What if...... (3 Viewers)

jan van daalen · Jan 2, 2020

eronald said:
At Monde de l’Observation, I wanted to do an SF vd Noct comparison, but they told me they dont do the Noct because they consider it’s just “more of the same”.

What can I say, either they have commercial issues just for that model, as they carry other Leica, or they are genuinely advising their customers. My own take on the Noct is that I wouldnt mind having one for the beauty of the object, but the view of a bird against sky - or a building top, dazzles me. I NEED to see chimneys.

Leica is certainly capable of making alpha grade instruments, but where Zeiss and Swaro seem to hire consultant functional designers and experiment with the usability envelope, Leica seems to set the standards on the beauty of casing looks. It’s different in the case of the rangefinder instruments.

Edmund

Hi Edmund,

If I was Leica, I would kick Monde del Observation under their a**. As a dealer you take a long term vision commitment. You show where the brand stands for, in good and bad (optical product) days so that a customer can choose by his own on the various brand offers. In this case the SF versus the SV versus the NV and not make a "pre selection".
Of course this should work vica versa:-C:-C

Jan

jan van daalen · Jan 2, 2020

fazalmajid said:
Jan

It's very unfortunate you were forced into this decision, and it reflects poorly on Leica. I suspect you are just collateral damage, as the sports optics business is tiny compared to cameras and lenses, and as eronald says, Leica's been turning itself into a lifestyle brand for a while now (the Hermès limited edition is a special case, at the time Hermès actually had a shareholding in Leica).

There are very few stores that specialize in binoculars and hold a full range like yours. I certainly know of none in San Francisco (Scope City closed years ago), Paris, London or Amsterdam. Places like the Leica boutiques won't have the necessary expertise to properly advise customers. I moved to Leica binoculars from Leica cameras, and for years resisted trying Swarovski despite Sam Sweiss of Scope City recommending them over the Leicas I kept buying (Trinovid 8x20, Ultravid 8x20BL, Ultravid 10x50, Ultravid HD 8x42 BL, Ultravid HD 8x32 BR).

Knowing what I do now, I would pick Swarovski first, so you are not doing any harm to your customers, the Leica offerings are not competitive with Swarovski Zeiss or Nikon, possibly even Meopta. There is something to be said about the simple elegance and haptics of the leather-clad Leicas like the retrovids, however, even if they are no longer optically state of the art.

Hi Fazalmajid,

Still, nothing wrong with your choices. The little Trinovid's competitor was the Zeiss classic 8x20 and I would haven choosen the Trinnie also.
Comparing the UV 8x20L with the Victory 8x20 and the Swarovski 8x20, I would have choosen the UV also. Now it is a different ballgame. The Victory and Swarovski 8x25 line are superior in optics, but not in weight and volume.
The Ultravid 10x50 was King. There was no FL50 series and no SF50, only later on the SV50, so that choice was also legit.
The Ultravid HD 42 in leather in one of the kind. I have the Safari 8x32 just because I love the looks.
OK, in rubber I would have gone for the FL and/or SV and when the SF32 comes out.....yammie yammie:eat:

So that's four strikes and one out. That's not bad at all:t:

Jan

eronald · Jan 3, 2020

jan van daalen said:
Hi Edmund,

If I was Leica, I would kick Monde del Observation under their a**. As a dealer you take a long term vision commitment. You show where the brand stands for, in good and bad (optical product) days so that a customer can choose by his own on the various brand offers. In this case the SF versus the SV versus the NV and not make a "pre selection".
Of course this should work vica versa:-C:-C

Jan

Jan,

Times have changed. I don’t think Leica are remotely interested in having their product A/B compared with SV or SF, on price or performance. There was Leica then, and there is Leica now ...

Edmund

eronald · Jan 3, 2020

jan van daalen said:
Hi Edmund,

If I was Leica, I would kick Monde del Observation under their a**. As a dealer you take a long term vision commitment. You show where the brand stands for, in good and bad (optical product) days so that a customer can choose by his own on the various brand offers. In this case the SF versus the SV versus the NV and not make a "pre selection".
Of course this should work vica versa:-C:-C

Jan

Jan,

You don’t know the Paris shop but you do know the Noct. In your opinion, how does it stack up optically against SV and SF? How is sample variation? I think we are all interested in your informed opinion now that you are allowed to talk freely!

Edmund

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

Troubador said:
It was explained to me at the time that Terra was conceived for two reasons. The first was that it gave beginners and people with limited funds to spend on a binocular a 'first step on the Zeiss ladder'. Naturally the hope and expectation was that these people would progress up the ladder to Conquest and perhaps, in time, to Victory.
The second motivation behind Terra was to provide a 'cost-effective' model for people who are not bino-enthusiasts but who love the outdoors and what they can see there while walking, hiking or camping.

I see other notes in that explanation, which sound like coins!

"To think badly one commits sin, but generally one guesses the correct intent".

This Lee is a proverb from my part and I don't know if it will be clear to everyone, but it describes my impression on Zeiss well.
In my opinion, Zeiss has long since bowed to China and at low cost (even in photographic optics) to make more money, but also making many failures.
One was the Terra binoculars, with a decidedly "earth-to-earth" quality (the lowest level). Now I don't know if they really improved them, but I saw Zeiss make too many changes in its products, in a short time. And this, in my opinion, displaces the new customers, putting them in confusion (perhaps even the old ones). For example, Victory HT 42mm have already discontinued them (why?). They didn't even go out and are no longer there.
The SFs that just came out had various defects, then returned, but still it was a "nice slap" to the faster and anxious customers of the new binoculars. They then had to replace the binoculars or have it repaired.
These are all considerations, which added to the experiences I have had with Zeiss (few, to be honest), lead me to consider Zeiss products with a different eye, compared to the fan of the brand.
The Zeta di Zorro, white on a blue background, does not make me feel good (and I love blue

).

I agree with Jan's words, al #94 and I believe that Zeiss has 6%, only because of the "inertia of the aficionados" and for the "great tolerance" (sometimes, esteem) towards the East (see Nikon).
But I don't know how long it will last.
Zeiss made in Germany is the hunting product (90%).
Even the pocket Victory is made in the East ...

Leica, in my opinion, is mainly focused on making few products (few models), but all of high quality. And it hardly changes projects every year. For example, their pocket binoculars, like the Ultravid, if I'm not mistaken, have been there for more than 20 years and the Trinovid from 50 or more (with the necessary small changes).
The optical quality of these is always indisputable and the mechanical quality is immediately perceptible to the touch. Whenever I looked into a Leica binoculars, I saw the quality of good vision. I have never seen crap and impurities derived from the defective design. Indeed, I find the Leica vision very natural and above all neutral and transparent.
Leica would never have put up for sale a "bottleneck" like Earth.

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

jan van daalen said:
The little Trinovid's competitor was the Zeiss classic 8x20 and I would haven choosen the Trinnie also.
Comparing the UV 8x20L with the Victory 8x20 and the Swarovski 8x20, I would have choosen the UV also. Now it is a different ballgame. The Victory and Swarovski 8x25 line are superior in optics, but not in weight and volume.

I still agree with Jan.
- Pocket = 8x20 small and light.
- 8x25 large and heavy ≠ Pocket.

I understand the choice of the Victory 8x25 for the "normal" field (wider than the narrow one) and the acceptance of the dimensions and the greater weight, but the pocket binoculars must really enter in the pocket.
And to do this, compromise is needed.

Chosun Juan · Jan 3, 2020

jan van daalen said:
..... The little Trinovid's competitor was the Zeiss classic 8x20 and I would haven choosen the Trinnie also.
Comparing the UV 8x20L with the Victory 8x20 and the Swarovski 8x20, I would have choosen the UV also. Now it is a different ballgame. The Victory and Swarovski 8x25 line are superior in optics, but not in weight and volume ......

Hi Jan,

Perhaps you could suggest to Leica a new "Feralz" TM range of exclusive bins for which you would be the premier dealer - each would be clad in it's own individual numbered leather sourced from Australia's population of feral animals ....
Cats
Foxes
Pigs
Goats
Deer
Buffalo - for the big daddy 10×50
Rabbits
Camels
Indian Mynahs
Cane Toads
European Carp - special 'marine' version. lol
Etc, I'm sure I've forgotten a few more !

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018...-helping-fight-feral-cats/9932584?pfmredir=sm

All massive, and highly damaging pests in this country.

I think you'd make a killing - literally ! :gn: :t: :-O:

Each bin could be sold with a donation to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Bush Heritage, various Nature Trusts, and other specific Wildlife /Animal Funds, etc.

This would be along the lines of the 'Ostrich Leather' bins - except there'd be none of the faux bs - It would include lots of really chic high fashion accessories, and you'd fair dinkum actually be helping our environment ! :t:

https://leicastoremiami.com/product...lar-ostrich-leather-edition?variant=484613269

Chosun :gh:

jan van daalen · Jan 3, 2020

My dearest Chosun,

I fear for the worst that also some Dutch smoke came your way.........

Jan

jan van daalen · Jan 3, 2020

Rico70 said:
I see other notes in that explanation, which sound like coins!

"To think badly one commits sin, but generally one guesses the correct intent".

This Lee is a proverb from my part and I don't know if it will be clear to everyone, but it describes my impression on Zeiss well.
In my opinion, Zeiss has long since bowed to China and at low cost (even in photographic optics) to make more money, but also making many failures.
One was the Terra binoculars, with a decidedly "earth-to-earth" quality (the lowest level). Now I don't know if they really improved them, but I saw Zeiss make too many changes in its products, in a short time. And this, in my opinion, displaces the new customers, putting them in confusion (perhaps even the old ones). For example, Victory HT 42mm have already discontinued them (why?). They didn't even go out and are no longer there.
The SFs that just came out had various defects, then returned, but still it was a "nice slap" to the faster and anxious customers of the new binoculars. They then had to replace the binoculars or have it repaired.
These are all considerations, which added to the experiences I have had with Zeiss (few, to be honest), lead me to consider Zeiss products with a different eye, compared to the fan of the brand.
The Zeta di Zorro, white on a blue background, does not make me feel good (and I love blue ).

I agree with Jan's words, al #94 and I believe that Zeiss has 6%, only because of the "inertia of the aficionados" and for the "great tolerance" (sometimes, esteem) towards the East (see Nikon).
But I don't know how long it will last.
Zeiss made in Germany is the hunting product (90%).
Even the pocket Victory is made in the East ...

Leica, in my opinion, is mainly focused on making few products (few models), but all of high quality. And it hardly changes projects every year. For example, their pocket binoculars, like the Ultravid, if I'm not mistaken, have been there for more than 20 years and the Trinovid from 50 or more (with the necessary small changes).
The optical quality of these is always indisputable and the mechanical quality is immediately perceptible to the touch. Whenever I looked into a Leica binoculars, I saw the quality of good vision. I have never seen crap and impurities derived from the defective design. Indeed, I find the Leica vision very natural and above all neutral and transparent.
Leica would never have put up for sale a "bottleneck" like Earth.

Hi Rico,

I think you've got the numbers of Leica and Zeiss mixed up:cat:

Also I have to disappoint you on some other matters.
The first Noctivid batch was returned to Leica because all the hinges had free play. You could move the tubes in a way they shouldn"tB

Leica does change their products very often. First we had the Geovid, after that the Geovid HD and after that again the "normal Geovid. Every time the dealer had to stock for the latest and the greatest model if he wanted to stay up to par.
Same for the Ultravid. From Ultravid to HD to HD+. Same story and all within a few years.
The current Trinovid has the same origin as the Conquest.

All in all..........

Jan

jan van daalen · Jan 3, 2020

eronald said:
Jan,

You don’t know the Paris shop but you do know the Noct. In your opinion, how does it stack up optically against SV and SF? How is sample variation? I think we are all interested in your informed opinion now that you are allowed to talk freely!

Edmund

Hi Edmund,

This is a tricky matter.
When the Nocti's came out we ordered four pair. All four had defect hinges.
The next four were top solid, but........never sold until recently
Seen in this light I would say the sample variation in 50%3

I think the Noctivid is optically outstanding but not built like the SF/SV.
It's heavier, the strap connections are not on the right place and the body has "sharp" edges.

This is not only me talking but also in the name of the hundreds that had the choice between the NV/SF/SV:-C

Jan

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

jan van daalen said:
I think you've got the numbers of Leica and Zeiss mixed up

Could be. I don't mean numbers. :scribe:

jan van daalen said:
The first Noctivid batch was returned to Leica because all the hinges had free play.

Honestly, it's the first time I've read this. However, a "loose hinge" can be "hardened" even at home with good "do it yourself". It cannot be compared to a design error (for example) of the focusing wheel or the optical scheme. This is a minor manufacturing defect, which has certainly been resolved and fixed even before the first Noctivid was packed for shipping.

jan van daalen said:
Leica does change their products very often. First we had the Geovid, after that the Geovid HD and after that again the "normal Geovid. Every time the dealer had to stock for the latest and the greatest model if he wanted to stay up to par.
Same for the Ultravid. From Ultravid to HD to HD+.

Here I can give you reason, but they are not changes to a defective project. The hunting market is perhaps the most profitable and here there is a lot of competition and hysteria in catching customers. Certainly they were making improvements. Those who had Ultravid did not change it for HD or HD +. And whoever changed it probably had the money to do it without worries.

p.s.
I am aware that the error is human, and that even in Leica one can be wrong.
If that's why, I find that they made a wrong choice with the new Trinovid HD, because they brought the dioptric adjustment on the eyepiece.
But even here, if the optics work in the usual good way, in practice there are no problems.

PYRTLE · Jan 3, 2020

Rico70 said:
I am aware that the error is human, and that even in Leica one can be wrong.
If that's why, I find that they made a wrong choice with the new Trinovid HD, .

Rico, where in Leica's advertising is this new Trinovid binocular marketed as per your post {HD} ?

Thank you.

P

Mike F · Jan 3, 2020

PYRTLE said:
Rico, where in Leica's advertising is this new Trinovid binocular marketed as per your post {HD} ?

Thank you.

P

I presume he must be referring (as he mentioned the dioptre adjustment being on the eyepiece) to the Trinovid HD, not to the Retrovid.

PYRTLE · Jan 3, 2020

Okay, thanks Mike - I incorrectly presumed that new meant the latest retro version of Trinovid (7x35 etc) rather than the previous range. Makes sense now.

P

Mike F · Jan 3, 2020

PYRTLE said:
Okay, thanks Mike - I incorrectly presumed that new meant the latest retro version of Trinovid (7x35 etc) rather than the previous range. Makes sense now.

P

That’s why referring to the new one as the Retrovid is a good idea! It does get very confusing with so many Trinovids. But even so, as Retrovid isn’t an official name there is still much potential for confusion!

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

I used the term "new", but perhaps I should have used the term "the latest version" of Trinovid HD.

Mike F · Jan 3, 2020

Rico70 said:
I used the term "new", but perhaps I should have used the term "the latest version" of Trinovid HD.

Hi Rico. I don’t mean to be pedantic but just for the record there is, and has been, only one Trinovid HD and that’s the one in current production. The previous Trinovid is usually referred to as the 2012-15 Trinovid. That was a true Leica, made in Portugal, where as the Trinovid HD is widely believed to be made in Japan and assembled in Portugal. You probably knew that.....

Binastro · Jan 3, 2020

In my opinion a loose hinge is a major defect, and one does not tighten Leica hinges at home within warranty.

In another post claiming Leica has made all their own lenses.

Leica lenses were made by Schneider, Sigma, Minolta rather many.
Leica also made lenses under licence from Taylor Hobson and are so marked.

Leica cameras also are not all Leica.
The Leica R3 and R4 are versions of the Minolta XE and XD cameras. Main parts are interchangeable.

Leica did have a fine selection of special glass formulae, which were patented.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Leica did not invent the 35mm still camera.
There were others from 1906 onwards.

B.

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

Mike F said:
Hi Rico. I don’t mean to be pedantic but just for the record there is, and has been, only one Trinovid HD and that’s the one in current production.

No, no Mike. You are not pedantic, but illuminating!
I'm not an expert, but I certainly read some nonsense on some incompetent blogs (as there are many), which led me to think what I have wrongly written.
I am sure that if you point it out, you have a bigger reason. And in fact, I too had the same feeling you describe. But I wasn't sure.

So thank you for your correct information :t:

Mike F said:
the Trinovid HD is widely believed to be made in Japan and assembled in Portugal. You probably knew that.....

No, I didn't know and it makes me shiver. Are you sure?

Rico70 · Jan 3, 2020

Binastro said:
In my opinion a loose hinge is a major defect, and one does not tighten Leica hinges at home within warranty.

Well, when you pay 2-3K euros for a single binocular, this hinge becomes immediately a fact of the General Staff!
While if you pay less than 500 euros, you can do it yourself ...

Binastro said:
Leica did not invent the 35mm still camera.

Oskar Barnack created the machine and the format Leica 24x36 ... 35mm is only the format film for cinema, in 24x18 frames.

What if...... (3 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Old Berkshire Boy

Well-known member

Old Berkshire Boy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread