The zeiss wipes are made in zeiss guangzhou factory china, which belong to zeiss vision
-
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.
What did I miss? Terra ED??? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter St. Elmo
- Start date
The zeiss wipes are made in zeiss guangzhou factory china, which belong to zeiss vision
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Jerry/James,
Still waiting for you folks to reply....
Jan
Still waiting for you folks to reply....
Jan
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Jan,
This is just my opinion, but I think it wrong and outside the spirit of this forum for a dealer [who sells only Swaros] to come here and endlessly praise that brand and generally degrade any other competing make of glass.....to the point in which you proclaim there to be only one true alpha - the one you sell.
I see it as a conflict of interest, as you stand to gain financially through what you say regarding each brand. It's different for fanboys and optic-junkies, as we are not in the business to sell the things we talk about.
But, hey, that's just me, others here may well love you to bits.
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
I see this totally differently from James and Jerry. My apologies to you both, but you are both all wet 
.
This has not been a denigration topic. It admittedly got somewhat off course from the OP about the Terra ED and got into the territory of a broader discussion of "Made in Germany", and whether or not the Zeiss Conquest HD was a German or a Japanese product.
As far as I can see Jan offered pretty convincing arguments that the Conquest HD is indeed made in Japan by Kamakura. What I took from the discussion is that Zeiss is taking the hard headed approach and saying "Made in Germany". Brock provided some useful information that says that "Made in Germany" only means 10% has to be in fact "made in Germany" . I did some looking into that, and what I found agrees with what Brock posted.
Jan also offered a correct (at least in my opinion) stance that as a dealer his basic concern was that the customer should get the value they pay for, and as long as that is met, it should not make much difference if the Conquest HD is Japanese. He then added his personal qualifier that Zeiss ought to be up front and say where they are made and that he personally feels that the European alphas should stay European. It seems you guys jumped to the conclusion that Swarovski is an in house European, and that since Jan sells Swarovski, he somehow is feathering his own nest. Come on, but that is like saying you can't review something you own, because if you own it, you obviously like it, and since you like it, you can not fairly comment on it.
The issue of any company taking steps to maintain high standards in product quality while reducing or maintaining costs is a real one. I have no doubt that some of the high end binocular sales have probably been pretty stale for awhile.
I think the real issue is that the adherents of high end European glass, or high end Japanese glass for that matter, seem to take anything less than total praise of their favorites as denigration. Sorry guys I just don't see it that way.
.This has not been a denigration topic. It admittedly got somewhat off course from the OP about the Terra ED and got into the territory of a broader discussion of "Made in Germany", and whether or not the Zeiss Conquest HD was a German or a Japanese product.
As far as I can see Jan offered pretty convincing arguments that the Conquest HD is indeed made in Japan by Kamakura. What I took from the discussion is that Zeiss is taking the hard headed approach and saying "Made in Germany". Brock provided some useful information that says that "Made in Germany" only means 10% has to be in fact "made in Germany" . I did some looking into that, and what I found agrees with what Brock posted.
Jan also offered a correct (at least in my opinion) stance that as a dealer his basic concern was that the customer should get the value they pay for, and as long as that is met, it should not make much difference if the Conquest HD is Japanese. He then added his personal qualifier that Zeiss ought to be up front and say where they are made and that he personally feels that the European alphas should stay European. It seems you guys jumped to the conclusion that Swarovski is an in house European, and that since Jan sells Swarovski, he somehow is feathering his own nest. Come on, but that is like saying you can't review something you own, because if you own it, you obviously like it, and since you like it, you can not fairly comment on it.
The issue of any company taking steps to maintain high standards in product quality while reducing or maintaining costs is a real one. I have no doubt that some of the high end binocular sales have probably been pretty stale for awhile.
I think the real issue is that the adherents of high end European glass, or high end Japanese glass for that matter, seem to take anything less than total praise of their favorites as denigration. Sorry guys I just don't see it that way.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
You need to look beyond this topic, and look at the sum of the discussions I think.
