-
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.
A little Kamakura anecdote... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter eitanaltman
- Start date
A sub $1000 binocular might all be in the same 'line' as they get pushed towards finishing and this includes a certain level of quality control within that price point line. A $200 or $400 binocular will also have a line, but separate and equal in quality control to that level of dollar/cost. So I don't think in any one line, you have that much of a disparity as you stated with being 5x the price.
Just my two cents
Just my two cents
Last edited by a moderator:
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Quality has its price and Kamakura can produce top quality instruments but we have to pay for it and that is understandable. The Zeiss Conquest is simply as far as I know from speaking with Zeiss people, a cooperation between Zeiss and Kamakura about the design and quality standards/quality control with the goal to have a Zeiss labelled binocular (the name is coupled for us with top quality established in the past century) for an acceptable price.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
eitanaltman
Well-known member
I’m sure there are also differences in little specifics like eyepiece design, coatings etc.
Zeiss or Leica is going to use their proprietary coatings and may also have different tolerances for quality control.
And obviously exterior differences. I compared my Torics to the Conquest HD and Razor HD and it’s obvious there are a lot of similarities, but the views are different, the armor, focus knob, eyecups etc.
Zeiss or Leica is going to use their proprietary coatings and may also have different tolerances for quality control.
And obviously exterior differences. I compared my Torics to the Conquest HD and Razor HD and it’s obvious there are a lot of similarities, but the views are different, the armor, focus knob, eyecups etc.
This is my understanding too.
Kamakura and other optics makers often have standard designs that you can order with different armour and your own logos, you can also ask to have different aspects of the specification changed to meet your own requirements or you can design the binoculars and send it to Kamakura and ask them to quote you for manufacturing it. 'Re-branding' happens but it is only one kind of sub-contract manufacturing.
Lee
Now from my understanding....Maven for one....has parts coming from Japan ( I am sure Kamakura) but assemble the parts in San Diego, California, USA.....
So not all products are completed there, although started or parts of....
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Kamakura does not operate only as a subcontractor, they also manufacture binos and scopes in a wide range of prices under their brand name, for example:
https://www.naturbokhandeln.se/sv/trademarks/10/kamakura
Kamakura's own products don't seem to sell very well and also seem to be completely unknown in many countries, which is a bit curious given that, as Gijs said, "they can produce top quality instruments"---maybe they don't want to compete with the optics companies they provide components and support to?
https://www.naturbokhandeln.se/sv/trademarks/10/kamakura
Kamakura's own products don't seem to sell very well and also seem to be completely unknown in many countries, which is a bit curious given that, as Gijs said, "they can produce top quality instruments"---maybe they don't want to compete with the optics companies they provide components and support to?
Sometimes when our USA cousins refer to 'glass' it is difficult to know whether they mean the whole binocular, or the lenses and prisms or the glass from which the lenses and prisms are made. So forgive me if I answer this by saying they will not make the glass but will buy it from suppliers like OHara and Schott and then produce the lenses and prisms from it.
In Europe the bino brands manufacture the lenses and prisms and also the optical tubes but because their production numbers are tiny they rely on specialist suppliers for moulded products such as plastic eyecups, focus wheels and dioptre knobs and rubber armour, ocular guards and objective covers, and of course products such as straps and cases, and of course small precision-machined parts such as focusing shafts and gears.
When you are a contract manufacturer such as Kamakura, making many products for many customers, the scale of manufacturing may mean they can afford to tool up for some moulded and small machined parts. Probably they still outsource straps and cases. I am confident about my remarks concerning European manufacturing but my final comments about contract manufacturers is speculation.
Lee
Last edited:
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
A question for Lee or anyone else who has insight - how much grinding / polishing / coating do the bin/scope manufacturers likely do, vs purchase finished lenses directly from the optical glass companies (Schott/OHara/CDGM)?
I have seen some videos / descriptions of manufacturing that show Zeiss and Swaro grinding / polishing / coating their own lenses for alpha bins. I wouldn't find it surprising if they also purchase finished lenses. But I wonder if Kamakura grinds every lens they use, a few, or very few? I assume of course it is a mixture depending on what the customer wants and what makes business sense.
I also assume that the smaller or newer OEMs in, say, China and the Philippines are mostly/entirely buying finished lenses rather than investing in the machining to do it all in house?
