• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized (1 Viewer)

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
The point is, Canon’s margins are no less than Zeiss etc.

There is nothing “expensive” in an IS bino. The value is in the design, thus margin.

Whats the cost of the Canon 10x42 body? Is it magnesium alloy?
I would assume the margins are about the same for the price point. I don’t believe there is magnesium in the construction, more likely than not that would be listed in specs, I’m sure if someone knows it will be posted. I believe it’s mostly plastic with a metal upper casing. With the L IS it seems to be priced in its optics category of approximately the $1000 range, Whatever the margins are for making that level glass , then factor in the other $500 for the IS component.

Technically you’re getting $1000 optic for $1500 that has image stabilization capabilities without the bells and whistles of magnesium body, fit and finish etc. etc. The technology/electronics of the IS is over 10 years old , so maybe the margin for that side of the tool could be where much of the margins comes from, just speculation.

Canon can get away with $1500 for the L on a mid upper grade optic because it’s the overall package and tool your paying for. If they were $2000 they wouldn’t be selling many, and at $1000 they would be more popular.

Paul
 

exup

Well-known member
United Kingdom
I would assume the margins are about the same for the price point. I don’t believe there is magnesium in the construction, more likely than not that would be listed in specs, I’m sure if someone knows it will be posted. I believe it’s mostly plastic with a metal upper casing. With the L IS it seems to be priced in its optics category of approximately the $1000 range, Whatever the margins are for making that level glass , then factor in the other $500 for the IS component.

Technically you’re getting $1000 optic for $1500 that has image stabilization capabilities without the bells and whistles of magnesium body, fit and finish etc. etc. The technology/electronics of the IS is over 10 years old , so maybe the margin for that side of the tool could be where much of the margins comes from, just speculation.

Canon can get away with $1500 for the L on a mid upper grade optic because it’s the overall package and tool your paying for. If they were $2000 they wouldn’t be selling many, and at $1000 they would be more popular.

Paul
You are making lots of assumptions......based on little more than speculation.

Canon x18s (/x15s) are metal body ..... find the photos or video that strips them down and the white corrosion is clear to see.

In terms of mark-up....... The numbers already cited are probably more reflective of reality. You seem to believe that an Alpha is double the manufacturing cost of a 10x42L..... which is illogical looking at the engineering content in both.

Buy a Svbony Sv202 10x42 at £130 and strip it down. Do the same with a SF and compare each component ....... you might be surprised. The only significant difference I would expect is in the glass and coatings. This would not account for the £2200 difference in retail price!
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Maybe this'll help...

or
or

Profit? Which?
Price point vs price?
Any accountants here?
Product managers?

Assumption - the mother of all... er.. ah... mess ups (to misquote Marcinko/Rogue Warrior)
 

exup

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Maybe this'll help...

or
or

Profit? Which?
Price point vs price?
Any accountants here?
Product managers?

Assumption - the mother of all... er.. ah... mess ups (to misquote Marcinko/Rogue Warrior)
The breakdown of product costs and overhead assignment is not made public, so we can only use experience to deduce the differences between products.
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
That is unlikely.

Optics and body costs likely similar.
IS costs and development overhead add to the Canon.
Alpha warranty +20%.
Alpha marketing +20%
Canon 2/3rds of Alpha retail price or maybe even less.

So Alpha would be far higher mark-up.

I would be surprised if either a 8x42 SF or 10x42L cost each company more than £400...... I reckon less.

SF retails for ~£2300.
42L retails for ~£1600.
Um, how do you KNOW that?
 

Richard D

what was that...
Supporter
United Kingdom
We're all making wild guesses. Mine is that the 10x40Ls probably cost Canon a similar amount without the IS as Zeiss Conquest plus a few hundred for the IS (probably based very much on their camera technology). Just like everyone else though I'm guessing...
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
You are making lots of assumptions......based on little more than speculation.

Canon x18s (/x15s) are metal body ..... find the photos or video that strips them down and the white corrosion is clear to see.

In terms of mark-up....... The numbers already cited are probably more reflective of reality. You seem to believe that an Alpha is double the manufacturing cost of a 10x42L..... which is illogical looking at the engineering content in both.

Buy a Svbony Sv202 10x42 at £130 and strip it down. Do the same with a SF and compare each component ....... you might be surprised. The only significant difference I would expect is in the glass and coatings. This would not account for the £2200 difference in retail price!
I make speculations? Really? Go look at almost every one of your Previous posts. There’s nobody in this discussion that has speculation and assumptions as much as you , and you even put numbers to it.

Now you’re telling me what I believe, I made no indication in any of my posts that premiums are double the price to manufacturer. You make stuff up as you go along.

My post and opinion in previous post related only to the L version.

Purchased another L Tuesday as a gift for someone. Was questioning something on phone with Canon this morning, for informaction, 10x42L is polycarbonate.

It’s a complete waist of time discussing or replying to your posts where It has anything to do with premium optics options. You can’t possibly have a personal opinion of its optical quality compared to anything. To me it looks like you’re just looking to argue and that’s why I stopped replying. if you want people to take you seriously put your money where your mouth is , and go try out a few. Then at least you’ll have some legitimacy when you make an opinionated statement.

Excuse me , but I’m going to go back to arguing with my wife now, it’s much more enlightening and productive.
 

exup

Well-known member
United Kingdom
if you want people to take you seriously put your money where your mouth is , and go try out a few
Ha .....

I was considering buying an SFL ..... Had them in a basket, but decided not to.

As I said in the past, I chose to go the IS route instead. Not as well as £7000 of Alphas.

Why ?...... because they provide a better tool for my needs.......as you have confirmed yourself.

If I need to do a long or arduous hike, then I'll use my lower tier bins, which are light ....... Or my light IS 12x36s.

I have no problem you paying S,L,Z a huge markup for Alpha bins ....... but I don't feel inclined to, for lower handheld performance.
You and the other chaps can justify to yourselves and each other the purchase and convince yourselves of the value you are getting by the stepped change in optical performance 👍😁.

You started the fanboy thread.....for the second time, to have the same debate again.

I will someday try the Zeiss borrow scheme and see if I too feel that the optics are worth a huge premium.
 
Last edited:

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
Ha .....

I was considering buying an SFL ..... Had them in a basket, but decided not to.

As I said in the past, I chose to go the IS route instead. Not as well as £7000 of Alphas.

Why ?...... because they provide a better tool for my needs.......as you have confirmed yourself.

If I need to do a long or arduous hike, then I'll use my lower tier bins, which are light ....... Or my light IS 12x36s.

I have no problem you paying S,L,Z a huge markup for Alpha bins ....... but I don't feel inclined to, for lower handheld performance.
You and the other chaps can justify to yourselves and each other the purchase and convince yourselves of the value you are getting by the stepped change in optical performance 👍😁.

You started the fanboy thread.....for the second time, to have the same debate again.

I will someday try the Zeiss borrow scheme and see if I too feel that the optics are worth a huge premium.
Basically, you wanna tell the rest of us that you’re the smartest guy in the room for not falling for the alpha marketing BS.
 

exup

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Basically, you wanna tell the rest of us that you’re the smartest guy in the room for not falling for the alpha marketing BS.
No ...... you make your own choices.

If you feel you that marketing has influenced your purchase, then maybe you are not the stupidest guy in the room.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top