As I said earlier, I would like to hear from Gary about the Conquests before coming to a proper conclusion - he should know. But that topic isn't really my bone of contention - it is the consistent praising of a certain brand [and avocation of that brand] with the potential for financial gain - I don't see how this is consistent with regular binophiles offering opinions and this point would be where we differ markedly.
As I said, I'm sure many don't see it that way, and that's fine, but my opinion differs. Hopefully I can differ from you Steve, without being ''all wet.''
BTW - as the gist of this conversation is [now] about the Conquest, and the implication is that [as a Zeiss fanboy] I feel the patriotic need to defend them at all costs, I think you would find it interesting to read one of the 1st threads about the new Conquests. I tried them out at a dealer and found the eye-relief to be very uncomfortable - to the point that I could not get a good view without blackouts. I even suggested that Zeiss might need to redesign the eye-pieces [or even recall the bin], as others had reported the same problem. So, in fairness, if something doesn't work for me, I have no problem saying so.
As I said earlier, I would like to hear from Gary about the Conquests before coming to a proper conclusion - he should know. But that topic isn't really my bone of contention - it is the consistent praising of a certain brand [and avocation of that brand] with the potential for financial gain - I don't see how this is consistent with regular binophiles offering opinions and this point would be where we differ markedly.
As I said, I'm sure many don't see it that way, and that's fine, but my opinion differs. Hopefully I can differ from you Steve, without being ''all wet.''
BTW - as the gist of this conversation is [now] about the Conquest, and the implication is that [as a Zeiss fanboy] I feel the patriotic need to defend them at all costs, I think you would find it interesting to read one of the 1st threads about the new Conquests. I tried them out at a dealer and found the eye-relief to be very uncomfortable - to the point that I could not get a good view without blackouts. I even suggested that Zeiss might need to redesign the eye-pieces [or even recall the bin], as others had reported the same problem. So, in fairness, if something doesn't work for me, I have no problem saying so.
Last edited:
I suspect that whichever company establishes factories in China, manufacturing high grade instruments, will be at an advantage. After all, they should be able to establish Western/Japanese levels of QC, optical design and innovation. That might mean an alpha binocular for £1000 rather than £1,500. However, I wonder how many alpha bins sell to keen birders, and how many sell to rich people who want 'the best' by which I mean 'perceived as the best', which might entail 'Made in Germany'.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Jan,
With the way you went on and on about Swarovski being the ONLY alpha because it outsells the other brands when you first started posting to these forums (after I called you on that, you gave more reasons such as the warranty service and superior optics), and how you kept denigrating Nikon as a brand, I can well understand why Jerry and James thought you were biased toward Swaros. So did I. Jerry owns several Swaros, so it's not like he doesn't think they are great, but they are not the only brand he thinks are great.
Before the HT, Swarovski had the most updated optics of the Big Three, and we have many "Swaro Fanboys" (as dennis calls them) on these forums who would agree with you about them being the "best" (even dennis would when he's "in love" with them), but they are amateurs. I think what James and Jerry are saying, and what I have said, is that we expect a dealer to be more objective and point to the advantages and disadvantages of each major brand just as professional reviewers do rather than heave so much praise on just one brand that he sells the most of. Most dealers walk that line, because they don't overwhelming sell more of one alpha than another.
I think some owners of other top brands found your apparent bias offensive, and I think that's the reason why you have been getting a lot of "grief" about it.
As to the reason you dropped Zeiss, I'm not sure what you mean by "claimed". Did they offer domain names to dealers for free? And then they wanted them back and then sold the domain names to the highest bidder on an auction site? If so, that's dirty business, and I can't blame you for being upset about it.
OTOH, if you bought the domain names and sold them back, that's another story. Then they are free to sell them to anybody they want.
But it sounds like you wouldn't even want those domains back now that Zeiss is offshoring some of their optics in Asia. So they have two black stains against them.
Does the Leica Trinovid say "Made in Portugal" on its box? If not, they are in the same boat even if it's Europe not Asia where they are outsourced.
Apparently, with the wiggle room that Germany allows for the "Made in Germany" label, what Zeiss is doing is legal, but I agree that they should come clean about where the bins are manufactured rather than misleading people into thinking they are made in Germany if they aren't. Ditto for Leica and Swarovski. Same goes for Nikon if the bins are not made in Japan.
