What if...... (6 Viewers)

[Binastro]

Not only are curves and spacings sometimes deliberately wrong, but glass types are sometimes specified at the extreme of tolerance, so that those who copy while paying no licence fee and infringing patents don't get a free ride.

I think that aspherical surfaces have also not been shown, to further disrupt copying.

My friend actually measures the curves of lens elements to see when changes have been made that have not been announced by the maker.
I have also done this but not regularly.

With other products, such as the tires of the Concorde, it has been reported that residue from failed formulae was deliberately left on the runway, so the copy aircraft got the rubber compound completely wrong.

B.

 

[Foss]

Industrial espionage countermeasures...cool

 

[Alexis Powell]

Hi Alexis (post #148),

It’s a widely mistaken belief that the premium Nikon roof prisms have unique optical designs (and it’s what I too initially thought)

The reasons are because:
- the cross-section views seem to show the use of fewer but thicker elements than in other premium designs, and
- Nikon does not state the number of lenses in their designs

However, I’ve managed to find some cut away images that show more detail and that somewhat disappointingly they are very conventional designs!...

I understand your point, and I've never thought otherwise. I think you misunderstood my point, which is that Nikon's pre-EDG modern binoculars, whether premium or not, flat-field or not, and whether manufactured directly by Nikon or not, are designs that are unique to Nikon, not superficial cosmetic tweaks of existing OEM products. Unlike a very few current models, and a few very old ones, you won't find an equivalent of any of Nikon's modern pre-EDG bins being sold by another brand. Even though they might be fairly conventional in design, for some reason, you won't find equivalent competitors or same OEM clones of Nikon's past flat-field models, such as the ProStar, Astroluxe, and SE porro models, or of the flat-field Classic Eagle and Venturer LX/HG roof prism models. Nor, for that matter, will you find clones of much more basic models, even including the entirely conventional 8x25 reverse-porros.

Hi Alexis,

What I was trying to point out was, that the EDG series were made inhouse and the other models outsourced which could explain the sample variation. They are made accordingly to Nikon specs, but are they? That is always the tricky thing with outsourcing...

I think you misunderstood my point. The difference in flat-field performance between different Nikon binoculars is not a matter of sample variation, it is a consistent property of each model. For that matter, I've not had a problem with unit-to-unit quality control with Nikon binoculars or scopes (in contrast to my experiences with Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica, B&L/Bushnell, Swift, Celestron, Meade, Pentax), at least when they were all made in Japan. Whether made by Nikon or outsourced, quality control seems to have been a long-standing priority of the brand.

--AP

 

[jan van daalen]

Once upon a time Swarovski brought the CL30 on the market.
Not long after that the Lynx came along together with the Monarch 5.
These two are "clones" or lets say copycats of the CL30. Nikon has had their model tweaked but the goal was to have enough volume to get the models produced for the price they wanted.
This little Nikon has never seen a Nikon factory.

Jan

 

[Alexis Powell]

Once upon a time Swarovski brought the CL30 on the market.
Not long after that the Lynx came along together with the Monarch 5.
These two are "clones" or lets say copycats of the CL30. Nikon has had their model tweaked but the goal was to have enough volume to get the models produced for the price they wanted.
This little Nikon has never seen a Nikon factory.

Jan

Yep, the Kite Lynx and Nikon Monarch and a few others (Maven B3?) are, from what I understand, not only clones under their skin but made by the same OEM (I presume the Swarovski CL is not). That's why I specified "pre-EDG modern" and specifically excluded "a very few current models" from my claim about Nikon-exclusive design. More generally, I think that when brands like Nikon or Zeiss start using Chinese manufacturing, all bets are off w/respect to design exclusivity (not to mention the quality of any plastics used in their manufacture).

--AP

 

[ceasar]

[QUOTE=Alexis Powell;3944252. .................................................
...................................................................................................

.............................................................................
RE Post#163:

"I think you misunderstood my point. The difference in flat-field performance between different Nikon binoculars is not a matter of sample variation, it is a consistent property of each model. For that matter, I've not had a problem with unit-to-unit quality control with Nikon binoculars or scopes (in contrast to my experiences with Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica, B&L/Bushnell, Swift, Celestron, Meade, Pentax), at least when they were all made in Japan. Whether made by Nikon or outsourced, quality control seems to have been a long-standing priority of the brand."

---------------------------------------

Regarding Flat Field performance; I remember that only the 42mm versions of the HG/HGL binoculars were afflicted with "Rolling Ball" and the 32mm versions were not.

Bob

 

[NDhunter]

Once upon a time Swarovski brought the CL30 on the market.
Not long after that the Lynx came along together with the Monarch 5.
These two are "clones" or lets say copycats of the CL30. Nikon has had their model tweaked but the goal was to have enough volume to get the models produced for the price they wanted.
This little Nikon has never seen a Nikon factory.

Jan

Jan:

You must mean the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, from what I'm told it is
similar to the Kite. I have the Swarovski CL 8x30 and also the M7 8x30.

It don't find there is any similarity between either model, except for their
very good optics in a small size.

Jerry

 

[etudiant]

It may only be me, but I consider outsourcing the production as borderline consumer fraud.
I recognize that it is pervasive, that airlines 'code share' and that even brand name pharmaceuticals are made in India or China by low cost producers, but it seems totally destructive of any consumer brand loyalty. Why pay a premium for a label unless that label has real meaning?

 

[jan van daalen]

Jan:

You must mean the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, from what I'm told it is
similar to the Kite. I have the Swarovski CL 8x30 and also the M7 8x30.

It don't find there is any similarity between either model, except for their
very good optics in a small size.

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

Thx, you're right.

