-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon EDG availability? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
seawatcher
Well-known member
I now believe this to be true as well. Those that don't should log in to the Nikon Support section on the Nikon website (either the main site or their country's own site) and submit a query. Maybe you will receive the same reply as I did that Nikon EDGs will only be available in the US and NOT in Europe. This is due to the high production costs (according to the country rep I received a reply from). Now, come on Nikon -- let's have an official statement.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Not it is likely that an optics company holds a European patent on some optics innovation when they don't hold a similar US patent. A software patent I could beleive but these are electronics free devices!
This is the German forum translated ...
http://translate.google.com/transla...6287#msg-246287&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=
Werner Jülich makes the claim but still provides no evidence for this. Just says search the forum and we've talked about this before and I saw no evidence then. So extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
And of course the Nikon web sites still show the product.
If you withdraw a product for patent infringement it has to disappear. You don't sell remaining stock. It all gets pulled because each item you sell is an infringement and adds to the damages in the settlement (and if you do it knowingly then that three times the punitive damages in a court case in the US).
Remember Nikon wouldn't release a statement on the withdrawal of the bins if they haven't actually withdrawn them.
So I still await some demonstration that this is actually true. It's possible that Werner Jülich has information on Nikon and Zeiss talking about possible patent infringement discussions but the way most of those cases finish is with cross licensing (especially when both companies are large). Getting into a patent pissing match can be a very dangerous thing to do.
Anyhow just more speculation ...
This is the German forum translated ...
http://translate.google.com/transla...6287#msg-246287&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=
Werner Jülich makes the claim but still provides no evidence for this. Just says search the forum and we've talked about this before and I saw no evidence then. So extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
And of course the Nikon web sites still show the product.
If you withdraw a product for patent infringement it has to disappear. You don't sell remaining stock. It all gets pulled because each item you sell is an infringement and adds to the damages in the settlement (and if you do it knowingly then that three times the punitive damages in a court case in the US).
Remember Nikon wouldn't release a statement on the withdrawal of the bins if they haven't actually withdrawn them.
So I still await some demonstration that this is actually true. It's possible that Werner Jülich has information on Nikon and Zeiss talking about possible patent infringement discussions but the way most of those cases finish is with cross licensing (especially when both companies are large). Getting into a patent pissing match can be a very dangerous thing to do.
Anyhow just more speculation ...
World patents are extremely expensive. So it is not totally unlikely that (maybe one of the smaller but innovative companies) holds restricted patents.
But the whole patent hypothesis does not seem very likely.
0) Big companies usually have very skilled people who know which patents exist and what can and what cannot be done.
There is no indication what components might be argued over, either.
1) The EDGs had been announced by Nikon for release in Germany in March 2008 by "press conference".
Only months later the EDgs became available in North America. If there had been a legal battle over patents, would they have ever made it into the shops. (and prototypes had been available at shows before 3/08)
2) After substantial cost had gone into development and actual production of these instruments any company who faced a legal challenge would be better off to simply buy a licence from the patent holder and would silently (!) negotiate an out-of-court settlement of the issue.
Like in many other cases it's probably just i.net rumours.
The forum which was referred to as the origin of the story is rather infamous for frquently "getting phone calls from E.T."
Let's see if the EDGs really disappear from usamerican shops.
Given the financial and economic breakdown of the world, economic reasons seem much more likely. It was probably just a very bad moment to introduce very expensive top-line gadgets. How many people do nowadays spend almost 2000 USD/Euros on a non-essential toy without thinking twice?
And in comparison to digital cameras, binoculars (long-lasting high quality ones in particular) must be an insignificant part of the Nikon business anyway.
T
Last edited:
Precisely as the Wise Professor Sancho wondered way back in October...see post 205 on this thread:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=116840
What intrigues me is that retail prices of already-in-production Nikon optics have risen three times in the same period, by a total of up to 20% on some models, at a time when consumer prices generally are stable or falling. (They´re not alone in this, of course, other top-end manufacturers have raised their prices considerably too). And this at a time when cheap, high-quality substitutes from China are becoming readily available, which ought to keep premium prices down. Makes you wonder what´s going on.
Last edited:
Jeff Bouton
Well-known member
Hey gang,
I hate to say it, but more often than not, these reviews are going to be biased in some way, and this is not typically due to any "sell out" as implied above. First off, we are all human and as such, when we have positive experiences with one brand this is likely to come across in our protrayal naturally. Sometimes a lot of emphasis is put on personal ergonomics as well, which obviously won't work equally for all as every individual eye, face, hand is a bit different. Even when folks try to be totally neutral and just use manufacturers listed specifications for comparisons, we find these aren't TRUE comparisons at all.
Why?!?... because there are no set criterion for testing and listing optical specifications. Eye-relief is probably the most commonly MISrepresented specification out there actually. I've found, variation in this single "measurement" can be SO different that some manufacturer's listed specifications may not be repeatable to even within 4 mm when tested using another company's measuring technique!!! I've had multiple cases where someone has told me, "I tried brand X with an eye-relief of 17 mm and it wasn't enough so I didn't bother with yours..." Invariably these folks are amazed when I encourage them to try anyway and the glass in their hand (with a listed 16 mm eye relief or similar) works perfectly well behind their glasses.
I could cite another instance where one competitor's specifications improved overnight with the printing of a new catalog when no change was made in the glass... "Don't know what happened went to bed one night and the following day the product was even better than we remembered!" ;p Or how about "Waterproof" are any non-waterproof binocs made anymore?... This is another completely meaningless term since there is no set performance standard you need to meet in order to use this term. It's become as empty as "NEW" or "Improved" on your laundry detergent bottle.
My point is to take all of these reviews with a grain of salt. They are based largely on opinion or dependence on how scrupulous or reputable the reporting company cares to be in their listings. Many are very conservative in their claims and some will always boast nearly unbelievable claims. In the end though, you CAN NOT use listed specifications alone to make any judgements between differing manufacturer's products unfortunately. You need to either run each test for yourself using an measurement technique, or depend on the old tried and tested.... trusting your eyes!
Here again, I will add one additional caveat, and that is that a quick comparison at a well lit showroom may not be enough to tell how the product performs in a variety of lighting and environmental conditions. I one time bought a car in a shaded showroom that looked maroon, but when the sun actually shown on it reflective flakes in the paint made the car almost glow PINK!... As a result, it is often best to take adbvantage of some reputable dealer's that have try befor you buy or even no hassle return policies. In this way, you can insure that you have made the right decision under all conditions. A slight difference in view (or barely perciptible) lasting a minute or so in a well-lit showroom may amount to a world of difference over an entire day in varying environmental conditions. Cumulative eyestrain will make itself known over time!
Best wishes,
Jeff Bouton
Product Specialist - Birder/Naturalist Markets
Leica Sport Optics, USA
I hate to say it, but more often than not, these reviews are going to be biased in some way, and this is not typically due to any "sell out" as implied above. First off, we are all human and as such, when we have positive experiences with one brand this is likely to come across in our protrayal naturally. Sometimes a lot of emphasis is put on personal ergonomics as well, which obviously won't work equally for all as every individual eye, face, hand is a bit different. Even when folks try to be totally neutral and just use manufacturers listed specifications for comparisons, we find these aren't TRUE comparisons at all.
Why?!?... because there are no set criterion for testing and listing optical specifications. Eye-relief is probably the most commonly MISrepresented specification out there actually. I've found, variation in this single "measurement" can be SO different that some manufacturer's listed specifications may not be repeatable to even within 4 mm when tested using another company's measuring technique!!! I've had multiple cases where someone has told me, "I tried brand X with an eye-relief of 17 mm and it wasn't enough so I didn't bother with yours..." Invariably these folks are amazed when I encourage them to try anyway and the glass in their hand (with a listed 16 mm eye relief or similar) works perfectly well behind their glasses.
I could cite another instance where one competitor's specifications improved overnight with the printing of a new catalog when no change was made in the glass... "Don't know what happened went to bed one night and the following day the product was even better than we remembered!" ;p Or how about "Waterproof" are any non-waterproof binocs made anymore?... This is another completely meaningless term since there is no set performance standard you need to meet in order to use this term. It's become as empty as "NEW" or "Improved" on your laundry detergent bottle.
My point is to take all of these reviews with a grain of salt. They are based largely on opinion or dependence on how scrupulous or reputable the reporting company cares to be in their listings. Many are very conservative in their claims and some will always boast nearly unbelievable claims. In the end though, you CAN NOT use listed specifications alone to make any judgements between differing manufacturer's products unfortunately. You need to either run each test for yourself using an measurement technique, or depend on the old tried and tested.... trusting your eyes!
Here again, I will add one additional caveat, and that is that a quick comparison at a well lit showroom may not be enough to tell how the product performs in a variety of lighting and environmental conditions. I one time bought a car in a shaded showroom that looked maroon, but when the sun actually shown on it reflective flakes in the paint made the car almost glow PINK!... As a result, it is often best to take adbvantage of some reputable dealer's that have try befor you buy or even no hassle return policies. In this way, you can insure that you have made the right decision under all conditions. A slight difference in view (or barely perciptible) lasting a minute or so in a well-lit showroom may amount to a world of difference over an entire day in varying environmental conditions. Cumulative eyestrain will make itself known over time!
Best wishes,
Jeff Bouton
Product Specialist - Birder/Naturalist Markets
Leica Sport Optics, USA
dalat
...
You can put it like this, you could also say there is some people with inside knowledge. I personaly feel these people are rather credible, particularely that optics dealer, I do not believe he deliberately posts wrong information.
To me it sounds rather logical, sth like a silent agreement between Nikon and the patent holding company, in order to settle the iusse without noise and without actually filling the lawsuit.
Either way it will keep being a rumour. So the guessing may go on... after all that's what internet forums are all about...
Dear Wise Professor Sancho!
Please accept my apologies for not having cited your seminal work accurately in my list of references. It definitely should have been there.
But at least a well-concealed part of my feeble brain seems to have picked up the main message of the lecture
T
falcondude
Well-known member
huh.. interesting theory about disappearing EDG.
pete_gamby
Birds? What Birds?!
Having read this thread through, I assumed that this might have something to do with Swarovski's patent on an open bridge design. But that seems to be filed in the US too:
US Pat. 6266185 - Filed May 17, 1999 - Swarovski Optik KG
http://www.google.com/patents?id=pDkIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0
But why not ship in Europe? Curious. Very curious.
US Pat. 6266185 - Filed May 17, 1999 - Swarovski Optik KG
http://www.google.com/patents?id=pDkIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0
But why not ship in Europe? Curious. Very curious.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Nice patent cite. I'd not gone looking for that.
But note that this patent is not for open-bridge bins (otherwise we wouldn't have the Chinese ones!) as it cites the German patents for those in the "previous work" but for the particular (rather clever!) open-bridge binoculars that use that clever focusing knob and lever arm mechanism.
If this was an issue the EDG bins would be pulled here too (this is a US patent) and the US is the biggest single bin market (so I've heard).
But note that this patent is not for open-bridge bins (otherwise we wouldn't have the Chinese ones!) as it cites the German patents for those in the "previous work" but for the particular (rather clever!) open-bridge binoculars that use that clever focusing knob and lever arm mechanism.
If this was an issue the EDG bins would be pulled here too (this is a US patent) and the US is the biggest single bin market (so I've heard).
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
There are no EDG binoculars in Japan either. None of the Nikon reps I spoke with at Tokyo PIE or Tokyo Bird Festival for the last 2yrs know anything about them. On the otherhand, the EDG fieldscopes had a big rollout at the end of May. Already a few turning up on the secondhand market.
cheers,
Rick
cheers,
Rick
That forum is indeed a pretty strange place. Very stiff, very German, quite a few people who are far too full of themselves - but also some people who seem to have access to insider information, not just that optics dealer.
Hermann
falcondude
Well-known member
will EDG come out with different form if it is really delayed by the patent problem?
dalat
...
no idea myself, I just can quote that guy from that German forum who brought up the information - or the rumour - that the EDGs will not come to europe. He commented that the optics of the EDGs will be used for a new line, but not with the open bridge design.
FrankD
Well-known member
So there are going to be two versions of the "EDGs". One with an open bridge called the "EDG" and one without that is called something else?
Hmm, interesting though not entirely surprising considering how Nikon utilized different names for the same bin in the past. A different physical structure though with the same or similar optics would be new.
Hmm, interesting though not entirely surprising considering how Nikon utilized different names for the same bin in the past. A different physical structure though with the same or similar optics would be new.
That's what they should do! Simply improve HGL's weak spots. No open bridge design is needed to make a successful product IMHO.
falcondude
Well-known member
does EDG use dielectric coating? It only advertised for "advanced ED glasses". I didn't find anything about prism coating. For its price, the dieletric coating should be a given, right?