Today, few brands of anything can claim being made 100% in the country where the company is headquartered. The only optics I'm aware of made today that are 100% "Made in the USA" are Questar telescopes. The 3.5" mirror version's 50th anniversary edition sold for $7,195.00. Or as Company 7 is fond of saying: If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. Got that straight!
<B>
Steve C
Well-known member
I think Gary's hands are pretty firmly tied by what Zeiss will or will not allow him to say. Until whoever it is at Zeiss makes the decision to come clean and give all of their people, including Gary the room to say so, we won't know.
The "all wet comment" was a figure of speech only so don't read anything much into it, it was only intended to indicate disagreement, and the smiley was intended to convey polite disagreement
.I agree with you that the Conquest HD has a poor relationship with eye relief and the distance its eye cups can be extended. The dealer that has the 10x Conquest HD might have sold them to me by now if not for that. The eye cups are also not the smoothest operating eye cups ever put on a binocular either.
Everyone has their favorite optics, and will comment on them. I do "get" the objections that you and Jerry, and now Brock have with Jan's post on that topic. I still do not agree with you. I wouldn't know Jan if I saw him on the street, but there was a ring of fact in what he said. As I said in another post, I had heard that the Conquest HD was Japanese from a couple of other sources before I read it in Jan's post. Since his association with Zeiss is one of his past history, we also need to think that perhaps he might be less constrained to toe the company line. Maybe their decision to be obtuse with regard to their "Made in Germany" usage might have been part of that decision.
Besides if Lawyers in Holland and Germany are anything like they are over here, he might be in some difficulty from Zeiss by saying something like that if he could not back it up.
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I see this totally differently from James and Jerry. My apologies to you both, but you are both all wet
This has not been a denigration topic. It admittedly got somewhat off course from the OP about the Terra ED and got into the territory of a broader discussion of "Made in Germany", and whether or not the Zeiss Conquest HD was a German or a Japanese product.
As far as I can see Jan offered pretty convincing arguments that the Conquest HD is indeed made in Japan by Kamakura. What I took from the discussion is that Zeiss is taking the hard headed approach and saying "Made in Germany". Brock provided some useful information that says that "Made in Germany" only means 10% has to be in fact "made in Germany" . I did some looking into that, and what I found agrees with what Brock posted.
Jan also offered a correct (at least in my opinion) stance that as a dealer his basic concern was that the customer should get the value they pay for, and as long as that is met, it should not make much difference if the Conquest HD is Japanese. He then added his personal qualifier that Zeiss ought to be up front and say where they are made and that he personally feels that the European alphas should stay European. It seems you guys jumped to the conclusion that Swarovski is an in house European, and that since Jan sells Swarovski, he somehow is feathering his own nest. Come on, but that is like saying you can't review something you own, because if you own it, you obviously like it, and since you like it, you can not fairly comment on it.
The issue of any company taking steps to maintain high standards in product quality while reducing or maintaining costs is a real one. I have no doubt that some of the high end binocular sales have probably been pretty stale for awhile.
I think the real issue is that the adherents of high end European glass, or high end Japanese glass for that matter, seem to take anything less than total praise of their favorites as denigration. Sorry guys I just don't see it that way.
Steve:
Much of your argument, and Jans, that I believe you are presenting, is purely speculation, about the place of manufacturer of some Zeiss binocular models, one of which has not even entered the marketplace.
I think you are all wet spending a lot of time worrying about it. The origin of
these will come out at a later date. The marketplace has a very good
way of dealing with these issues.
I have been described as a Nikon and a Swarovski fanboy, and my last optics
purchase was a Zeiss. I really have no favorites.
What I will do, is call out any representative, whether sales or at the company
level, who would come out and degrade and put down a product of another
company. It is all about fair play.
Jerry
What is the big issue here?
We already know that Zeiss has at least one factory in China.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2641228&postcount=181
Does anyone seriously think that Zeiss will limit themselves to making and selling "wipes" only?
Does anyone in Europe seriously think that a brand new $300.00 binocular sold under the Zeiss name with a Zeiss warranty will have been made in Germany?
Just askin'?
Bob
We already know that Zeiss has at least one factory in China.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2641228&postcount=181
Does anyone seriously think that Zeiss will limit themselves to making and selling "wipes" only?
Does anyone in Europe seriously think that a brand new $300.00 binocular sold under the Zeiss name with a Zeiss warranty will have been made in Germany?
Just askin'?
Bob
Steve C
Well-known member
OK, stop the presses. We can now quit worrying and we can now cede the discussion to somebody who actually has seen the Terra ED.
This is a cut and paste from Doug at CLNY and his SHOT Show report:
" Day 2 I continued on my never ending quest for information and deals. I stated the second morning at Zeiss.
This was an interesting meeting as they are introducing a new line of binoculars as well as a new line of riflescopes. These are kind of a new optics area for them as they are priced for mass marketing. Not that there is anything wrong with this, just a new direction for one of the Big Three Euro's known only for top end optics.
I checked out the two new Terra ED binoculars first. They seem to be made well and felt nice in my hands. Good eye cups, smooth focus. They seem to be a good quality optic that fits nicely into the sub $500.00 price range.
Terra ED 8x42 @ $349.99
Terra ED 10x42 @ $399.99
These binoculars give Zeiss a firm footing in this saturated price category with an optic that will do very well. Oddly (and I thought it was weird but later someone commented the same thing to me) they smelled funny. I realize this is not the an everyday thing to mention, but I noticed it so I am mentioning it.
Going off of track history I would think they'll be "Zeiss quality" as I cannot see Zeiss putting out anything sub-grade. They seem to be made well, however, time and use is the only way to know for sure. Again, getting into a price range out of the expected for Zeiss:" End of quote.
We can now discuss why on earth a well respected company like Zeiss would ever produce a funny smelling binocular. Let's not anybody take offense at that OK?
This is a cut and paste from Doug at CLNY and his SHOT Show report:
" Day 2 I continued on my never ending quest for information and deals. I stated the second morning at Zeiss.
This was an interesting meeting as they are introducing a new line of binoculars as well as a new line of riflescopes. These are kind of a new optics area for them as they are priced for mass marketing. Not that there is anything wrong with this, just a new direction for one of the Big Three Euro's known only for top end optics.
I checked out the two new Terra ED binoculars first. They seem to be made well and felt nice in my hands. Good eye cups, smooth focus. They seem to be a good quality optic that fits nicely into the sub $500.00 price range.
Terra ED 8x42 @ $349.99
Terra ED 10x42 @ $399.99
These binoculars give Zeiss a firm footing in this saturated price category with an optic that will do very well. Oddly (and I thought it was weird but later someone commented the same thing to me) they smelled funny. I realize this is not the an everyday thing to mention, but I noticed it so I am mentioning it.
Going off of track history I would think they'll be "Zeiss quality" as I cannot see Zeiss putting out anything sub-grade. They seem to be made well, however, time and use is the only way to know for sure. Again, getting into a price range out of the expected for Zeiss:" End of quote.
We can now discuss why on earth a well respected company like Zeiss would ever produce a funny smelling binocular. Let's not anybody take offense at that OK?
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
So, let's hear the voice of reason.
I am 55 years old, my background is "Serpico +++", financially fully independed and surviving from the same "problem" the coach of FC Barcelona has (85% dies within 5 years) and truelly don't give a shit how optic manufacturers think of me.
I don't have a hidden agenda and just say it how it comes. Personally I don't see any conflict of interests being an optic retailer of 15 different brands.
James, you can not hide behind Gary. Just speak for yourself!
Yes, from the three alpha's, Swarovski sells best. Can't help it. It's just a fact of life.
From the subs, Bushnell does best. Nikon could wipe out Bushnell totally from the floor if they would just copy the marketing/sales/repair strategy of Bushnell.
The big advantage of Nikon -as a brand- is that they are self producing and the quality image of the camera's glowes (for the customer) on their bins, but they fail completely to exploid this advantage. Does all this makes me a Swarovski/Bushnell fan? No. I am just a fan of their professionalisme.