Nikon had the Monarch 7 tweaked because they wanted a cheaper model on the market. Kite asked Nikon to join up to get enough volume.
The only reason I brought this up was because of the earlier discussion about where Nikons were produced.

Jan

 

[jan van daalen]

It may only be me, but I consider outsourcing the production as borderline consumer fraud.
I recognize that it is pervasive, that airlines 'code share' and that even brand name pharmaceuticals are made in India or China by low cost producers, but it seems totally destructive of any consumer brand loyalty. Why pay a premium for a label unless that label has real meaning?

It is not only you:t::t:

 

[John A Roberts]

Thanks John, I had forgotten about those somewhat misleading blue diagrams

. . . the ocular in the SF diagram, while accurate as to the number of lenses, is quite inaccurate as to the curves and spacings

. . . Was that done intentionally so as not to provide accurate details to the competition?

Henry

Hi Henry,

That may be so, though I've always assumed - especially when a new premium model comes out - that as a matter of routine, the competition purchase a couple of units

And that they:
- then do various non-destructive testing,
- and then disassemble one to see what if anything new is going on (while keeping the second for later reference)

i.e. the sort of thing that would be standard in most industries


John

 

[henry link]

I agree, John. There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to conceal anything about a binocular design.

I suppose an alternative explanation for the discrepancy between the drawing and the real eyepiece could be that one is the eyepiece from the 8x42 and the other is from the 10x42.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi again Henry,

Yes that would seem to be a reasonable alternative. But you’re perhaps attributing too much knowledge and care to whoever drew, and then approved, the cross-section
See my previous post about Zeiss SF and HT data at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=370530

The main diagram of the SF’s features, in the principal 60 page SF brochure ‘The Art of Precision’, had various labelling errors - so not much precision there!
And the brochure also included both the SF and HT cross-sections that we’ve discussed

See the attached copies of the SF diagram from:
A) Art of Precision 1st image
B) Art of Precision 2nd image, and
C) Beyond - with the correctly labelled diagram

So perhaps the most likely explanation is that the SF cross-section was drawn by someone who was not correctly briefed/ supervised/ checked
And that in terms of the lens proportions they are at best approximations


John


p.s. the cut away drawing from the US patent (included in the link at the start of this post) also differs in detail
both from the standard SF cross-section drawing and Jan’s actual image that you show in post #160, so no help there

 

[Troubador]

Hi again Henry,

Yes that would seem to be a reasonable alternative. But you’re perhaps attributing too much knowledge and care to whoever drew, and then approved, the cross-section
See my previous post about Zeiss SF and HT data at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=370530

The main diagram of the SF’s features, in the principal 60 page SF brochure ‘The Art of Precision’, had various labelling errors - so not much precision there!
And the brochure also included both the SF and HT cross-sections that we’ve discussed

See the attached copies of the SF diagram from:
A) Art of Precision 1st image
B) Art of Precision 2nd image, and
C) Beyond - with the correctly labelled diagram

So perhaps the most likely explanation is that the SF cross-section was drawn by someone who was not correctly briefed/ supervised/ checked
And that in terms of the lens proportions they are at best approximations


John

John

This was my reaction too. The number of bino brands' websites carrying specifications with errors is astounding considering these sites are their 'shop-windows'.

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

OK, the first findings are known.
Coming Wednesday I'll pick it up and place all the pics from the inside/components.

The reflective side of the SP prism is made longer to make it fit into the smaller housing (normal SP's are to bulky);
No plastic inside;
Sturdy built, but basic;
Focus lens on objective side;
No signs of the regular well known Oriëntal components.

If there are further questions, please make them so I can get the answers coming Wednesday.
Jan

 

[Holger Merlitz]

OK, the first findings are known.
Coming Wednesday I'll pick it up and place all the pics from the inside/components.

The reflective side of the SP prism is made longer to make it fit into the smaller housing (normal SP's are to bulky);
No plastic inside;
Sturdy built, but basic;
Focus lens on objective side;
No signs of the regular well known Oriëntal components.

If there are further questions, please make them so I can get the answers coming Wednesday.
Jan

Very interesting, Jan, thanks for that! So they have replaced the eyepiece-internal-focusing with the now common objective focusing lens! I am curious to learn more ....

Cheers,
Holger

 

[henry link]

Thanks very much, Jan! You've done us a great service.

Besides the Uppendahl prism it looks like the eyepiece focuser of the original has also been dropped. It appears that little if anything of the original optical design has been retained in the Retrovid, or maybe we should call it the Pseudovid.

I would be interested in knowing which way the focusing lens moves when changing the focus from near to far. For everything else, like the number of fixed elements in the objective and the eyepiece design, the photos should tell us everything.

Henry

 

[Troubador]

It appears that little if anything of the original optical design has been retained in the Retrovid, or maybe we should call it the Pseudovid.

Henry

Pseudovid sounds appropriate Henry.

Lee

 

[jan van daalen]

Thanks very much, Jan! You've done us a great service.

Besides the Uppendahl prism it looks like the eyepiece focuser of the original has also been dropped. It appears that little if anything of the original optical design has been retained in the Retrovid, or maybe we should call it the Pseudovid.

I would be interested in knowing which way the focusing lens moves when changing the focus from near to far. For everything else, like the number of fixed elements in the objective and the eyepiece design, the photos should tell us everything.

Henry

Hi Henry,

The focus lens runs towards the objective lens.

Coming Wednesday I'll know the answer on the other two items.

Jan

 

[Mike F]

Pseudovid sounds appropriate Henry.

Lee

Lee, I agree that Henry’s name for the new Trinovid is probably more appropriate. I’m also pretty sure that it’s not going to make one iota of difference to the sales if the binocular is good, which from first reports it seems to be......