Zeiss below Terra? (4 Viewers)

[John Dracon]

Zeiss could do worse than by simply copying the ancient Fuji CF silver ring 7x35 Rangemaster, upgrade its coatings, rubber cover it, and improve its eye cups. Mr. Jensen, are you reading this? If not, IMO you should be.

The Fuji monocular I sent Henry Link to analyze was a pretty rough speciman compared to a mint CF silver ring. How that particular binocular stayed under the radar for all these years is a puzzle. The skeptics (nothing wrong with being a skeptic) out in BF land IMO simply have not had the opportunity to use one.

Its build equals anything porro ever created by Zeiss -understand I am a rabid Zeiss porro fan and have used them all this past half century. I'm tempted to cajole Henry and send him a silver ring Rangesmaster for analysis. It has different coatings than the monocular. It still focuses smoothly and with precision. And it looks alpha in everyway because it is.

When I read all the comments on this web site about problems in diopter mechanisms with many of these state-of-the-art binoculars commanding stratospheric prices, and one can find a used Rangemaster many times for under $100 which is totally reliable and usable, I shake my head.

John

 

[perterra]

No, alpha is a relative term. But the older naming system for quality/performance might need a new modifier. We used to refer to top-end binoculars as "premium" binoculars, but then with the Nikon Venturer LX and especially later with the Swarovski EL, people sometimes referred to them as "ultra-premium" binoculars. This would be a category above that.

--AP

Actually I think it would be that the top rung on the ladder moved higher. What was alpha is now just another player in the field.

 

[Chris D]

'Bump'. Just thought I'd see if anyone else had an opinion. Don't mean to be a bother.

 

[Troubador]

'Bump'. Just thought I'd see if anyone else had an opinion. Don't mean to be a bother.

No bother at all Chris.

I can endorse Frank's suggestion: take a look at the Terra ED 8x42 its great value.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Zeiss has a quite clear 3 tier strategy that I think most understand. I can say that we strive and work to be "best in class" within these 3 tier group. A 4th tier (lower) is not in the plan. However, a 4th tier (above) ...... ???? Now that would be intresting

Hi Mike

Watched your video of new products shot at (where else) SHOT and searched your expression and demeanour for any sign of the sort of self confidence that comes from knowing there is a 4th (Upper) tier on the way.

Well I could see plenty of satisfaction in the mid-tier Conquest products but couldn't really see that special glint in your eye.

I reckon you are just teasing us and kicking sand in the face of competitors.

But I would love you to prove me wrong :eat:

Lee

 

[Chris D]

Thanks............

 

[St. Elmo]

Maybe not a fourth tier… but, rather, another third tier… something like Victiory HT for hunters and a sister Victory for birders… same price… but optimized for a different set of needs…. While I could see the number of discussion threads increasing in geometric proportions, such an arrangement might further cement Zeiss' commitment to both the hunting and birding communities… arguably the largest segments of its sport optics market.

 

[Troubador]

Hi Mike

Watched your video of new products shot at (where else) SHOT and searched your expression and demeanour for any sign of the sort of self confidence that comes from knowing there is a 4th (Upper) tier on the way.

Well I could see plenty of satisfaction in the mid-tier Conquest products but couldn't really see that special glint in your eye.

I reckon you are just teasing us and kicking sand in the face of competitors.

But I would love you to prove me wrong :eat:

Lee

On the other hand Mike some months ago you did ask us all to tell you what we would want to see in the 'best binoculars in the world' .............

Hmmmmm.......:smoke:

Lee

 

[Alexis Powell]

Actually I think it would be that the top rung on the ladder moved higher. What was alpha is now just another player in the field.

Exactly my meaning in noting that alpha performance is relative. That's why we don't need a new modified alpha term for higher performance. In contrast, the "premium" designation refers to overall quality (absolute performance, build quality etc), which doesn't diminish even when higher quality products come into being, hence the need for the creation of the "ultra-premium" designation. As an aside, note that questions of "alpha" as applied to brand status aren't relevant here because the new models would be from existing alpha brands.

--AP

 

[Troubador]

Going up to the Fourth Tier

Here we are two weeks further on from Mike's tantalising hint of something above HT.

Mike, now that the hullabulloo of the SHOT Show has quietened down it's about time you gave us another tiny hint........

Lee

 

[joe101]

A tier above the victory HTs would be greatly welcomed.
I will be waiting for it night and day, as I did with the HTs .Counting down every single day I could get my hands on it. A series below the Terra will most likely would not be touched even with a ten foot pole. Unless Zeiss is making a huge loss on every single piece.

 

[joe101]

Nikon not known for their higher end stuff !!!
Hahaha , which rock have you been living under.
I think the Nikon SE is a standard that most people compare with.
When the monarch first came out I was horrified that Nikon should make such a terrible product. In most cases most people would recognise Nikon rather than zeiss, in most layman situations Nikon would be thought as the better brand.

Lee,

This just sounds like a bad idea. Plenty of junk at the lower price point, why would Zeiss want to produce junk and compete with junk bins? Nikon really isn't known for their higher end binoculars, mostly known for monarchs and lesser quality bins. Zeiss is known for their higher end product.

My .02

CG

 

[jan van daalen]

Nikon not known for their higher end stuff !!!
Hahaha , which rock have you been living under.
I think the Nikon SE is a standard that most people compare with.
When the monarch first came out I was horrified that Nikon should make such a terrible product. In most cases most people would recognise Nikon rather than zeiss, in most layman situations Nikon would be thought as the better brand.

Joe,

Maybe so in The East, but down here it is surely the other way around.
For everybody Zeiss and Leica are considered to be binocular brands. Their brand image is strong!!
For layman Swarovski is often known for its Crystal. Quote: "Do they also make optics?"
The same goes for Nikon, which is known for quality camera's. Quote: "So their bins must be good", but I have never heard someone saying Nikon is a better brand then Zeiss.

Jan

 

[joe101]

When I said layman, I mean't a person not involve with optical products. And I think this applies the world round other then Germany , most people will go" what Zeiss" and huh at the end. Leica I think would have more people recogizing it.

Joe,

Maybe so in The East, but down here it is surely the other way around.
For everybody Zeiss and Leica are considered to be binocular brands. Their brand image is strong!!
For layman Swarovski is often known for its Crystal. Quote: "Do they also make optics?"
The same goes for Nikon, which is known for quality camera's. Quote: "So their bins must be good", but I have never heard someone saying Nikon is a better brand then Zeiss.

Jan

 

[joe101]

Just to clarify with you Jan, when I said known for their high end stuff , I did not mean by their pricing compared to Zeiss but rather that Nikon high end series SE is more famous than their monarchs or at least to people that know to appreciate good optics. And to those that don't know like layman, Nikon has greater brand recognition than Zeiss and would be taken more seriously than the relatively unknown brand. That been said most people would always assume that the Zeiss would be a more expensive with product of the same tier level. I myself got a shock when the Nikon EDG was more expensive than the Zeiss HT.
And lastly , Please what do you mean by maybe so in the East ?
so do you think because Nikon is an Asian company we would have a bias.
For your info , If you would come over to either HK or Singapore you would see a hell alot more Leica and Zeiss equipment on the street than you would find in Europe. When I was in Europe for a month most locals were using Nikons and Canons. Most of the Leicas were used by asian tourist save one.

 

[Troubador]

Just to clarify with you Jan, when I said known for their high end stuff , I did not mean by their pricing compared to Zeiss but rather that Nikon high end series SE is more famous than their monarchs or at least to people that know to appreciate good optics. And to those that don't know like layman, Nikon has greater brand recognition than Zeiss and would be taken more seriously than the relatively unknown brand. That been said most people would always assume that the Zeiss would be a more expensive with product of the same tier level. I myself got a shock when the Nikon EDG was more expensive than the Zeiss HT.
And lastly , Please what do you mean by maybe so in the East ?
so do you think because Nikon is an Asian company we would have a bias.
For your info , If you would come over to either HK or Singapore you would see a hell alot more Leica and Zeiss equipment on the street than you would find in Europe. When I was in Europe for a month most locals were using Nikons and Canons. Most of the Leicas were used by asian tourist save one.

Joe

In the UK most people over 30 years old would recognise Leica and Zeiss as makers of fine optical instruments including cameras for Leica. To people of this age Nikon is known only for being a camera-rival to Canon. When you see any sports events on the TV or any politician or celebrity being surrounded for an interview in the street, the press photographers are all carrying Canon or Nikon photo gear. This what people of 'young middle age' know about Nikon.

Some younger people, especially birders, are aware of Nikon as a supplier of bins too. If you look in any UK birding magazine you can find references to Nikon and letters and advertisements about Nikon bins and so on. But I have never seen anyone, anywhere, ever, carrying Nikon bins.

If I visit our local bird reserve, out of 10 people carrying bins, 5 will carry Swaro, 3 will carry Opticron, and 1 each will carry Leica and Zeiss. OK thats a crazy generalisation, but I think it is 90% accurate.

I also think this may be true of most of Europe, but in the USA Nikon bins seem to be far more known about and appreciated. Perhaps your own experience is that they are also well known in SE Asia.

Lee

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Joe
I also think this may be true of most of Europe, but in the USA Nikon bins seem to be far more known about and appreciated. Perhaps your own experience is that they are also well known in SE Asia.

Lee

In my generation, most birdwatchers started with Nikon such as Action and Monarch then some of them bought other brands such as Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and Minox.

But as I can see, the trend now is more into bird photography, type of binoculars is not that important for them anymore. As long they can see the birds, then take the pictures, videos etc. Observing is not important as long they can get good images of it. So this is where Nikon wins because of their pricing etc and easy to get in the stores than other brands. These is the case in Malaysia.

 

[joe101]

In South East Asia or at least from what I have observed, Nikon binos for birding is a rarity. I think 70 percent of the regular birders are using swaros, the rest are made up of leica, zeiss and whatever in between. When I said leicas and Zeiss on the street I was referring to camera equipment and other optical instruments.

I also want to mention that known and what is owned is two different things

 

[joe101]

In my generation, most birdwatchers started with Nikon such as Action and Monarch then some of them bought other brands such as Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and Minox.

But as I can see, the trend now is more into bird photography, type of binoculars is not that important for them anymore. As long they can see the birds, then take the pictures, videos etc. Observing is not important as long they can get good images of it. So this is where Nikon wins because of their pricing etc and easy to get in the stores than other brands. These is the case in Malaysia.

That reminds me , that when I was birding in malaysia I saw quite a few nikon scopes but no binos

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

That reminds me , that when I was birding in malaysia I saw quite a few nikon scopes but no binos

I should do correction in Sabah and not Malaysia hahaha. But yes Nikon scopes is popular here too. But as I see more bird photographers and Digiscopers emerged in my place, they preferred those compact Nikon binoculars because it is light to carry on their neck and reasonable price too.

There were one photographer who uses the latest Canon cameras and lenses. He tried the Swarovski STX 65 scope and digiscoping etc. When I told him the price, he would preferred to get the Canon 200mm f1.4!

So these is how bird photographers sees the value of high end binoculars and scopes in my place...