I assume if you want to make, say, dental loupes or low volume scientific equipment, you outsource the lenses to whatever spec you need, probably directly from the glass manufacturer.
This is really just curiosity. Ultimately these will be business decisions and you can get good quality anywhere if you spec it and have a good relationship with a good manufacturer. If a brand makes a top tier bin and I love it, I don't care if they ground their own lenses, but the engineer in me is curious about it.
I have seen some videos / descriptions of manufacturing that show Zeiss and Swaro grinding / polishing / coating their own lenses for alpha bins. I wouldn't find it surprising if they also purchase finished lenses. But I wonder if Kamakura grinds every lens they use, a few, or very few? I assume of course it is a mixture depending on what the customer wants and what makes business sense.
I also assume that the smaller or newer OEMs in, say, China and the Philippines are mostly/entirely buying finished lenses rather than investing in the machining to do it all in house?
I assume if you want to make, say, dental loupes or low volume scientific equipment, you outsource the lenses to whatever spec you need, probably directly from the glass manufacturer.
This is really just curiosity. Ultimately these will be business decisions and you can get good quality anywhere if you spec it and have a good relationship with a good manufacturer. If a brand makes a top tier bin and I love it, I don't care if they ground their own lenses, but the engineer in me is curious about it.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
For anyone who is curious about these things, a bit of information I dug up on Schott's website with some quick googling. Some details about lenses ground to spec from 3mm to 150mm in three quality tiers from any optical glass, minimum order quantities perhaps as low as 20-50 pieces:
https://www.schott.com/advanced_opt...onents/lenses/spherical-lenses/index.html#top
Perhaps Schott don't do a lot of in-house coating of optical glass? They may or may not cut prisms?
I recall at one point reading somewhere that Zeiss had sold/leased their coating machining/technology to Kamakura for the production of the Conquests with their coatings.
Does anyone know if Terra's have Zeiss's typical coatings or others? Do Trinovid HDs have the same coatings as UV/Noctivid or otherwise Leica specific coatings?
https://www.schott.com/advanced_opt...onents/lenses/spherical-lenses/index.html#top
Perhaps Schott don't do a lot of in-house coating of optical glass? They may or may not cut prisms?
I recall at one point reading somewhere that Zeiss had sold/leased their coating machining/technology to Kamakura for the production of the Conquests with their coatings.
Does anyone know if Terra's have Zeiss's typical coatings or others? Do Trinovid HDs have the same coatings as UV/Noctivid or otherwise Leica specific coatings?
I don't know the answer to your question pbj. It is known that Meopta manufactured spotting scopes for both Zeiss and Leica at one point and Meopta also makes lenses and prisms so may have supplied optical components too, but this is speculation.
I have often wondered about the T* coatings on Conquest HDs and would answer your question like this. The only business situation I have been in of a similar nature was when I was working with an earth-moving vehicle manufacturer who hadn't got a design for a 360 degree digger so they licenced the production of one from a Japanese competitor. I am speculating that their licence to produce this digger might have been analagous to Zeiss's licencing of their T* coatings to their sub-contract manufacturer. You might wonder why the Japanese digger maker would licence their design to help a competitor and similarly ask yourself why Zeiss would educate their sub-contractor on how to reproduce the famous T* coatings and thus enable them to make this tech available to their customers who might be competitors of Zeiss's Conquest.
And the answer was simple. The Japanese digger company only licenced the production of a digger design that was several years old. Similarly, one could speculate that Zeiss might keep the most modern version of T* for themselves and only licence a version that is several iterations older. All of this is pure speculation.
Lee
I have often wondered about the T* coatings on Conquest HDs and would answer your question like this. The only business situation I have been in of a similar nature was when I was working with an earth-moving vehicle manufacturer who hadn't got a design for a 360 degree digger so they licenced the production of one from a Japanese competitor. I am speculating that their licence to produce this digger might have been analagous to Zeiss's licencing of their T* coatings to their sub-contract manufacturer. You might wonder why the Japanese digger maker would licence their design to help a competitor and similarly ask yourself why Zeiss would educate their sub-contractor on how to reproduce the famous T* coatings and thus enable them to make this tech available to their customers who might be competitors of Zeiss's Conquest.
And the answer was simple. The Japanese digger company only licenced the production of a digger design that was several years old. Similarly, one could speculate that Zeiss might keep the most modern version of T* for themselves and only licence a version that is several iterations older. All of this is pure speculation.
Lee
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Lee, I too would assume that the Conquests would have a moderately inferior coating in comparison with the Victory line, which would fulfill at least three purposes - help differentiate the performance, keep costs more moderate for a mid tier offering, and avoid putting their latest and greatest into someone else's hands.
Of course, in theory it is possible to contractually obligate a third party manufacturer to guard your intellectual property but in practice it may not always work that way. Apple leaning on Foxconn has more clout and ability to protect their secrets, I should think, than Zeiss, Leica, or Nikon leaning on Kamakura. But these three must be far better positioned than the smaller, newer brands, if they were to have any IP to protect; in reality these smaller brands are not likely to be bringing any protected IP or in-house technology to the relationship.
Looking at Zeiss's website, it talks about T* and Lotutec coatings on the Terra page but then lower down it seems to state that the Terra's do not have Lotutec. In a tech PDF, it is stated that the Terra has "Hydrophobic Zeiss MC" coating.
Of course, in theory it is possible to contractually obligate a third party manufacturer to guard your intellectual property but in practice it may not always work that way. Apple leaning on Foxconn has more clout and ability to protect their secrets, I should think, than Zeiss, Leica, or Nikon leaning on Kamakura. But these three must be far better positioned than the smaller, newer brands, if they were to have any IP to protect; in reality these smaller brands are not likely to be bringing any protected IP or in-house technology to the relationship.
Looking at Zeiss's website, it talks about T* and Lotutec coatings on the Terra page but then lower down it seems to state that the Terra's do not have Lotutec. In a tech PDF, it is stated that the Terra has "Hydrophobic Zeiss MC" coating.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
I'm not sure if anyone can answer that - I certainly can't. But I trust that the SFs are mostly made in Germany, and I suspect a good portion of the parts (Schott glass, body, focuser probably) will be German made. But the exact details don't matter, too much. What really matters if if you still trust Zeiss to deliver a high quality product at a fair price. If they determine that they can make a better product by outsourcing some parts, that is ok with me. If they determine that they can make just as good a product if they outsource some parts, that's still fine. And it doesn't matter if the outsourced parts are German, Japanese, Chinese, or Congolese to me (aside from any human rights issues). A manufacturer can just as well fight too hard to keep everything in house and end up making a product that is too expensive to sell, or miss out on better parts due to their lack of in house ability. And if the quality of someone's product slips, it doesn't matter too much where it was made.
I do agree with you that labelling the Trinovids and Conquests as "Made in Germany / Portugal" is misleading.
For a long time you only had to do "final assembly" in the US to label something "made in the USA" and I recall from the 80's or perhaps early 90's a bunch of news stories of finished goods being imported (garments, tools, etc) and a tag being sewn in or a handle being screwed on or something to qualify as "made in USA." Now there are "made in USA" requirements that something be made in the USA from all or nearly all US sourced components. But there are "built in USA" and "assembled in USA" and other labels and I get gray on what the details are.
The US is full of products that are labelled "0 grams sugar*" and "0 grams trans fats*" and when you look at the * it is per serving, and the products frequently contain just under 1/2 gram of sugar or trans fats per serving, in order to be rounded down to 0.
This discussion reminds me of this cartoon: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free.png
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
I think that no binocular company really makes there own glass types. Corning, Hoya, Schott to name some excellent glass making companies supply a range of different glass types and the binocular companies buy the roughly shaped lenses and prisms and make them perfectly finished for their instruments, at least that is what I have seen when visiting a number of binocular companies.
And each serious binocular company has its own coating facilities and some of them are real coating "whizards".
Gijs van Ginkel
And each serious binocular company has its own coating facilities and some of them are real coating "whizards".
Gijs van Ginkel
Steve C
Well-known member
This is s synopsis of my understanding how "Getting your Binocular from Kamakura" works. Same deal if we are talking Light Optical Works, Tamron, or Sinshei, from Japan or something like United Optical from China.
