They say time flies and a couple of weeks ago I was amazed to notice that it was nearly 3 months since I posted my first interview with Dr Gerold Dobler of Zeiss Sports Optics. So when I recently met up with him again to discuss all sorts of binocular-related issues, I naturally took the opportunity to interview him once again. I did consider reading him his rights: “ You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and used on Bird Forum”, but Dr Dobler was ready to meet the challenge of another grilling by yours truly. I asked him a series of questions that have arisen out of posts on Bird Forum and also one that casts further light on the history of the original Swarovski EL. Dr Dobler very kindly agreed to share his views on these topics, speaking as a private individual, not as a spokesman for Zeiss.
Troubador: SF has been very slow in being delivered to the market, long after it was announced. When can people expect normal availability of SF to be achieved?
Dr Dobler: It is true that there have been delays caused by several different and unforeseen factors and of course we wish that this had not happened. Production is building steadily now, in a controlled way, but we are still satisfying all of the pre-orders. We expect to achieve normal availability, by which we mean you can expect to visit shops and find SF there on the shelf waiting for you to try them out, during this summer.
Troubador: We have read reports that some SFs have been returned by dealers due to the focuser tightening up when in use. Has the cause of this issue been identified and eliminated?
Dr Dobler: Yes. A batch of one of the mechanical components spoiled the feel of the focuser over a part of the focusing movement of some units and this has been dealt with by implementing new procedures and controls.
Troubador: Most people would consider it normal to plan and to organise in such a way that these delays and quality issues are avoided.
Dr Dobler: Of course, and there is no doubt that the introduction of SF to the market has not been as smooth as we wished. Despite the best plans, sometimes there are unforeseen problems. It is no excuse but it is relevant to point out that this has happened with other brands too but Zeiss understands that the market expects a better performance than this, and I can tell you that there has been more than one change in our management structure as a result.
Troubador: There have been a small number of reports of people noticing a blue or purple ring around the extreme edge of the field of view. Clearly this is some kind of chromatic aberration. What was causing this?
Dr Dobler: Binoculars are designed for viewing with the eyes central with the exit pupil and with the binoculars held straight in front of the eyes. This is similar to the positioning of the sensor in a camera in relation to the lens fitted to the carefully designed and manufactured lens mount. If you were to angle the sensor or the lens you would get some very strange photographs. If you look through any binoculars at an angle you can also see strange optical effects. A riflescope also does not permit any angled viewing at all, but with binoculars there is a little tolerance. Of course when you are holding binoculars in the normal and correct way you do not see these effects and you can look around the field of view, especially with peripheral vision, but it gets harder with an extra-wide field of view like that of the SF. People can be tempted to tilt the binoculars or their head to try to look directly at the edge of the view and this is when they see strange effects. What effects are seen will vary according to the lighting conditions and how much the observer ‘tilts’ the view.
Troubador: What do you say to people who say that they can look at the edge of the field of view in other brands without noticing these effects?
Dr Dobler: Well, perhaps they are not having to tilt the binoculars as much because their binoculars do not have such a wide field of view or maybe they were just lucky with the lighting conditions at the time. All binoculars are designed for looking more or less straight through in what most people would regard as the normal way of observing nature. I think that sometimes it is possible for people to forget that binoculars are designed for observing nature, or sports, or just the view.
Troubador: People have been naturally very interested to see Zeiss fit the SF with a field flattener, and many see this as something new that Zeiss has introduced to compete with Swarovski’s EL SV, but this technology is not really new to Zeiss at all is it?
Dr Dobler: This is correct. The well-known Koehler eyepiece was a wide-angle design that included field flattening and was designed by Herr Koehler at Zeiss in 1960. More recently Zeiss has fitted field flatteners to the eyepiece of the Photoscope, and to the fixed magnification eyepieces for the Diascope telescopes. More relevant to our discussion today is that a field flattener is fitted to the FL 10x32. In fact the FL 10x32 with field flattener was launched in 2005, 5 years before the EL Swarovision. So Zeiss has certainly been familiar with this technology for many years.
Troubador: Really? In the FL 10x32?? Why hasn’t Zeiss publicised this?
Dr Dobler: To answer this question you really need to ask somebody else because the FL was of course designed before my time with Zeiss. But I can make a guess. I think that at Zeiss, field flatteners are seen simply as another optical tool, they are not seen as something magical.
Troubador: In December last year I posted a history of the original Swarovski EL and as a result of my research I was clear that while it was the result of a team effort, that team was led by you, and worked to develop a concept originated by you. However I have heard rumours in Europe that you did not actually contribute in an important way to the development of the original Swarovski EL. Can you clear up this confusion over your role?
Dr Dobler: I have also heard these rumours. They started at about the time that the SF was announced and they have continued since then and it is only after all these months that I feel I cannot remain silent any longer. Fortunately I have a very simple way to demonstrate that these rumours are absolutely untrue because my former employer Mrs Carina Schiestl-Swarovski has described my role at Swarovski in an Austrian court of law. I should explain that when I left Swarovski, the company sought to obtain compensation for my leaving in the Austrian courts. This court case is finished and in the past and I only mention it now to explain how my job description came to be discussed in legal documents.
I will now quote from court protocols which have been issued by the court to the parties involved and are a true and accurate account of what was said in court:
In the course of the trial Swarovski Optik chairwoman Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski clearly affirmed that Dr Dobler’s function target at that time was to “determine which products should be offered, to determine their positioning and determine the respective marketing strategy with the aim of launching the technically and qualitatively best products on the market”.
Swarovski Optik chairwoman Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski claimed that one of the main tasks of Dr Dobler was to “create the product specification sheets for product development and initiate a market oriented product development”. She further claimed that the function of Dr Dobler was also “to inform the management about the results of his product line”. (Note from Troubador: I checked the translation of the word ‘seiner’ to verify that the phrase “his product line”, which is very important in this context, is correct, and indeed ‘seiner’ does directly translate as “his”).
On 9th June 2009 Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski personally: “Dr Dobler is a great carrier of know-how, has specific technical knowledge, he is a visionary and knows what the customer of tomorrow desires”. Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski further explained: “Dr Dobler was also the chairman of our market board. All ideas for product improvements and ideas for new products have been evaluated by the market board and moved into development. This is the place where our product development plan was actually determined”.
On the 4th March 2010 Swarovski Optik chairwoman Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski personally said, under the eyes of the court: “ the market and competition monitoring conducted by Dr Dobler was integrated into specific product definitions, no matter what segment it was. Dr Dobler co-created our product development plan. The fathers of the EL binocular have been Dr Seil as optical designer, Daniel Murg as mechanical designer and Dr Dobler for product management and marketing. This was the most successful year in the company history when Swarovski Optik introduced the EL”.
These quotations speak for themselves and there is more information available if needed.
Troubador: Dr Dobler, thank you for being so open and frank with my questions and I look forward to other opportunities to talk to you in the future.
Dr Dobler: You are welcome and I hope the knowledgeable enthusiasts on Bird Forum continue to discuss binoculars and optics and keep all the manufacturers on the alert.
Lee
Troubador: SF has been very slow in being delivered to the market, long after it was announced. When can people expect normal availability of SF to be achieved?
Dr Dobler: It is true that there have been delays caused by several different and unforeseen factors and of course we wish that this had not happened. Production is building steadily now, in a controlled way, but we are still satisfying all of the pre-orders. We expect to achieve normal availability, by which we mean you can expect to visit shops and find SF there on the shelf waiting for you to try them out, during this summer.
Troubador: We have read reports that some SFs have been returned by dealers due to the focuser tightening up when in use. Has the cause of this issue been identified and eliminated?
Dr Dobler: Yes. A batch of one of the mechanical components spoiled the feel of the focuser over a part of the focusing movement of some units and this has been dealt with by implementing new procedures and controls.
Troubador: Most people would consider it normal to plan and to organise in such a way that these delays and quality issues are avoided.
Dr Dobler: Of course, and there is no doubt that the introduction of SF to the market has not been as smooth as we wished. Despite the best plans, sometimes there are unforeseen problems. It is no excuse but it is relevant to point out that this has happened with other brands too but Zeiss understands that the market expects a better performance than this, and I can tell you that there has been more than one change in our management structure as a result.
Troubador: There have been a small number of reports of people noticing a blue or purple ring around the extreme edge of the field of view. Clearly this is some kind of chromatic aberration. What was causing this?
Dr Dobler: Binoculars are designed for viewing with the eyes central with the exit pupil and with the binoculars held straight in front of the eyes. This is similar to the positioning of the sensor in a camera in relation to the lens fitted to the carefully designed and manufactured lens mount. If you were to angle the sensor or the lens you would get some very strange photographs. If you look through any binoculars at an angle you can also see strange optical effects. A riflescope also does not permit any angled viewing at all, but with binoculars there is a little tolerance. Of course when you are holding binoculars in the normal and correct way you do not see these effects and you can look around the field of view, especially with peripheral vision, but it gets harder with an extra-wide field of view like that of the SF. People can be tempted to tilt the binoculars or their head to try to look directly at the edge of the view and this is when they see strange effects. What effects are seen will vary according to the lighting conditions and how much the observer ‘tilts’ the view.
