Optics Consumer Price Index Poll (3 Viewers)

[Torview]

My view for what its worth, You pay a lot for something that is a joy every time you use it you quickly forget how much you spent, pay less for something that disappoints every time, and you never forget how much it cost !

 

[brocknroller]

brock, you say Leica lost $12M in '08. Do you have info on 2009, 2010? Thanks. FWIW, I own the SLC HD 10x42's, but wouldn't and didn't pay over $1500 for them. Great binos for sure, but there are too many viable, competitive alternatives for $1000 and less for me to ever spend more than $!500 for anything.

either the exchange rate has changed or I misremembered the loss figure, but still close. you'll find info on profits and losses for swarovski, zeiss, and leica in 2008 in post #12 on the thread below, don't have any updated info, but someone posted figures elsewhere for Leica, and they had turned the corner.

Besides the recession, Leica also had executive management problems and got a late jump into digital cameras. So it was a triple whammy.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=161346

looks like a consensus is forming on this side of the pond on a price ceiling @ $1,500. on the other side it's higher, $2,300. With less discounting and 20% VAT, I guess that makes sense.

brock

 

[ceasar]

I thought I would jump in here.

#1. My answer is NO. I've never spent more than $999.00 for any binocular and see no need to do so in the future unless I want to drop some mad money.

#2. I've held all my Alphas. (And Betas and Gammas too.) I have no intention of getting rid of them now although some are over 10 years old. I think I have about a dozen of them.

#3. I'll continue to buy more Alphas as the opportunity arises within the above restrictions. I think my next purchase will be a 12X. Probably a Canon IS 12 x 36. I'd be a damn fool to buy a 3 pound $2,500.00 Roof Prism that I would need a golf cart to carry it around in with the tripod it would need to prove to me that it was better than the Canon. Of course, If Leica supplied Golf Carts with Red Dots on them or Swarovski had carts with their Hawk Emblem screened on them then I might change my mind and strut around showing them off. I'm sure it will really impress other birders when I take it out of my Mazda 5! "Gwarsh Bob! Where ever did you get that great case for your bins and tripod?" "Aw, just a little trifle I picked up at St. Andrews. I watched the match with these here Canons!"

Brock,
I'm happy to add my comments to this Poll since I am 1/2 Polish on my mother's side and I hope it turns out to be more accurate than the average telephone pole!
Bob

 

[lilcrazy2]

Tom and Jay seem puzzled about the purpose and usefulness of this survey, but you have hit it the proverbial nail on the head.

Brock
Obviously you did not read Jay's response to my post very well, as it had nothing to do with the price of binos, but merely about how some people respond, and what reseachers might learn from their response.

People will always buy alpha binos regardless of cost, just as people will buy the $250,000 gold plated toilet they had on the news tonight. Perhaps something called the perception of affluence.

Put me in the $500 and less value group so I can drag the average on our side of the pond down.

Tom

 

[gandytron]

1. No
I cannot see any reason to spend over $1,000 when Nikon sell the LXL Premiers for around this price point.

2. I just bought a pair of Zen-Rays ($420) as back-ups, and plan to soon buy a pair of Nikon LXL 10x32s to replace my Leica's (will sell thanks to Leica's ongoing terrible customer service). I plan to hold onto the ZR and the Nikon for many years to come I'm no binoholic).

 

[edwincjones]

The other big factor in this question is the economy,
and the amount of extra money in people's pockets.
If the economy continues to crash, the NO answer prevails.
But, if the economy rebounds and people have the extra money,
then the answer becomes more YES.

edj

 

[jaymoynihan]

The other big factor in this question is the economy,
and the amount of extra money in people's pockets.
If the economy continues to crash, the NO answer prevails.
But, if the economy rebounds and people have the extra money,
then the answer becomes more YES.

edj

The nature of the economy does have an impact for those outside of the "Leisure Class". But not within it. A few years back I came across a pair of "papers" on the web written by one of the bank/investment giants to their top investors. It was from 2005 if i remember correctly. I am not being coy about the identity, but since it leaked out onto the web, their lawyer's have not been amused. It achieved a tad of press by its positive use of the word "plutocracy".
Anyway, it was an analysis of how goods purchased by the top 1% of wealth or so, across the planet are not really impacted by economic ups and downs. They further said that given the rapid growth of economic disparity, that spending share will grow in importance. They said a portfolio should include a few luxury brand stocks since in their opinion they were recession proof.

Not saying i agree with the last sentence, but it is an interesting view non-the-less.

 

[Kammerdiner]

Brock,

Sorry to further skew the results, but put me down for $2349, full price on the 8.5 SV. Even though I got it for much less, I was working my way to purchase anyway. I had looked at it a few times, even had it in a shopping cart at EO for a week or so, after which time EO sent me a little email wondering if I'd like to complete my order. I passed.

My six-month-long hesitation, though, suggests that $2349 is really pushing the upper limit. Unless I win the lottery, I wouldn't go higher unless something comes along that is "significantly" better, and I think the SV has sort of topped out in terms of getting better (for me, if not for everybody). The "incremental improvements" at this point will be, I suspect, more like "miniscule improvements."

If I'm wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind. I just don't think I'll ever have to.

As for what constitutes a "significant" versus an "incremental" improvement, that's up to the individual isn't it? I and many others find the SV a "significant" improvement. Some, I guess, don't.

Mark

 

[Alexis Powell]

Right now I have no money to spend on binos, and I already have an embarrassing richness of alpha bins, so I'm answering based more on my long-term attitude and outlook than current practicalities, but for me the answer is YES. I'm crazy about binoculars, so even though I don't have much money (relative to many others in my country and social class), I'll spend what I have to to get what I judge to be the best design, and so far such designs have generally been among the most expensive. I'm crazy about bicycles too, but I'm not interested in the super expensive ones because they aren't the best designs for my needs. One thing though, with the way top optics are priced, I am put off spending on them like I used to (when, not so long ago, the best were in the $750-900 range), so I'm sure that though someday I will pay more than I have up to now for an individual bin (the most I've spent on a single bin was my most recent alpha purchase, which was $1400 for the Swarovski 8x32 EL, and before that, it was $1200 for the Zeiss 8x32 FL), I will be spending far less than I used to on bins overall, in part because of the high prices.

Side note. I'm very picky nowadays, so I'm waiting for Swarovski to speed up the focus on the 8.5x Swarovision before being willing to buy.

--AP

 

[edwincjones]

The nature of the economy does have an impact for those outside of the "Leisure Class". But not within it. A few years back I came across a pair of "papers" on the web written by one of the bank/investment giants to their top investors. It was from 2005 if i remember correctly. I am not being coy about the identity, but since it leaked out onto the web, their lawyer's have not been amused. It achieved a tad of press by its positive use of the word "plutocracy".
Anyway, it was an analysis of how goods purchased by the top 1% of wealth or so, across the planet are not really impacted by economic ups and downs. They further said that given the rapid growth of economic disparity, that spending share will grow in importance. They said a portfolio should include a few luxury brand stocks since in their opinion they were recession proof.

Not saying i agree with the last sentence, but it is an interesting view non-the-less.

I doubt that any of the alpha makers would survive on the top 1% only-they need help/money from the lower 99% also.

edj

 

[jaymoynihan]

I doubt that any of the alpha makers would survive on the top 1% only-they need help/money from the lower 99% also.

edj

But not money for binos and spotting scopes. They do not "survive" on that already. Their "luxury" divisions are the tips of major optical icebergs in the seas of education, health tech, industrial etc. at least re Zeiss and Leica. as far as their sports optics stuff, they can just keep cranking the price up as the lower end customers decline in numbers.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Alexis is right on. I used to enjoy keeping up on optics, traveling 5 hrs to Eagle Optics a few times plus ordering 2-3 pairs for evaluation a couple times. I used to be the go to guy on optics for friends and relatives. Once the alphas almost doubled in price a few years ago I said heck with it (actually I said a lot worse than "heck"). It was only a recent potential opportunity to sell my FLs for what I paid for them that had me checkin on the new alphas. I have the money for them, but I need to keep the house up and rather take an international trip than dump more $ in gear that has been slightly improved but vastly increased in price.

I'll probably buy a new alpha sometime, but I'm a lot less apt to at current prices. If they go even higher it will probably take a lottery win or death of a rich long lost relative before another purchase.

 

[brocknroller]

But not money for binos and spotting scopes. They do not "survive" on that already. Their "luxury" divisions are the tips of major optical icebergs in the seas of education, health tech, industrial etc. at least re Zeiss and Leica. as far as their sports optics stuff, they can just keep cranking the price up as the lower end customers decline in numbers.

I think you're making a couple assumptioins, one of which this survey seems to be challenging, at least so far.

It sounds from the above that you are assuming a linear progression in both price and customer dropouts. That is, for x amount of price increase, there will be a corresponding y amount of customer dropouts such that the alpha companies can continue to turn a profit on their sports optics divisions indefinitely by making incremental price hikes.

The other assumption seems to be that Leica's and Zeiss' other divisions can compensate for losses in their sports optics divisions.

Even if their other divisions can carry them over a few bumps, in the long run, if their sports optics do not turn a profit for several quarters, and there are no extenuating circumstances such as a recession or major changeover in technology, the shareholders will demand some action, either shut down the division or do a major reorganization to make it profitable again.

The main points of this survey are to assess if this "crisis" scenario will or will not happen, and if it will, at what price point?

That is, if enough "true blues" will continue to buy alphas regardless of cost to make the sports optics divisions profitable or if at some price ceiling the number of dropouts will exceed the losses the companies can recoup by incremental prices increases.

Of course, we don't have all the company data necessary to make a definitive conclusion. But the more "Nas," the less likely that incremental price increases can sustain the alphas.

So far, the ratio of Yeas to Nas suggests that the alphas will reach a point where that linear progression needs to become exponential for them to keep turning a profit as they move beyond $3K, $4k and much of the bottom drops out.

If this does happen, the question then is how to survive?

They could reorganize themselves either by adding a lower price "mass market" division or become a "specialty shop" catering exclusively to high end clientele - ornithologists, hunting guides, surveillance and government workers, serious amateurs with very deep pockets, and the filthy rich. Or by doing both.

If they do change their marketing from mass consumer to professionals and luxury customers, then they can charge anything they damn please for their alphas! The sky's the limit.

If they chose to split themselves btwn mass market and specialty market, they will need products that the mass consumer can afford and will want to buy.

I don't think the "CL" is going to save Swaro if it continues its hike prices beyond the $3K price point and the dropouts exceed the price hikes.

Zeiss at least has a whole line of bins at the second tier. If they can keep the prices of that line fairly steady, it might catch enough dropouts and wannabes.

Leica has no cushion. That suggests either they haven't thought that far ahead or like their camera segment, they have already decided to go specialty down the line.

Well, no more "spoilers". Let's see if there are more participants. Some of the recent comments such as AP's on YES buying whatever the cost but buying less alphas is an interesting trend I hadn't anticipated. That might cause alphas to trim their offerings rather than expand as Swaro is now doing with the SV EL line.

In addition, if alphas really have "peaked," more birders might become like hunters who hold on to their optics for decades rather than years. In which case, the price must reflect the lower sales turnaround.

Interesting possibilities!

Brock, OCPI

 

[looksharp65]

Brock, it has been said we live in the Golden Age of binoculars and I guess we could all agree. Today is the buyer's market and there is way too many excellent offerings in way too great numbers to keep the demand alive. But it's not necessarily [only] alpha companies that will suffer from the fact that we're flooded with binoculars, even companies that compete at the same level will struggle.

But I fear there will soon come a mass extinction of the present species when digital binoculars enter the scene.
I can't predict when that will happen. It might occur within ten years but probably within fifteen years and definitely before twenty years.
And then we'll be contributing to the giant garbage mountain with one more product category because they will NOT be built to last like the bins of today.

 

[ceasar]

We are analog beings who live in an analog world in an analog solar system in an analog universe. It is confusing enough without trying to define it in a digital manner or interpret it thus.

What was that phrase Brock had about "If your only tool is a ruler you tend to think everything is measurable."

"If all your tools are digital you tend to think everything you see, hear or experience can be defined, interpreted, expanded, explained and improved digitally."

Analogbob

"Then someone turned the electricity off!":eek!:

 

[jaymoynihan]

...a mass extinction of the present species when digital binoculars enter the scene. (

Ah yes, digital binoculars. I started to see this forming out on the edges. Early to say what will happen. Digitalization is a fundamentally disruptive technology in both a society and its markets (I am not being critical, merely stating a fact).
But if we look at other example of digitalization of a technology, it rarely results in the total extinction of other forms.
But, it is early yet in the process for all of us, not just optics junkies

Based on impacts in other techs:

Generally (not just digital), when a new tech with perceived higher utility for a "practical" function arises, the older one becomes a niche, and often an artisan object or practice, or "art" itself.
Examples:
The ballpoint pen in much of the world relegates the fountain pen to a luxury niche.The rise of personal computing devices and the Internet coincides with the massive expansion of the fountain pen luxury market with more models available than right before the ballpoint hit the market.
In ancient to medieval times sculpture was primarily a means of recording or communication. As two dimensional representation started being more realistic, sculpture became "art" primarily, and painting took on its former purpose. Photography comes along, and painting starts to become niche and freed from utility, moves to abstraction. Now it is, apart from a spendy portrait form yet, art and leisure.
Film size get smaller and a mass market develops. Sheet film is relegated to some commercial uses, and art. Color photography drove the perception of Black and white into the "art" category. Digital put film into the artisan and art niches.
The rise of the computer coincides with the rise of the journaling market.