About the Zeiss issue:
Everybody can register domainnames as long as these are not already registered. In Holland you just pay 9 euro's register costs and they are yours exclusively.
Nobody, not even Zeiss, can use those names.
We linked them to our site as I explained earlier.
Zeiss now, wanted us to release those domainnames under the single motivation that the currentcorporate policy did not tolerate that third partys had acces to Zeiss domainnames.
We sold Zeiss optics since 1993, visited the plants, had a good relationship (still have) with Zeiss Wetzlar and the Dutch Zeiss rep., and on february 2012, out of the blue, came the Legal Department of Zeiss Oberkochen.
I did not register the domainnames to make money out of it!
Zeiss Oberkochen made it crystal clear they understood my motivations for the registration of those domainnames but insisted on the fact that they could not tolerate third partys to use Zeiss domainnames.
Because of the good relationship with Zeiss in the past and out of respect for the Dutch Zeiss representative I ended the registration of all 13 Zeiss domainnames, without any costs for Zeiss what so ever.
Just to experience those domainnames to pop up on a US domainname auction site and to experience the Zeiss Oberkochen reaction on that matter to me: "You have to understand that it is only up to Zeiss to act and not to third partys".
So, me being me, ditched our complete Zeiss stock on the Dutch E-bay on wholesaleprices. This gave a bit of a 'shock" because that stock was bigger then most optical stores sell in three years. This was about may 2012.
The IWA (European Shot Show) was in march 2012 and it was over there that the Zeiss representatives told me about the origine of the Conquest and the delivery of the high vacuum coating equipment for Kamakura, as earlier mentioned by me.
There is nothing speculative on it, James!!!
On the Leica issue: The "Made in Portugal" is printed in the rubber housing of the bins, so there is no doubt about that. Same there for the scopes and for the, as I am told by Leica, new Geovid.
There is nothing to speculate about, for me James.
It's indeed all about fair play to the consumers.
Jan
I am 55 years old, my background is "Serpico +++", financially fully independed and surviving from the same "problem" the coach of FC Barcelona has (85% dies within 5 years) and truelly don't give a shit how optic manufacturers think of me.
I don't have a hidden agenda and just say it how it comes. Personally I don't see any conflict of interests being an optic retailer of 15 different brands.
James, you can not hide behind Gary. Just speak for yourself!
Yes, from the three alpha's, Swarovski sells best. Can't help it. It's just a fact of life.
From the subs, Bushnell does best. Nikon could wipe out Bushnell totally from the floor if they would just copy the marketing/sales/repair strategy of Bushnell.
The big advantage of Nikon -as a brand- is that they are self producing and the quality image of the camera's glowes (for the customer) on their bins, but they fail completely to exploid this advantage. Does all this makes me a Swarovski/Bushnell fan? No. I am just a fan of their professionalisme.
About the Zeiss issue:
Everybody can register domainnames as long as these are not already registered. In Holland you just pay 9 euro's register costs and they are yours exclusively.
Nobody, not even Zeiss, can use those names.
We linked them to our site as I explained earlier.
Zeiss now, wanted us to release those domainnames under the single motivation that the currentcorporate policy did not tolerate that third partys had acces to Zeiss domainnames.
We sold Zeiss optics since 1993, visited the plants, had a good relationship (still have) with Zeiss Wetzlar and the Dutch Zeiss rep., and on february 2012, out of the blue, came the Legal Department of Zeiss Oberkochen.
I did not register the domainnames to make money out of it!
Zeiss Oberkochen made it crystal clear they understood my motivations for the registration of those domainnames but insisted on the fact that they could not tolerate third partys to use Zeiss domainnames.
Because of the good relationship with Zeiss in the past and out of respect for the Dutch Zeiss representative I ended the registration of all 13 Zeiss domainnames, without any costs for Zeiss what so ever.
Just to experience those domainnames to pop up on a US domainname auction site and to experience the Zeiss Oberkochen reaction on that matter to me: "You have to understand that it is only up to Zeiss to act and not to third partys".
So, me being me, ditched our complete Zeiss stock on the Dutch E-bay on wholesaleprices. This gave a bit of a 'shock" because that stock was bigger then most optical stores sell in three years. This was about may 2012.
The IWA (European Shot Show) was in march 2012 and it was over there that the Zeiss representatives told me about the origine of the Conquest and the delivery of the high vacuum coating equipment for Kamakura, as earlier mentioned by me.
There is nothing speculative on it, James!!!
On the Leica issue: The "Made in Portugal" is printed in the rubber housing of the bins, so there is no doubt about that. Same there for the scopes and for the, as I am told by Leica, new Geovid.
There is nothing to speculate about, for me James.
It's indeed all about fair play to the consumers.
Jan
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Oh yeah,
I still don't dig the ax stuff James.
I still don't dig the ax stuff James.
Some Chinese and Russian binoculars smell awful.
It was mainly Chinese camera cases, but also binoculars.
The excellent Foton binoculars unfortunately smell bad for decades. Also some Russian plastics and cases. I am so allergic to the Foton smell I don't use the binoculars much.
I think it must be the glues, and I would really not want to know what they are made from.
I would hazard a guess that the new lower priced Zeiss are Chinese, but of course I don't know.
I would certainly buy one, but definitely not if it smells.
Perhaps time will tell.
It was mainly Chinese camera cases, but also binoculars.
The excellent Foton binoculars unfortunately smell bad for decades. Also some Russian plastics and cases. I am so allergic to the Foton smell I don't use the binoculars much.
I think it must be the glues, and I would really not want to know what they are made from.
I would hazard a guess that the new lower priced Zeiss are Chinese, but of course I don't know.
I would certainly buy one, but definitely not if it smells.
Perhaps time will tell.
DocSarvis
Well-known member
I was given a warranty replacement Leica Ultravid 10x42 BL by Leica USA that is marked "Made in Portugal" for my German-made 10x42 BL bought in 2004 that I returned to Leica for warranty repair last year. I'm of mixed feelings about Leica service and product as of now. I didn't originally purchase a Leica Ultravid to have it come from Portugal.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Jan,
Very sorry to hear about the saliva gland problem. I hope you beat the odds. Your condition certainly explains why you don't pull any punches when it comes to giving your opinions about optics. Most dealers walk a thin line, not wanting to offend one brand or the other that they carry, because they know this will come back to haunt them later.
I can see now that you got "sucker punched" by Zeiss and how they "added insult to injury" since you gave up the domain names out of respect for their Dutch rep. As the Godfather would say, "It's not personal, it's business" and then his wise guy would blow your head off.
I think after all of dennis' "pimping" of his favorite brands on BF, we've sort of developed a knee jerk reaction to anyone who appears to be pushing his favorite brand or model, particularly when there's a profit in it. So we may have misunderstood your motivations, but we've seen this before and are perhaps a bit too quick to judge as a result. At least I was.
Although for me, it was your dissing of Nikon that offended me. Even though I admit that you are not the first one to say that Nikon's marketing, warranty and repair service in Europe were lacking. Considering the market share of optics sold in Europe, which was a lot larger than I thought, it's very surprising they have not stepped up their game over there. While their approach to marketing and customer service might suck in Europe, their optics are competitive at every price point with the best other companies have to offer. But I can see how people would want the "whole package," particularly at the higher price points.
Perhaps when Mike Freiberg posts on here again, we'll get a chance to ask him why they haven't come up to speed in Europe.
I still believe that Swaro singled out Nikon with their threat of litigation, and the proof of that is all the other open bridge roofs that were and still are being produced. I think it was because the Nikon EDG I would have been the only top level open bridge roof that could have competed head to head with the SV EL, which was not yet launched but in some stage of planning or production at the time of the EDG I's release. We can agree to disagree about that until more specific info emerges (or until Swaro threatens to sue another company that makes open bridge roofs).
Btw, there's a guy you should meet (virtually) sometime. He posts on here occasionally, but mostly on Cloudy Nights. His name is Bill Cook, a retired Navy optical man turned optics repair person and store manager. He used to work for a store in Seattle, Washington named Captain's Nautical Supplies. Even though Bill's store sold various brands, he never pulled any punches when it came to which he liked best and which companies were the most difficult to deal with, or how clueless some of his customers were. I think you guys could have a very interesting talk about what goes on behind the industry curtain.