Troubador: What do you say to people who say that they can look at the edge of the field of view in other brands without noticing these effects?
Dr Dobler: Well, perhaps they are not having to tilt the binoculars as much because their binoculars do not have such a wide field of view or maybe they were just lucky with the lighting conditions at the time. All binoculars are designed for looking more or less straight through in what most people would regard as the normal way of observing nature. I think that sometimes it is possible for people to forget that binoculars are designed for observing nature, or sports, or just the view.
Troubador: People have been naturally very interested to see Zeiss fit the SF with a field flattener, and many see this as something new that Zeiss has introduced to compete with Swarovski’s EL SV, but this technology is not really new to Zeiss at all is it?
Dr Dobler: This is correct. The well-known Koehler eyepiece was a wide-angle design that included field flattening and was designed by Herr Koehler at Zeiss in 1960. More recently Zeiss has fitted field flatteners to the eyepiece of the Photoscope, and to the fixed magnification eyepieces for the Diascope telescopes. More relevant to our discussion today is that a field flattener is fitted to the FL 10x32. In fact the FL 10x32 with field flattener was launched in 2005, 5 years before the EL Swarovision. So Zeiss has certainly been familiar with this technology for many years.
Troubador: Really? In the FL 10x32?? Why hasn’t Zeiss publicised this?
Dr Dobler: To answer this question you really need to ask somebody else because the FL was of course designed before my time with Zeiss. But I can make a guess. I think that at Zeiss, field flatteners are seen simply as another optical tool, they are not seen as something magical.
Troubador: In December last year I posted a history of the original Swarovski EL and as a result of my research I was clear that while it was the result of a team effort, that team was led by you, and worked to develop a concept originated by you. However I have heard rumours in Europe that you did not actually contribute in an important way to the development of the original Swarovski EL. Can you clear up this confusion over your role?
Dr Dobler: I have also heard these rumours. They started at about the time that the SF was announced and they have continued since then and it is only after all these months that I feel I cannot remain silent any longer. Fortunately I have a very simple way to demonstrate that these rumours are absolutely untrue because my former employer Mrs Carina Schiestl-Swarovski has described my role at Swarovski in an Austrian court of law. I should explain that when I left Swarovski, the company sought to obtain compensation for my leaving in the Austrian courts. This court case is finished and in the past and I only mention it now to explain how my job description came to be discussed in legal documents.
I will now quote from court protocols which have been issued by the court to the parties involved and are a true and accurate account of what was said in court:
In the course of the trial Swarovski Optik chairwoman Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski clearly affirmed that Dr Dobler’s function target at that time was to “determine which products should be offered, to determine their positioning and determine the respective marketing strategy with the aim of launching the technically and qualitatively best products on the market”.
Swarovski Optik chairwoman Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski claimed that one of the main tasks of Dr Dobler was to “create the product specification sheets for product development and initiate a market oriented product development”. She further claimed that the function of Dr Dobler was also “to inform the management about the results of his product line”. (Note from Troubador: I checked the translation of the word ‘seiner’ to verify that the phrase “his product line”, which is very important in this context, is correct, and indeed ‘seiner’ does directly translate as “his”).
On 9th June 2009 Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski personally: “Dr Dobler is a great carrier of know-how, has specific technical knowledge, he is a visionary and knows what the customer of tomorrow desires”. Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski further explained: “Dr Dobler was also the chairman of our market board. All ideas for product improvements and ideas for new products have been evaluated by the market board and moved into development. This is the place where our product development plan was actually determined”.
On the 4th March 2010 Swarovski Optik chairwoman Mrs Schiestl-Swarovski personally said, under the eyes of the court: “ the market and competition monitoring conducted by Dr Dobler was integrated into specific product definitions, no matter what segment it was. Dr Dobler co-created our product development plan. The fathers of the EL binocular have been Dr Seil as optical designer, Daniel Murg as mechanical designer and Dr Dobler for product management and marketing. This was the most successful year in the company history when Swarovski Optik introduced the EL”.
These quotations speak for themselves and there is more information available if needed.
Troubador: Dr Dobler, thank you for being so open and frank with my questions and I look forward to other opportunities to talk to you in the future.
Dr Dobler: You are welcome and I hope the knowledgeable enthusiasts on Bird Forum continue to discuss binoculars and optics and keep all the manufacturers on the alert.
Lee
Last edited:
