tenex
reality-based
What SLCs? Only the 56mm remain. I truly don't see the plan myself.
-
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.
Next from Swarovski? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John A Roberts
- Start date
I wondered whether the 56's will eventually be rebadged Kahles too and a new replacement line introduced possibly replacing both SLC and EL, on the other hand they may see the 56's as fitting a specific need that the NLs don't meet and continue them. I don't get the impression Swarovski seem as interested in producing a tier of quality levels as developing binoculars that fit different gaps.
Hi Richard, a 'tier of quality levels' and binos that 'fit different gaps' don't sound mutually exlusive to me, in fact they sound rather alike.
Lee
Hi Lee - I don't think they're necessarily alike - e.g. a binocular focused on long range low light usage vs a compact lightweight model might have the same build quality and broadly in optical terms be on a par. They don't need to be built to a cheaper standard for example.
I don't see them producing a budget line like the Terra for example or going down the Nikon route where you have the Monarch M5/M7/HG models.
Richard
Last edited:
Ok but don't forget they do have the Kahles brand (which was made in the Far East but now in-house) so they are definitely not ignoring the opportunities of offering different price/quality levels.
Lee
Yes -I'm not sure what they're doing with Kahles. It was I understand very much run as a separate company with mid-high range Asian produced binoculars , but very much focused on rifle scopes. I don't think it's ever been promoted to birders - very much a hunting focused brand. I've not seen any move to refocus the company since they took on the old 42mm SLC designs. Dropping the 42mm SLCs from the Swarovski side seemed odd - they were popular well-regarded binoculars.
I don't know whether Kahles is promoted differently in mainland Europe?
They once had the Falke range (many year's back) as well,
Leica seem to be sticking with three distinct price and quality points - Trinovid at the mid-high level then Ultravid and Noctvid with overlap in configurations but retaining in house production. Zeiss are obviously doing things differently and it seems to be working for them - I don't think the Terra and Conquest have dented their image.
Thanks for that Richard and I hadn't heard of the Falke range so once again thank you.
Swaro has stratified their bino offerings for years but the recent treatment of EL and now, as you rightly point out SLC, it is hard to understand the direction in which they are going.
Lee
tenex
reality-based
That might also be a good description of what Zeiss is now doing with the SFL. Both companies now have an assortment of different models each in one or two sizes rather than a coherent line anymore (excluding Conquest/Terra of course). I find that confusing, but perhaps it's more interesting to a younger generation?
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 27,
I think the Swarovski policy seems pretty clear: top level the NL's, the 56 mm SLC's, the 42 SLC's still produced in Absam but sold under the name Kahles, but it is still the well kown SLC 42, the different EL's, the CL Companions (the new Zeiss 8x40 and 10x40 have a vague resemblance as far as body structure is concerned and I would not be surprised if Swarovski would go further with this programme by introducing 40 or 42 mm CL's) and the different compacts. Next to it the rangefinders and some special instruments like the one with built in birdrecognition software.. Alltogether a fairly broad programme in my opinion. What do you expect more or what is lacking in your opinion?
Gijs van Ginkel
I think the Swarovski policy seems pretty clear: top level the NL's, the 56 mm SLC's, the 42 SLC's still produced in Absam but sold under the name Kahles, but it is still the well kown SLC 42, the different EL's, the CL Companions (the new Zeiss 8x40 and 10x40 have a vague resemblance as far as body structure is concerned and I would not be surprised if Swarovski would go further with this programme by introducing 40 or 42 mm CL's) and the different compacts. Next to it the rangefinders and some special instruments like the one with built in birdrecognition software.. Alltogether a fairly broad programme in my opinion. What do you expect more or what is lacking in your opinion?
Gijs van Ginkel
I mean they were brave enough to come out with the 7x21 Curio, so why not a nice 7x30??
Mike Crawley
Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
Personally I think it’s a gap in Swarovski’s portfolio to not have a “value” series as Zeiss do with the Terra range.
It's a big gamble in terms of brand image dilution though and could hurt sales of their other binoculars. Leica have also avoided going down that route so far.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
MikeC, post 31,
Quoting a Zeiss scientist about delivering its knowledge to a Chinese company for the production of the Terrra: we give a lot of our optical "secrets" to these companies to find them later in their products. Swarovski would "dilute" their quality programme by selling outsourced products just for the sake of making more money in the short term and losing in the end trust in their products by supplying '"cheap"binoculars with a lower quality as they want for their quality standards.
This is my speculation, but I do not know enough of the companies policy.
Gijs van Ginkel
Quoting a Zeiss scientist about delivering its knowledge to a Chinese company for the production of the Terrra: we give a lot of our optical "secrets" to these companies to find them later in their products. Swarovski would "dilute" their quality programme by selling outsourced products just for the sake of making more money in the short term and losing in the end trust in their products by supplying '"cheap"binoculars with a lower quality as they want for their quality standards.
This is my speculation, but I do not know enough of the companies policy.
Gijs van Ginkel
Mike Crawley
Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
.
Alternatively, it allows a tyro birder or a young birder to become a Swarovski convert rather than e.g.Opticron (although a great brand)
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
From an environmental and ethics perspective it's a good thing to avoid the China-made mass-market stuff.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Hard to compete in the mid-range segment with domestic made bins nowadays and Swaro obviously want to keep the china made stuff out of the Swarovski-brand.
It seems fairly simple and rationalized to me: two ranges, NL at the top and EL below pushing out the previous entry-level SLC, with the CL compacts range that is a bit of a mess requiring pruning, e.g. dropping the CL Pocket 8x25 for the Curio.
The 56mm SLC only survives because there wasn't a 54/56mm EL to replace it, or a NL for that matter. If a 56mm NL is released, I would expect the SLC to be dropped, even if it is in a different segment. When the NL gets supplanted, it will replace the EL at the low-end and the EL will be discontinued.
Swarovski is clearly not investing any R&D on midrange or entry-level products, unlike Zeiss or Leica. The old alphas turn into betas when technology improves and the tooling and R&D for the former alpha has been amortized. From an industrial logic it makes perfect sense, as well as for the premium positioning of the brand.
The 56mm SLC only survives because there wasn't a 54/56mm EL to replace it, or a NL for that matter. If a 56mm NL is released, I would expect the SLC to be dropped, even if it is in a different segment. When the NL gets supplanted, it will replace the EL at the low-end and the EL will be discontinued.
Swarovski is clearly not investing any R&D on midrange or entry-level products, unlike Zeiss or Leica. The old alphas turn into betas when technology improves and the tooling and R&D for the former alpha has been amortized. From an industrial logic it makes perfect sense, as well as for the premium positioning of the brand.
Last edited:
Being a company unattainable to most isn’t automatically a problem if you’re selling on prestige . Especially if it’s just one of previously a trio of alpha brands. If customers no longer have to remember model names and comparitive stats of different ranges of 3 companies but just know swaro is the expensive one that can work for them. 2nd hand swaros can eat into expensive but not alpha zeiss and Leica sales as can older models.
Interesting. I think it can be a difficult balancing act for a high grade binocular manufacturer to release "budget" options and still not risk to lose the status of being a premium brand.
The cheaper options must remain above the average quality level but still not too close the premium, or alpha models. Leica and Zeiss seem to have succeed with that pretty good. But I know there are some suspicions that HT 42mm models may have been discontinued because Conquest HDs are optically very close but(at least 5-7 years ago) around half the price. So HT came in the "dead zone": buyers chose either Conquest HD or invested a bit extra for SFs, resulting in HTs sold too bad.
I don't know, but a model does not become discontinued without reason.
