gap. A visit to almost any sporting goods store in the mountain west will show the patterns of optics display.

More of a complete line of Swarovkis are on display than the other alphas. Obviously the purchaser often doesn't see other models to compare. And the salesmen push the high end stuff because the margin of profit is higher. Bottom line all the way.

But recently lines like Vortex are introducing sportsmen to binoculars of near alpha quality. And more people are becoming bird watchers and hence make dual use of their optics. Women are now the potential growth audience for binocular sales for a variety of reasons, but they generally prefer more compact binoculars than hunters use.

Coming back to advertising, Zeiss in the U.S. has picked up its advertising campaigns on binoculars. Full page advertisements of the current Zeiss triad
are appearing in sporting magazines. It shows the Victory HT centered with the Conquest HD to the left and the Terra ED to the right, all shown proportionately in size.

The message is unmistakable. Zeiss has three lines it will sell you. One may not be able to afford the HT and HD, but the ED? It isn't an alpha, but for the average bloke, who needs one? The Terra is actually very good for the price. Actually astondingly good when one considers the cost of quality binoculars 50 years ago. Today we are living in an optical cornucopia.

I'm waiting for a Terra ED 8x32 to be advertised.

John

 

[Troubador]

Interesting that John's scenario has retailers pushing the most expensive bins (for the margin) and Jan's has them pushing the cheapest (for the units sold).

Undoubtedly both behaviours exist.

Perhaps its an altitude thing as the Netherlands is mostly at or below sea-level and John's retailers are up in the Western Mountains o.

Lee

 

[perterra]

175 posts regarding this yet another poorly done and certainly pointless review.

Bored are we?

I wouldnt call it pointless, it just doesnt delve in to the minutiae of specifications that I would say most dont care about. Scientific testing gives you absolutes, but absolutes dont give you a feel of how well it all works together, just gives you what the intruments tell you. All the shaprness in the world brought to light by the most expensive glass known to man means little if they dont fit or feel right.

I once bought a car based on the published specs in magazines, it was a real little hot rod, what you got from reading specs was it stuck to the road like glue, accelerated like a scalded dog, stopped in an amazingly short distance, what you couldnt get from the specs was that it rode like a wagon with wood blocks for springs, rattled like a box of rocks, steering was so tight if you sneezed at 75 mph you would change lanes, it ate $250 apiece tires every 12,000 miles, you couldnt park far enough from a curb to keep from knocking the front spoiler off and it drug the front every time you entered a parking lot.. It was beast that loved to run, it was also a beast to live with. Maintenance was a bear, it blew turbo seals like clock work and spent as much time in the shop as it did on the road. After 2 years of wrestling with it I got rid myself of it and got a nice little sports coupe that wasnt rated as highly, had half as much horsepower, rode nice but firm. I learned specs dont tell the whole story.

How this relates to Cornells test, they gave them to people to use and said which do you like the most. They got an answer, one that many here dont seem to agree with. But it's a cross section of people who liked them so I wouldnt say it carrys no weight. If I were the maker of one of the optics that didnt do well, I would be looking at what they didnt like and working to make it better for more users.

 

[james holdsworth]

I wouldnt call it pointless, it just doesnt delve in to the minutiae of specifications that I would say most dont care about. Scientific testing gives you absolutes, but absolutes dont give you a feel of how well it all works together, just gives you what the intruments tell you. All the shaprness in the world brought to light by the most expensive glass known to man means little if they dont fit or feel right.

I once bought a car based on the published specs in magazines, it was a real little hot rod, what you got from reading specs was it stuck to the road like glue, accelerated like a scalded dog, stopped in an amazingly short distance, what you couldnt get from the specs was that it rode like a wagon with wood blocks for springs, rattled like a box of rocks, steering was so tight if you sneezed at 75 mph you would change lanes, it ate $250 apiece tires every 12,000 miles, you couldnt park far enough from a curb to keep from knocking the front spoiler off and it drug the front every time you entered a parking lot.. It was beast that loved to run, it was also a beast to live with. Maintenance was a bear, it blew turbo seals like clock work and spent as much time in the shop as it did on the road. After 2 years of wrestling with it I got rid myself of it and got a nice little sports coupe that wasnt rated as highly, had half as much horsepower, rode nice but firm. I learned specs dont tell the whole story.

How this relates to Cornells test, they gave them to people to use and said which do you like the most. They got an answer, one that many here dont seem to agree with. But it's a cross section of people who liked them so I wouldnt say it carrys no weight. If I were the maker of one of the optics that didnt do well, I would be looking at what they didnt like and working to make it better for more users.

I have said this before - this test and the allbinos type test are equally useless if used singly. Combined, they can be quite useful.

Allbinos type tests have the same sort of limitations that you allude to in automotive testing, as these tests tend to be performance oriented. Allbinos gives statistics but do no real world testing - how does the bin handle early morning glare? How does it handle in the cold? How smooth and precise is the focus? Just what sort of view does it present when looking at birds or game?

A bin might just test beautifully for Allbinos but then fall flat in the field, if the observer can't handle rolling ball, poor ER or gritty focusing etc. Same with the sports car - does 0-60 in 5.5 sec. but pounds like a truck over every expansion joint. Both great on paper but, real world, a whole different story.