Bill's had some health problems recently too, but he was a "curmudgeon" even when he was healthy. Just his nature.
Anyway, thanks for putting all that in perspective. It was painfully honest.
Brock
Very sorry to hear about the saliva gland problem. I hope you beat the odds. Your condition certainly explains why you don't pull any punches when it comes to giving your opinions about optics. Most dealers walk a thin line, not wanting to offend one brand or the other that they carry, because they know this will come back to haunt them later.
I can see now that you got "sucker punched" by Zeiss and how they "added insult to injury" since you gave up the domain names out of respect for their Dutch rep. As the Godfather would say, "It's not personal, it's business" and then his wise guy would blow your head off.
I think after all of dennis' "pimping" of his favorite brands on BF, we've sort of developed a knee jerk reaction to anyone who appears to be pushing his favorite brand or model, particularly when there's a profit in it. So we may have misunderstood your motivations, but we've seen this before and are perhaps a bit too quick to judge as a result. At least I was.
Although for me, it was your dissing of Nikon that offended me. Even though I admit that you are not the first one to say that Nikon's marketing, warranty and repair service in Europe were lacking. Considering the market share of optics sold in Europe, which was a lot larger than I thought, it's very surprising they have not stepped up their game over there. While their approach to marketing and customer service might suck in Europe, their optics are competitive at every price point with the best other companies have to offer. But I can see how people would want the "whole package," particularly at the higher price points.
Perhaps when Mike Freiberg posts on here again, we'll get a chance to ask him why they haven't come up to speed in Europe.
I still believe that Swaro singled out Nikon with their threat of litigation, and the proof of that is all the other open bridge roofs that were and still are being produced. I think it was because the Nikon EDG I would have been the only top level open bridge roof that could have competed head to head with the SV EL, which was not yet launched but in some stage of planning or production at the time of the EDG I's release. We can agree to disagree about that until more specific info emerges (or until Swaro threatens to sue another company that makes open bridge roofs).
Btw, there's a guy you should meet (virtually) sometime. He posts on here occasionally, but mostly on Cloudy Nights. His name is Bill Cook, a retired Navy optical man turned optics repair person and store manager. He used to work for a store in Seattle, Washington named Captain's Nautical Supplies. Even though Bill's store sold various brands, he never pulled any punches when it came to which he liked best and which companies were the most difficult to deal with, or how clueless some of his customers were. I think you guys could have a very interesting talk about what goes on behind the industry curtain.
Bill's had some health problems recently too, but he was a "curmudgeon" even when he was healthy. Just his nature.
Anyway, thanks for putting all that in perspective. It was painfully honest.
Brock
Last edited:
Some reference to this pair of binoculars is now on you tube. See:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p1gjQ0Svs-4
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p1gjQ0Svs-4
brocknroller
porromaniac
Did I hear absolutely correct that he said the biggest stink of the show was coming from the Zeiss booth or am I hearing things? :smoke:
<B>
There were many comments here over the last few years on the "industrial" odor that Minox binoculars gave off when they were new. It disappeared gradually over 6 months of use or so.
And I also recall that Minox binoculars were regarded as "German" binoculars at that time and there was discussion about whether it was proper to identify them as such but it did not get as "down and dirty" as this discussion about Zeiss is.
Bob
And I also recall that Minox binoculars were regarded as "German" binoculars at that time and there was discussion about whether it was proper to identify them as such but it did not get as "down and dirty" as this discussion about Zeiss is.
Bob
Last edited:
I believe the folks at Zeiss read this stuff.... that it's their job to read this stuff... that they would be derelict if they didn't read this stuff..... AND, I find it noteworthy we haven't heard from Gary.... his silence is deafening!!!! and that silence is (to me) confirming the positions stated that the Conquest HD is not made in Germany (despite Gary's flat out affirmation that the Conquest HD is "Made in Germany"); who can I believe? (at least "Made in China" means made in China..... I'd pay a premium for the truth and so would a lot of other purchasers....
