WJC
Well-known member
In a PM received this morning, I was asked to comment (on the forum) as to why Nikon chose to use the same size prism for all of their SE binoculars. Although one would have to get inside the heads of the movers and shakers at Nikon to know that with any degree of certainty, I feel I have been associated with the industry long enough to give a practical answer.
The first thing that needs to be recognized here is that we are dealing with two spheres of thought.
The first sphere is made up with very nice folks who suffer with having way too much time on their hands (and nut cases like me who come here anyway) and who achieve fulfillment out of speculating on everything no matter how inconsequential, misunderstood, or infinitely redundant. Let’s face it; some people just come here to chat. To most (although not all) facts that can’t be explained on a fifth-grade level mean very little. Facts can throw a bushel wrenches into the conversations they come here to enjoy. These folks have no money at stake, they have no payroll to meet, and are not struggling to burrow into a market share.
The second sphere consists of manufacturing moguls who know that the vast majority of their binoculars are being sold to people who have never seen a binocular forum, who think an aberration is a ghost, believe a collimator is a cross between a collie and an alligator, and know the fastest route to bankruptcy is to try to make all those who don’t know what they are talking about ... happy. Yes, they follow what people want. But ... WE ARE NOT THOSE PEOPLE! And I for one am happy leaving optical engineering (even through trial and error) to those with a degree in optical engineering, knowing that most folks can really see the “improvements” they often claim to see.
This sphere knows using the same size prism will not be even noticed by the bulk of their market. In addition, with the difference in prism size being so small, keeping them separated in an everyday production setting would cost unnecessarily. There would need to be different locations for storage, different labels, additional cost for the tiny differences in the sizes produced and, any error in prism matching would cause errors in matching field stops and the mismatching of the extended positions of the eyecups ... causing the customer to bellyache about that. Of course, they could have additional inspectors to be certain mistakes like that didn’t get through but were turned back to production. This would cost in additional personnel and product rework.
Although manufacturers have experimented with varying the size of prisms for decades, it is not uncommon for one prism to be used in a dozen or more of one company’s products—and the SAME products wearing 15 other brand names. If people really want to understand the manufacturer’s thinking they need to start thinking like businessmen and women and not as armchair speculators.
If I seem extremely resolute on this issue it’s because it is one I have been trying to get through to folks since long before the Internet was a twinkle in Al Gore’s eye. :cat:
Bill
PS I just tried to delete this post and put in another thread. However, I was given to the option to "go advanced" but was not given the option to delete. :-C
The first thing that needs to be recognized here is that we are dealing with two spheres of thought.
The first sphere is made up with very nice folks who suffer with having way too much time on their hands (and nut cases like me who come here anyway) and who achieve fulfillment out of speculating on everything no matter how inconsequential, misunderstood, or infinitely redundant. Let’s face it; some people just come here to chat. To most (although not all) facts that can’t be explained on a fifth-grade level mean very little. Facts can throw a bushel wrenches into the conversations they come here to enjoy. These folks have no money at stake, they have no payroll to meet, and are not struggling to burrow into a market share.
The second sphere consists of manufacturing moguls who know that the vast majority of their binoculars are being sold to people who have never seen a binocular forum, who think an aberration is a ghost, believe a collimator is a cross between a collie and an alligator, and know the fastest route to bankruptcy is to try to make all those who don’t know what they are talking about ... happy. Yes, they follow what people want. But ... WE ARE NOT THOSE PEOPLE! And I for one am happy leaving optical engineering (even through trial and error) to those with a degree in optical engineering, knowing that most folks can really see the “improvements” they often claim to see.
This sphere knows using the same size prism will not be even noticed by the bulk of their market. In addition, with the difference in prism size being so small, keeping them separated in an everyday production setting would cost unnecessarily. There would need to be different locations for storage, different labels, additional cost for the tiny differences in the sizes produced and, any error in prism matching would cause errors in matching field stops and the mismatching of the extended positions of the eyecups ... causing the customer to bellyache about that. Of course, they could have additional inspectors to be certain mistakes like that didn’t get through but were turned back to production. This would cost in additional personnel and product rework.
Although manufacturers have experimented with varying the size of prisms for decades, it is not uncommon for one prism to be used in a dozen or more of one company’s products—and the SAME products wearing 15 other brand names. If people really want to understand the manufacturer’s thinking they need to start thinking like businessmen and women and not as armchair speculators.
If I seem extremely resolute on this issue it’s because it is one I have been trying to get through to folks since long before the Internet was a twinkle in Al Gore’s eye. :cat:
Bill
PS I just tried to delete this post and put in another thread. However, I was given to the option to "go advanced" but was not given the option to delete. :-C
Last edited:
