All Binocular Manufacturers (3 Viewers)

[henry link]

One manufacturer that comes to mind that has their own glass and control over the whole process from glass to the box is Kruger.

Are you sure about that, Steve? It is hard to believe that a small binocular company would or could produce its own optical glass. That would be a vastly larger undertaking than making the binoculars. Like a novelist establishing paper and ink factories just to print his books.

On the subject of the Maven spotting scopes I found this forum discussion from January:

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?38674-Maven-Spotting-Scopes

Improved eyepieces would interest me the most, provided they fit the Brunton ICON. A closer look at the picture does not show an eyepiece mounting collar like the one on the ICON. Do you know if the Maven scope has interchangeable eyepieces?

Henry

Edit: I see Bill posted about the same points about the glass making as I was writing.

 

[jring]

One manufacturer that comes to mind that has their own glass and control over the whole process from glass to the box is Kruger.

Swarovski and Zeiss buy glass from Schott, O'Hara, maybe others. As far as I know they don't make their own.

This is not really correct in case of Zeiss as Schott AG and Carl Zeiss AG are both wholly owned by Carl Zeiss Stiftung (http://www.carl-zeiss-stiftung.de/ in german only)...

Joachim

 

[WJC]

Are you sure about that, Steve? It is hard to believe that a small binocular company would or could produce its own optical glass. That would be a vastly larger undertaking than making the binoculars. Like a novelist establishing paper and ink factories just to print his books.

On the subject of the Maven spotting scopes I found this forum discussion from January:

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?38674-Maven-Spotting-Scopes

Improved eyepieces would interest me the most, provided they fit the Brunton ICON. A closer look at the picture does not show an eyepiece mounting collar like the one on the ICON. Do you know if the Maven scope has interchangeable eyepieces?

Henry

Edit: I see Bill posted about the same points about the glass making as I was writing.

Henry:

Who was first or last to write something is of little consequence to me; what matters is that the truth be out there.

Recently, I got a very-well meaning letter warning about “giving away” parts of my eventual book. That is a warning I started getting YEARS ago—from potential publishers. You just don’t give away what you can sell. I certainly understand the concept, and it is one of the points that have separated me from certain publishers.

Ego freak that I am, I have been able to remember what my goal was when I starting the book—helping my neighbor discern truth from error.

Although I certainly hope to make a little money off the thing; money was never a driving force. Had it been so, I would have allowed myself to be led by the nose to produce another homogenized book, written in a homogenized manner. Besides, IF I sold a copy to ALL who could benefit from it, AND IF I considered my time worth no more than minimum wage, I would still have LOST tens of thousands of dollars…so far! :cat:

Bill

 

[Steve C]

Henry,

I don't see it today, but up to a year ago, the Kruger website told their story of their beginnings as Pacific Rim Optical. PRO was a glass manufacturer, offering optical glass of all types for all uses. It became a division of the evolving Kruger Optical as Kruger expanded into their own brand of various optics. I see no mention of PRO in the current Kruger Optical website. A google search (albeit a quick one) did not show show what looked like the same PRO as I first cam across when I was reviewing the Kruger Caldera binocular.

Things change, companies change, buyouts, splits, and mergers happen all the time, so maybe that has changed. I am however 100% positive that Kruger story once included PRO.

I was at the Kruger facility twice when they were in the tiny rural town of Sisters, Oregon, about a two hour drive from me. Seemed to me at the time they had everything there to meet standards an optics manufacture, even if a small one. They had complete CNC facilities, several sterile assembly rooms with people busy assembling rifle scopes (when I was there anyway). They has two optical labs that looked to me to have all the testing tools needed. The engineer I talked to seemed to know his stuff and he had all kinds of appropriate looking certificates etc on his office wall. They had everything except a glass foundry that is. If they still have PRO, I don't know.

Bill's comment about not having a seat at the board table unless your name is Swarovski sure rings true with me. Let somebody make favorable comments about something other than Swarovski, and to a lesser extent Zeiss or Leica and the fury flies. If They see Mother Teresa leading a choir of Heavenly Angels singing a stunning rendition of Ave Maria, then that is just giving just and due respect. Hence my reference to "Big Boys". It is not so much what is in front of your eyes as it is what is between your ears.

 

[WJC]

"It is not so much what is in front of your eyes as it is what is between your ears."

Get a bloody grip! I can't steal--I mean appropriate--all these great quotes. You have been given credit for your TR in my book.

 

[Steve C]

"It is not so much what is in front of your eyes as it is what is between your ears."

Get a bloody grip! I can't steal--I mean appropriate--all these great quotes. You have been given credit for your TR in my book.

The reason I put that quote where I was talking about you in that post is because I think I got that quote from you B

I was typing too fast to give proper credit in the earlier post.

 

[Steve C]

Did some more checking about Kruger optical.

http://www.krugeroptical.com/comp.htm

Name change, still Kruger components.

 

[WJC]

The reason I put that quote where I was talking about you in that post is because I think I got that quote from you B

I was typing too fast to give proper credit in the earlier post.

Wow; I was just as brilliant back then as now! Although my humility has increased 10 fold! Can ya' tell?

I did think I had heard it before. But, the stroke driven brain. . . Say, I don't recall giving you this number!:cat:

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Steve C]

James, I understand the points you made in the other thread. I suppose we live in a world where the resellers greatly outnumber the OEMs. My only beef with the Maven marketing approach is their insistence on name-dropping the OEM any chance they get. I find it off-putting. About your list....

.

I suppose I am the guilty name dropper, not Maven. The word Kamakura likely will not be found in the Maven website. I did that, or everybody would have been screaming "Chinese Clones". It all has to do with this unreal fascination of who makes it and where do they make it and why do they make it there...ad nauseum. Any new maker will automatically be assigned to a Chinese source.

 

[james holdsworth]

I suppose I am the guilty name dropper, not Maven. The word Kamakura likely will not be found in the Maven website. I did that, or everybody would have been screaming "Chinese Clones". It all has to do with this unreal fascination of who makes it and where do they make it and why do they make it there...ad nauseum. Any new maker will automatically be assigned to a Chinese source.

And, is that a bad thing? Knowing where the product is made - and by whom?
It was certainly fair game for the Conquest HD line - we went on for pages and pages arguing what ''made in Germany'' meant, and just what % of content was actually German in the HD's.

Personally, this is something I want to know, just like I want to know if a bin is a unique creation or a clone / knock-off, rebadge etc. We have seen in the past where two bins with different names but the same specs are priced quite differently, so the knowledge gained can save some money as well.

 

[jan van daalen]

Jan:

You forgot the part about if your name is not Swarovski you don't get a seat on the board, or has that changed? :cat:

From the Etherial Book:

*****GLASSMAKERS (a bit more on prisms)

Despite conjecture, optical instrument makers rarely produce their own glass, or even lenses. There are glassmakers, optical element makers, opticians, and instruments makers. They work together for a common financial interest, but each firm has its own specialties and infrastructure.

Making high quality optical glass commercially is a massive undertaking. The old Corning location in New York covered 26 acres, with 277,000 square feet of warehouse space, and 30,000 square feet for offices. This is not to say instrument companies don’t have an interest in some glass factories. It just means that when a company needs a few binocular objectives or prisms, they don’t call two doors down and have a cart rushed right over.

Today, Corning, founded in 1851, has about 35,000 employees worldwide, as does Ohara (circa 1935) and Hoya (1941). Corning was responsible for some important firsts—from making the glass for Edison’s first light bulb, through making early headlamps, to casting the great mirror destined for the Hale Telescope on Palomar Mountain.

Perhaps the size of these modern concerns can better be brought into perspective by saying that Ohara alone produces over a half million tons of optical glass each month.

Finally, Schott AG, founded in Jena, Germany in 1884, is the oldest of the European firms and has the fewest employees. Even so, its shadow falls on 35 countries.


Bill

Bill,

Swarovski is the second biggest privately owned company in Austria. It is owned by the Swarovski family.

What do I miss here?

Steve,

On the IWA I heard a Chinbin brand rep say to me, that his optics beats Swarovski's and that for 1 tenth of the price. Doubting that makes me a A-brand Jehova witness??o

Jan

 

[Steve C]

And, is that a bad thing? Knowing where the product is made - and by whom?
It was certainly fair game for the Conquest HD line - we went on for pages and pages arguing what ''made in Germany'' meant, and just what % of content was actually German in the HD's.

Personally, this is something I want to know, just like I want to know if a bin is a unique creation or a clone / knock-off, rebadge etc. We have seen in the past where two bins with different names but the same specs are priced quite differently, so the knowledge gained can save some money as well.

No, James, I actually I tend agree with you. Manufacturer information can be useful when it is not carried out with improper information, something other than the pure speculation offered in many cases. I should have been more clear, it is the speculation, especially when it comes from people who clearly should know better. That is where I have the problem. I also have a problem with Zeiss (or Minox...or whoever) using "Made in Germany" when "Assembled in Germany" might be more appropriate. Ultimately we will only ever know a fraction of what we seek. However I do feel that the level of quality that is specified, and the success of achieving that quality level is far more important than precisely who made it. I think it matters not whether Zeiss would have contracted with Tamron instead of Kamakura.

The stimulus for that response was peatmoss and the comment about Maven dropping the Kamakura name at every opportunity. They clearly do not do that. Since I seem to have started that one, I simply was saying that.

 

[gunut]

but how far do you take it....the ore the metal [if any] in the binocular was refined from was of german/american/aisan origin???.....the corporations have ya by the balls with this origin stuff....just like to have them treat their employees wherever they are fairly.....no dollar a day pay rate....or cant even afford to buy the consumer goods they are making.....

 

[Steve C]

Steve,

On the IWA I heard a Chinbin brand rep say to me, that his optics beats Swarovski's and that for 1 tenth of the price. Doubting that makes me a A-brand Jehova witness??o

Jan

Jan to answer that question, yes you should have CONSIDERABLE doubt about that.

To be clear, since you are an optics dealer you have considerably different levels of exposure to optics than most.

I suppose it comes down to a full meal deal manufacturer making either good, better, or best levels of product. Somebody has to make all levels.

 

[Steve C]

but how far do you take it....

I guess you take it as far as your are personally comfortable in taking it. My problem is with making leaps of faith or some product augment based on speculation.

 

[WJC]

Bill,

Swarovski is the second biggest privately owned company in Austria. It is owned by the Swarovski family.

What do I miss here?

Jan

Hi Jan:

Not a thing … had I been addressing the size of companies in Austria; I was not.

I was addressing some of the largest producers of Commercial Optical Glass in the world, not crystal, not leaded drinking glasses, not grinding machines or commercial grinding compounds, not entertainment firms, or even proprietary optics firms. Having won the Crystal Habicht for my work in selling those little bobbles, and having stated that I think the EL was POSSIBLY the best bino I had ever seen* I think I know a modicum about Mr. Swartz’s son, Daniel, and the business he founded with the help of Mr. Kosman.

You say that it is owned by the Swarovski FAMILY. That is exactly what I was addressing with my comment about the Board of Directors.

If you “missed” anything, it would have originated with differences between our languages. Harrie Rutten and I corresponded many times by phone, when he was helping me with the Journal. We found that we were better off sticking with the Internet.

* ~ 2000. Not wanting to get sucked into all that, “Who’s got this week’s best ALPHA?” bull, I think this post may be my first to make that statement. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

 

[perterra]

I guess you take it as far as your are personally comfortable in taking it. My problem is with making leaps of faith or some product augment based on speculation.

I think some of this stuff is just a knee jerk reaction, not intentional.

 

[Hermann]

I'm not even sure about the last three. What about Steiner, Optolyth, Docter, etc. Any more to add or subtract from that list?

Docter makes the Nobilem range (which appears on the way out), the Turmon 8x21 monocular and the 7x40 and the 10x40 that are based on the EDF in Eisfeld. All the other binoculars are made "somewhere", but not in Germany.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Swarovski and Zeiss buy glass from Schott, O'Hara, maybe others. As far as I know they don't make their own.

Schott belongs to the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung. In other words: Schott *is* part of Zeiss: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schott_AG

Hermann

 

[peatmoss]

I suppose I am the guilty name dropper, not Maven. The word Kamakura likely will not be found in the Maven website. I did that, or everybody would have been screaming "Chinese Clones". It all has to do with this unreal fascination of who makes it and where do they make it and why do they make it there...ad nauseum. Any new maker will automatically be assigned to a Chinese source.

Steve, if that's the case, then I apologize for the comment. I suppose I'm just sore that many of us were deprived of our favorite parlor game: "Guess The OEM".

I just hope the trend isn't the death nell for the true high quality, innovative optic manufacturer. Too expensive or not, it's the innovation that drives the industry - every industry needs halo products to aspire to.

James, personally, I don't necessarily see innovation being closely tied to manufacturers being able to sell sports optics. Consider Nikon. Their digital camera imaging divisions dwarf their sports optics division. If we see any improvements in the glass or coatings in their binoculars, chances are the innovations were made on behalf of their camera divisions, and just happened to trickle down to the sports optics division as a matter of availability (historic note: Nikon began multicoating their camera lenses in 1969, but didn't start multicoating their binoculars until about a decade later). Or, if Canon improved the IS on their binoculars, its a pretty good bet that the innovation originated from efforts to improve the IS in their telephoto lenses. Similarly, Carl Zeiss has a massive optical business outside of sports optics and I'd expect that innovation would continue at the company even if they did not sell binoculars. That's not to say that companies don't occasionally innovate specifically for their sports optics, but that by and large, it seems to me that sports optics benefit from innovations intended for other products and applications.