I would wager that the digitalization of "sports optics" will:

Develop in the consumer market via the digital camera -bino hybrid that is already available in a crude form.
Increasing imaging quality of the above, with the addition of nightvision, then other multi-wave bands.
Then different models for different markets using added information content. Hunters: Boones & Crocket assessment database, state /fed hunting regs assessment database (with automatic updating for only $x per year!).
For birders: obviously, the field guide in the device, then later, with id assessment/ Different db's for different regions/countries....

Analog binos then?
Yes.
Small disposable compacts and spendy artisan models.

 

[jaymoynihan]

I think you're making a couple assumptioins, one of which this survey seems to be challenging, at least so far.

It sounds from the above that you are assuming a linear progression in both price and customer dropouts. That is, for x amount of price increase, there will be a corresponding y amount of customer dropouts such that the alpha companies can continue to turn a profit on their sports optics divisions indefinitely by making incremental price hikes.

The other assumption seems to be that Leica's and Zeiss' other divisions can compensate for losses in their sports optics divisions.

Even if their other divisions can carry them over a few bumps, in the long run, if their sports optics do not turn a profit for several quarters, and there are no extenuating circumstances such as a recession or major changeover in technology, the shareholders will demand some action, either shut down the division or do a major reorganization to make it profitable again.

I am not assuming a linear progression. There are too many variables that can influence such a trend for the curve to be "linear". I am thinking though of the influence of events in play now, and with some probability of existence in the future, on the worldlines of the consumers.

Another motivation for (RE Zeiss/Leica) to "carry" the luxury optics, though is brand/advertising. The blue and the red adorn more than binos and spotting scopes. Each bino IS an ad. An ad for a brand with instruments in labs, factory floors, etc. not to mention the imaging markets. The brands differentiation in the public mind is primarily from the sports optics and photography lines.

You are correct that if conditions get ROI-bad enough, they will get spun off. This is complicated though by the digitalization of sports optics in the future. That could result in the "artisan" analog models justifying almost any price, to the well heeled buyer. With advances in Lights Out Machining and other automated manufacturing trends, this could also help the profit margin. When the digital forces the analog into a niche, even if that analog product is made with automation, it is still perceived as higher value, since in a utilitarian sense, it is "archaic". But of course, that could also lower the price to consumers. But if a few people will pay a lot more....?

Note: I am not trashing the Alpha co.s. I own three official "alpha glasses" from the 1989-1993 period (2 zeiss, 1 leica) which i still use and think the world of.

 

[james holdsworth]

Check out Zeiss on Wiki. Almost no mention of binoculars at all. I would think that the binocular market for Zeiss is a tiny piece of their revenue pie.

 

[brocknroller]

Jay,

Great analysis! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

Digital optics do, indeed, introduce a new variable into the equation. Digital was certainly "disruptive technology" to Leica's bottom line.

Will Leica be slow to adopt again and become a maker of old technology "artisan" sports optics or have its execs learned the expensive lesson from its cameras that being "alpha" means you have to lead not follow?

Digital may prove to be the "Great Leveler" because electronics are cheap, thanks to Chinese labor and advances in manufacturing. Last week, I bought a Nikon digital camera that cost less than my old Nikkormat EL analog camera. It has ED glass, VR technology, HD video, and more features than I could ever imagined having in an analog camera. But the Coolpix won't be around 25 years from now as my Nikkormat is (of course, neither will 1-hour film processing).

Although "Made in Germany" anything is likely to hold its prestige in the niche markets, once Bushnell and others have access to the same digital optics technology as the alphas, prestige might be the only reason left to own Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski binoculars.

Schott glass? Dielectic coatings? 96-layer AR coatings? Who cares with digital? We can sharpen the image, make it brighter, more contrasty, change the color balance, take out the flare/glare.

Robust build? Being electronic, all digital equipment, regardless of the manufacturer has a limited life and will have a limited warranty that reflects that. So much for lifetime warranties being a perk.

In point fact (as my philosophy prof used to say), if you're going to make binoculars image digitally, then you might as well also store the images like a camera. The line btwn cameras and binoculars may blur.... and so far the "leaders" for this new hybrid technology are coming from the bottom not the top - Bushnell and Celestron!

Digital binoculars will probably hasten the changeover to specialty optics by the alpha companies just as it has with Leica's digital cameras, and they will likely carry similar price tags (and that's just for the body!):

http://www.teds.com.au/digital-slr-cameras/leica-m?limit=all

Although AP and Ingle have pledged to follow the alphas into the Gates of Hell if need be, $7,999.95 may melt their Louis Vuitton wallets!

Brock, OCPI, Miami