At the basic level, which is what I personally regard as rebranding, is for someone to go to one of these places and simply buy as many binoculars as they can from a pre-existing design, straight off the shelf with their only input perhaps being color of the armor and the design of their logo. Bill has warned of this and it certainly has occurred, but if you want to find this level of stuff, go to the sub $50.00 junk on Amazon. If money can be made selling this it will always be available for sale.
Now if someone wants to start a binocular based optics business, they may well find one of any number of possible combinations available to get what they want. At the basic end someone wanting a binocular for their brand has to have a pretty good idea of what they want. They need to be able to sit and talk details with Kamakura and conduct a back and forth reaching a particular design goal. Maybe there is a partial design to hand that Kamakura can flesh out with the customer. Perhaps, like the Leupold Gold Ring or the Zeiss Conquest HD, the customer, in these cases a well established optical company, contracts for Kamakura to produce the customers design. Then does Kamakura do all, some, or none of the final assembly?
The successful outcome of these discussions results in a contract with Kamakura (or other manufacturer). The contract will have all the details, including minimum order numbers and when Kamakura builds a binocular for Tract, Maven, GPO, or Opticron, those companies have essentially purchased the time for the production of their particular binocular. I've been told that a company may even be able to have language in a contract that says the production line belongs to that company at the time their order is being built. If the order is for 500 units for Tract, then that number of binoculars is built. The production then switches to the next customer in line. Even if the basic design is the same between two brands, there will typically be enough differences if desired coatings and glass quality, among others to stop the presses, re-set the type and re-start.
At the basic level, which is what I personally regard as rebranding, is for someone to go to one of these places and simply buy as many binoculars as they can from a pre-existing design, straight off the shelf with their only input perhaps being color of the armor and the design of their logo. Bill has warned of this and it certainly has occurred, but if you want to find this level of stuff, go to the sub $50.00 junk on Amazon. If money can be made selling this it will always be available for sale.
Now if someone wants to start a binocular based optics business, they may well find one of any number of possible combinations available to get what they want. At the basic end someone wanting a binocular for their brand has to have a pretty good idea of what they want. They need to be able to sit and talk details with Kamakura and conduct a back and forth reaching a particular design goal. Maybe there is a partial design to hand that Kamakura can flesh out with the customer. Perhaps, like the Leupold Gold Ring or the Zeiss Conquest HD, the customer, in these cases a well established optical company, contracts for Kamakura to produce the customers design. Then does Kamakura do all, some, or none of the final assembly?
The successful outcome of these discussions results in a contract with Kamakura (or other manufacturer). The contract will have all the details, including minimum order numbers and when Kamakura builds a binocular for Tract, Maven, GPO, or Opticron, those companies have essentially purchased the time for the production of their particular binocular. I've been told that a company may even be able to have language in a contract that says the production line belongs to that company at the time their order is being built. If the order is for 500 units for Tract, then that number of binoculars is built. The production then switches to the next customer in line. Even if the basic design is the same between two brands, there will typically be enough differences if desired coatings and glass quality, among others to stop the presses, re-set the type and re-start.
Sebzwo, for info about Zeiss's production organisation go to: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=379310
Lee
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Why is Swarovski the only optical company that does not outsource?
They want to keep the desired quality guaranteed.
Ofcourse they buy their glass, housing etc. from third parties, the same as Zeiss and Leica do. These last two companies outsource the complete production of the Terra, Conquest and Trinovid's but produce their topmodels by themselves like Swaro does.
AFAIK the DG is the only exception made with components from Sony and in the past the nightvision device.
Jan
They want to keep the desired quality guaranteed.
Ofcourse they buy their glass, housing etc. from third parties, the same as Zeiss and Leica do. These last two companies outsource the complete production of the Terra, Conquest and Trinovid's but produce their topmodels by themselves like Swaro does.
AFAIK the DG is the only exception made with components from Sony and in the past the nightvision device.
Jan
Last edited:
Thanks Lee for the link. So Wetzlar is about "assembly" only. Manufacturing is outsourced to Hungary and global partners...
BTW AFAIK Swarovski outsourced their spotting scopes to Meopta - like Zeiss - a while ago.
I'd change "Made in Germany" to "Paid in Germany".
BTW AFAIK Swarovski outsourced their spotting scopes to Meopta - like Zeiss - a while ago.
I'd change "Made in Germany" to "Paid in Germany".
Last edited:
