-
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.
So, just what is a binocular factory? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
To keep it simple, how about if it grinds it's own lenses then it is a manufacturing company, otherwise it is an assembler or a marketing company.
Last edited:
Cutesy humourist Chosun is right.
An optical company defines the required parameters and desired performance characteristics and designs optical systems to achieve these.
What consititutes a factory or what defines manufacturing becomes as much a question of personal taste as anything else. How many car manufacturers make their own brakes, suspension units, a/c units, steering wheels, wheels, headlights/backlights/sidelights, pistons, piston rings, crankshafts etc etc etc? Yet we don't scorn car companies for being mere assemblers, probably because designing cars to comply with safety regulations around the world and designing platforms that support a large number of models is an artform in its own right.
Even describing a company that buys off the shelf bins covered in their chosen armour and with their name on it, as the lowest dregs is a little unkind. Not every company has the available capital to develop every product required for a full line up and surely if the off the shelf bins are well chosen then this is an honourable way to achieve a full product line.
There are probably as many answers to the OP's question as there are BF members to answer it.
Lee
Steve C
Well-known member
So, how does one define design? For instance say Steve builds his dream house. For the appropriates part of this analogy relative to the OP, what happens when Steve has Acme Construction come build this house. Does the Logging Division of Acme go harvest and get their own lumber? Does the Pluming division of Acme build the plumbing pipes and fixtures? Does the Electrical division of Acme build the appliances and manufacture the electrical wiring? Does Acme Construction do anything but get the needed materials from whatever source that offers them. So, does Acme Construction build my house or do they assemble my house?
So this is my dream house and I've put a LOT of thought into it. I'm not an architect, but I do have a unique set of plans for my house. There are things there very unlikely to be found in other houses, after all, it's my dream house. But for all that, it has the same things found in all houses. There is a foundation, floors, walls, ceilings, rooms, insulation, electrical wiring, appliances, rooms, a roof, windows, doors, all common to houses. So did I design my house?
Taking Chosun's design comment, how much leeway is there to anyone in designing a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism binocular, or an Abbe-Koening, or a porro? They have been around for a long time, so how much can a designer really do? Or stated another way, how much is left to be done with the proven designs? Does she mean tweak the design with different glass types and coatings for extracting yet another bit of performance from the design? Or does it mean somebody needs to get off top dead center and design something different?
Does she mean somebody needs to design a wider range of ergonomics features? Does she mean something like what we see the new kid on the block, Maven Optics, is doing with offering some exterior options?
The devil's advocate awaits opinions
So this is my dream house and I've put a LOT of thought into it. I'm not an architect, but I do have a unique set of plans for my house. There are things there very unlikely to be found in other houses, after all, it's my dream house. But for all that, it has the same things found in all houses. There is a foundation, floors, walls, ceilings, rooms, insulation, electrical wiring, appliances, rooms, a roof, windows, doors, all common to houses. So did I design my house?
Taking Chosun's design comment, how much leeway is there to anyone in designing a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism binocular, or an Abbe-Koening, or a porro? They have been around for a long time, so how much can a designer really do? Or stated another way, how much is left to be done with the proven designs? Does she mean tweak the design with different glass types and coatings for extracting yet another bit of performance from the design? Or does it mean somebody needs to get off top dead center and design something different?
Does she mean somebody needs to design a wider range of ergonomics features? Does she mean something like what we see the new kid on the block, Maven Optics, is doing with offering some exterior options?
The devil's advocate awaits opinions
Last edited:
"
So, how does one define design?
"
Specifying all the glass elements, their composition, coatings, mechanical positions and movements,
and the materials and tolerances for the physical parts. Even the grease.
Once that's done, though, different places can make that design and dress it externally.
Your house can have all kinds of variations, but not binonoculars: this is an instrument.
A better analogy is ... different companies construct the standardized stock car engine,
frame, and pieces to spec and then decorate differently. Many things are strictly controlled
so NASCAR racers pit their skill and quality control against each other.
Designs can get messed up, cheated on, and bothched....that's part of vendor control
and quality control. I found a tiny pinky fingerprint from a child on a new but fuzzy monocular
once...that was depressing.
So, how does one define design?
"
Specifying all the glass elements, their composition, coatings, mechanical positions and movements,
and the materials and tolerances for the physical parts. Even the grease.
Once that's done, though, different places can make that design and dress it externally.
Your house can have all kinds of variations, but not binonoculars: this is an instrument.
A better analogy is ... different companies construct the standardized stock car engine,
frame, and pieces to spec and then decorate differently. Many things are strictly controlled
so NASCAR racers pit their skill and quality control against each other.
Designs can get messed up, cheated on, and bothched....that's part of vendor control
and quality control. I found a tiny pinky fingerprint from a child on a new but fuzzy monocular
once...that was depressing.
Steve C
Well-known member
OK, I can mostly agree with this and is the sort of answer I was driving toward getting with regard to my last post.
However, once the elements from the first quoted paragraph are specified, it is still a Scmidt-Pechan, an Abbe Koening, or a porro. So is specifying the elements actually design, or is it just specifying the elements in the established design? Seems there is (or at least could be) a difference to me. If specifying the elements is the generally accepted criteria for design, that is more than OK with me.
I agree that my dream house may well seem ill specified to some and it got botched with poor design and QC. An analogy is never perfect.
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Well we can analize it to the bone, but if it takes Zeiss two years to put a new generation of bins together, we may call them a binocular factory, don't we.
Steve
Yours is a great question. And I am sure there is much to this than simply saying well its SP prism bins design, thats it, nothing more to do or discuss.
I'm making this up as I go along because I am no optics designer.
Lets say you come at this from wanting to design an ultra-compact bin.
So you want a short length.
This means you have to achieve your optical path within a shorter distance, so I guess that means you need glass types with a higher refractive index to make more 'powerful' lenses. The various combinations of lens profile and glass types are all choices with upsides and downsides. I am sure this leads to optical consequences in terms of aberrations that need more controlling. So this complicates your design process. And if you want extra compactness then you will look to use smaller prisms, but then you start to eat into your field of view. Is FOV important to your concept or not? You need to balance out opposing requirements all the time, in achieving the optical specification you have and controlling undesirable effects. If you have cost targets (and who doesn't) you may have to think carefully about how thoroughly you blacken internal surfaces. Your priority to make the bins compact may give you fewer options where to put internal baffles.
This is before you get to thinking about stuff like eyecups and focusing mechanisms. Anybody can make super smooth and backlash-free focusing and also luxurious feeling and precise eyecups, but hey all of a sudden you have added 75 grams or 3 ounces to the weight: damn!
Tricky. And then when they have achieved what they think is a super fine balance of all the opposing requirements, someone on here grumbles that the last 5 % of the FOV isn't sharp enough......
Lee
Last edited:
perterra
Well-known member
To be considered a factory I think you need to be a manufacturer. And not use it as a play on words by calling some other makers facility who you contract it to "our facility". I dont feel you have to make all the parts, very little is done 100% in house anymore anyway, but it needs to be more than making bino bags for the binos you import or contract. But you need to be doing assembly and more than screwing on your eye pieces or adding your stickers. If the electric bill for the plant shows up at your mailbox, then you own a plant.
I dont think design is that important, with the way companies reverse engineer and knock off clones these days the actual design elements are not a must.
I see nothing wrong with being a distributor, Bushnell did it as well as anyone. And I dont think you must bring in 100% of your line. You could make one style bino and import the rest and you are still a factory.
I dont think design is that important, with the way companies reverse engineer and knock off clones these days the actual design elements are not a must.
I see nothing wrong with being a distributor, Bushnell did it as well as anyone. And I dont think you must bring in 100% of your line. You could make one style bino and import the rest and you are still a factory.
Steve C
Well-known member
In spite of my words about can you really design an SP, AK or porro prism, I say sure you can. Just wanted to see what that shook out.
As in Lee's example once you decide your project is going to be a compact, the type of compact you want may well chose the base design, maybe even dictating the use of SP. So even that is design. I think that working with any basic binocular configuration can be design. I do not think all SP binoculars are alike. So doing things like developing new coatings and different recipes of the way coatings are applied, tweaking the glass quality at any given point in the system, working on a better focus system, working on better ocular designs to improve field and manage distortion, or working with any of the myriad of things in a binocular, are certainly all design. Maybe that is what Chosun meant with her one word post. But who knows.
When we get to to putting the binocular through the paces from the final design, through the various prototypes, and getting the first production model into the box, then we get into more gray areas.
I really don't think there is a definition of just what a binocular maker is. I don't know if we can even agree on the term binocular maker. I think that the more aspects of the process from initial design to into the customer box, a company can involve themselves in, the more likely it is they will eventually be considered a binocular maker. Take Vortex as an example. They design at least some of their binoculars. One of the owners is an optical designer. They have a CNC shop and facilities enough to assemble prototypes and the ability to test the prototype. They have the ability to repair their product. They often replace. Depends on their cost I imagine. But they sub contract the actual building of the binocular. Leupold for another example is Vortex written on a far larger scale. They can build many things that go into their optics. They have engineers who can design stuff. They have product managers who oversee the process.They can assemble and repair what they sell. They design some things they sell, maybe all things they sell. They have optical labs to do stuff with. Regardless of the company, they are in contract arrangements with the "place that builds the optic" so that they have some degree of control.
Other places have just started their own facilities. They are probably small but equipped with means to design and assemble, placing themselves in control over their product we take brand new out of the box.
This is all at one or more of several levels above going into the front door of Acme Optical and saying "I like that one give me 500 in green".
As in Lee's example once you decide your project is going to be a compact, the type of compact you want may well chose the base design, maybe even dictating the use of SP. So even that is design. I think that working with any basic binocular configuration can be design. I do not think all SP binoculars are alike. So doing things like developing new coatings and different recipes of the way coatings are applied, tweaking the glass quality at any given point in the system, working on a better focus system, working on better ocular designs to improve field and manage distortion, or working with any of the myriad of things in a binocular, are certainly all design. Maybe that is what Chosun meant with her one word post. But who knows.
When we get to to putting the binocular through the paces from the final design, through the various prototypes, and getting the first production model into the box, then we get into more gray areas.
I really don't think there is a definition of just what a binocular maker is. I don't know if we can even agree on the term binocular maker. I think that the more aspects of the process from initial design to into the customer box, a company can involve themselves in, the more likely it is they will eventually be considered a binocular maker. Take Vortex as an example. They design at least some of their binoculars. One of the owners is an optical designer. They have a CNC shop and facilities enough to assemble prototypes and the ability to test the prototype. They have the ability to repair their product. They often replace. Depends on their cost I imagine. But they sub contract the actual building of the binocular. Leupold for another example is Vortex written on a far larger scale. They can build many things that go into their optics. They have engineers who can design stuff. They have product managers who oversee the process.They can assemble and repair what they sell. They design some things they sell, maybe all things they sell. They have optical labs to do stuff with. Regardless of the company, they are in contract arrangements with the "place that builds the optic" so that they have some degree of control.
Other places have just started their own facilities. They are probably small but equipped with means to design and assemble, placing themselves in control over their product we take brand new out of the box.
This is all at one or more of several levels above going into the front door of Acme Optical and saying "I like that one give me 500 in green".
Last edited:
perterra
Well-known member
So along that train of thought why would someone need more than one employee to be a manufacturer? Seems like all you would need is a computer program, maybe a lathe and mill and someone to write a check to a company to actually build it.
I dont buy it, the way I look at it, Leupold manufactures optics, just not binoculars. To say they are a manufacurer is playing loose with the words, same for Vortex, Eagle or even the Atlas brand. If the extent of your liability in manufacturing is limited to copyrights and patents, I wouldnt say you are a manufacturer.
Dont get me wrong, I dont have a problem with companies distributing others glass or sub contracting out their work, but when they sub 100% they should fess up and not claim they are a manufacturer. I'm not saying they shouldnt say it unless they own 100%, I'm just saying they should have a stake in the game, and using a different company every year to produce your glass does not make you a maker.
I would tend to be a little looser on the term if so many werent exactly like each other. It's like there is a company who makes them and has a punch list, you put the X in what you want on yours and send us your logo and you are now a maker.
Steve C
Well-known member
Perterra,
You illustrate the point there is no way these is a sort of accepted definition. But above you say in one sentence that Leupold is a manufacturer, then you say they aren't in the next sentence.
I don't see where I said Vortex was a manufacturer. I gave a brief description of how they operate (to my understanding anyway).
I'm not trying to convince anybody of what any sort of definition should be. Just curious what, if anything is the prevailing thought.
You illustrate the point there is no way these is a sort of accepted definition. But above you say in one sentence that Leupold is a manufacturer, then you say they aren't in the next sentence.
I don't see where I said Vortex was a manufacturer. I gave a brief description of how they operate (to my understanding anyway).
I'm not trying to convince anybody of what any sort of definition should be. Just curious what, if anything is the prevailing thought.
perterra
Well-known member
I said Leupold was a manufacturer of optics, not binoculars. They make a lot of scopes in house, I dont think they do anything on binoculars other than fill out a purchase order. And filling out a PO doesnt make a manufacturer regardless of who designs it.
Maybe I misread that you were implying Vortex was much more than a distributor, if so I apologize. But in my opinion (which with $4.95 will buy a cup of starbucks joe) they are an importer/distributor. My point is, if the Chinese borders were closed down tonight, how many binocular manufacturers would close their doors within a month?
You asked, I'm just stating my opinion. It aint just binoculars, hell probably most of the clothing companies as well as shoe brands, electronics and most other goods would be in the same boat.
Steve C
Well-known member
Depending on one's perspective I guess. Vortex is indeed, in my opinion, more than a distributor of somebody else's stuff. There is certainly some of that in their business model, the Atlas Brand being one example. That's my opinion and my opinion and twenty bucks will get me dinner.
My opinion is that there are some outfits that get the derisive brand of a "re-badger of junk" when that is not correct. It usually comers from somebody who is in the process of getting tied in a knot because they think the discussion of merit on some brand of binocular is a personal affront to their brand loyalty. But sometimes the description of being a seller of off the shelf junk is accurate. Nobody will agree on what lines to draw, how to draw them,or when to draw them.
Our conversation seems to illustrate that there is no generally accepted definition. Maybe a definition of an "Optics Company" might be a better way to approach the subject, but the results would be about the same.
Last edited:
perterra
Well-known member
I wouldnt disagree with the high lighted part at all. But if General Motors shut down all production and went to Kia and contracted them to build 100% of their automobiles would they still be a manufacturer, or would they be an importer who rebrands? I dont know the answer.
But the argument has been going on a while. It's a big deal in wrist watches, people will say for a company to be a watch maker they should build 100% in house, movements, cases and bracelets. But then the fact that companies like MRP SA make the same watch case for a half dozen different big name companies falls on deaf ears, and the fact that Seiko builds everything in house is ignored or minimized. Egos end up in the mix somewhere.
Again, I'm not knocking Vortex or anyone else. I just feel all of them get a little loose with descriptions these days.
Steve C
Well-known member
I don't know the answer either. I am also pretty much in agreement with your post.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Steve:
This thread started out about, "what is a binocular factory".
If that means from start to finish, that means a raw glass manufacturer with blanks, the grind, finish, coatings, the body, armor and assembly, to a finished product. I don't think this is being done by any seller in only one place.
The other points mentioned above confirm that most all of these things are done by various
manufacturers, and assembled in various locations.
Not to minimize this, things are done by each manufacturer with different levels of design, quality and execution.
Jerry
This thread started out about, "what is a binocular factory".
If that means from start to finish, that means a raw glass manufacturer with blanks, the grind, finish, coatings, the body, armor and assembly, to a finished product. I don't think this is being done by any seller in only one place.
The other points mentioned above confirm that most all of these things are done by various
manufacturers, and assembled in various locations.
Not to minimize this, things are done by each manufacturer with different levels of design, quality and execution.
Jerry
Steve C
Well-known member
Steve:
This thread started out about, "what is a binocular factory".
If that means from start to finish, that means a raw glass manufacturer with blanks, the grind, finish, coatings, the body, armor and assembly, to a finished product. I don't think this is being done by any seller in only one place.
The other points mentioned above confirm that most all of these things are done by various
manufacturers, and assembled in various locations.
Not to minimize this, things are done by each manufacturer with different levels of design, quality and execution.
Jerry
The question was just asked out of my curiosity. There are always arguments/questions/discussions about who makes it, where is it made, so and so is a real deal, while somebody else is no more than a simple re-brander of stuff of the shelf from some big Chinese factory somewhere.
I was curious to see what everyone thought. You are right, there is probably no place that does the whole instrument completely in house. That seems confirmed and is what I though to begin with. Nobody is going to make their own screws or other assorted smaller pieces. So ultimately some do more and some do less. Is there a line, I don't know. It seems like if ten people were asked there would be a dozen answers.
So to put a point on this what is your definition of a genuine Optical Company? Yours will be yours, but what is it?
perterra
Well-known member
I dont see any shame in being branded a re-badger if you insist on bringing a quality product to market and stand behind that product in the market.
Steve C
Well-known member
Me either. You have to start someplace if you want your own optics company. That is likely the first avenue to look at. Who knows where you will go from there.
