Death Of The Alpha? (9 Viewers)

[Murmur]

Watches are a status symbol because you wear them on your wrist and it tells other people you have money if it happens to be a 14K gold Rolex. Binoculars are a tool you use for seeing things close.

It is possibly more true that watches are a way for most men in western industrial societies to wear jewellery...

Binoculars don't really fulfill that function...

And in both cases who, outside of enthusiast circles, really knows the difference?

 

[WJC]

Can there really be a death to the “alpha”? Will people stop using binoculars? And won’t the best of them still be called “alphas”? Although I never thought much of the word—what it quantifies is too subjective—it looks like it is here to stay.

Wouldn’t a better question to ask be whether or not the best TRADITIONAL binoculars remain at the top of the chain? Just looking across the many bino forums out there, one can see names (sometimes on the market less than 10 years) bandied about and compared to names that have been respected for over 100 years.

Are they better because of optical and mechanical characteristics? Or, are they better because of the power of suggestion and the observer’s lack of understanding of the importance of the mechanical aspects, which are just as important as the optical, at least for longevity, anyway?

‘Just a thought.

 

[NDhunter]

Bill:

Thanks for your common sense thinking. I agree with all of that.

Jerry

 

[wdc]

Can there really be a death to the “alpha”? Will people stop using binoculars? And won’t the best of them still be called “alphas”? Although I never thought much of the word—what it quantifies is too subjective—it looks like it is here to stay.

Wouldn’t a better question to ask be whether or not the best TRADITIONAL binoculars remain at the top of the chain? Just looking across the many bino forums out there, one can see names (sometimes on the market less than 10 years) bandied about and compared to names that have been respected for over 100 years.

Are they better because of optical and mechanical characteristics? Or, are they better because of the power of suggestion and the observer’s lack of understanding of the importance of the mechanical aspects, which are just as important as the optical, at least for longevity, anyway?

‘Just a thought.

Thanks for weighing in with a lifetime's worth of experience, opinions, and perhaps a more well considered point to make. As some have already mentioned on this thread, there would be no development, research, and advancement of optical devices unless some companies were willing to spend the money to do it. Manufacturers that produce a product that is either built to spec, or re-branded, and consists of a common chassis, and/or off the shelf components are not likely to be the one's looking to improve the product.

If binoculars are truly dead in the water as optical devices unworthy of any further improvement, then maybe they are fair game for manufacturers to simply re-brand existing technology at the lowest price possible.

But, as Bill Cook recently pointed out in another thread, there are still new frontiers of optics that may very well end up in binoculars, cameras, and telescopes in the foreseeable future.

I don't deny the appeal of more reasonably priced products that approach the level of excellence of established brands. I've already wandered down that road myself. But making that choice does not come with a default rejection and/or implied condemnation of the companies that pioneered the development and improvement of these devices we are so infatuated with. If there is more to be found and improved upon, I expect it will come from either the established marques, or perhaps trickle down development from well funded university/military research, and/or camera manufacturers. I'm pretty certain that it will NOT be coming from the factories that are producing all these bargain 'alpha killers'.

One aspect of this thread's origins seems to be an almost gloating victory over the very companies that made really good optics a possibility for the consumer, as well as a complete indifference towards the prospects of any further improvement that could benefit the user. And to Bill Cook's point, what is the guarantee that any of these new businesses won't, in short order, become incapable or unwilling to support their product, regardless of their claims? I've only been on this forum for about 6 months but in that time have observed the rapid decline of the reputation of one of these 'alpha killer' businesses. Much to consider.

 

[Palantas]

Watches are a status symbol because you wear them on your wrist and it tells other people you have money if it happens to be a 14K gold Rolex. Binoculars are a tool you use for seeing things close.

Nah, that's not why. Not all watches are status symbols, obviously. Not even all high-end watches are status symbols to their owners.

Watches are different that binoculars, because in the "alpha" of watches, art has entirely replaced technology. That hasn't happened yet with hand-held optics. However, if micro-arrays or some other technology made high-quality optics extremely cheap--like exactly what happened with timepieces in the 80s--then traditional glass optics would be become art objects. And the only brands to produce them would be ones with a tradition to market.

 

[edwincjones]

Can there really be a death to the “alpha”? Will people stop using binoculars? And won’t the best of them still be called “alphas”? Although I never thought much of the word—what it quantifies is too subjective—it looks like it is here to stay.

Wouldn’t a better question to ask be whether or not the best TRADITIONAL binoculars remain at the top of the chain? Just looking across the many bino forums out there, one can see names (sometimes on the market less than 10 years) bandied about and compared to names that have been respected for over 100 years.

Are they better because of optical and mechanical characteristics? Or, are they better because of the power of suggestion and the observer’s lack of understanding of the importance of the mechanical aspects, which are just as important as the optical, at least for longevity, anyway?

‘Just a thought.

I think that there will always be a "Bell Curve" (poor, good, best) for most, or all, products.
The question will remain "is the best worth the extra cost over the good?"

edj

 

[Theo98]

I think that there will always be a "Bell Curve" (poor, good, best) for most, or all, products.

Agreed!

The question will remain "is the best worth the extra cost over the good?"
edj

To some, yes. To most, probably not!

Ted

 

[Grando]

This topic is like some Hollywood horror movie villain that fails to die and keeps going and going. Thready Krueger!

 

[WJC]

The “alpha” leaders have earned our trust over years of innovation and investment. But when 97% of the performance and longevity is available for 20% of the price ... REAL not imagined ... it has to raise eyebrows of the more rational. This is especially true when the average observer can only appreciate about 89% of those differences they claim to be able to see. The times, they are a’changin’.

 

[Steve C]

The “alpha” leaders have earned our trust over years of innovation and investment. But when 97% of the performance and longevity is available for 20% of the price ... REAL not imagined ... it has to raise eyebrows of the more rational. This is especially true when the average observer can only appreciate about 89% of those differences they claim to be able to see. The times, they are a’changin’.

I have to say that seems to have nailed it. :t:

 

[james holdsworth]

The “alpha” leaders have earned our trust over years of innovation and investment. But when 97% of the performance and longevity is available for 20% of the price ... REAL not imagined ... it has to raise eyebrows of the more rational. This is especially true when the average observer can only appreciate about 89% of those differences they claim to be able to see. The times, they are a’changin’.

Really, though, was it any different 20 or 30 years ago? As has been discussed, the early non PC roofs were actually optically worse than their much-less-expensive [porro] competitors, but had no shortage of people willing to pay for the privilege.

When I encounter large groups of birders, the Swarovski [alpha et al] ratio today actually seems higher than 5 - 10 years ago. If perceived to be the best, they will sell plenty.

 

[maico]

Really, though, was it any different 20 or 30 years ago? As has been discussed, the early non PC roofs were actually optically worse than their much-less-expensive [porro] competitors, but had no shortage of people willing to pay for the privilege.

Everyone in Germany from Rommel down seemed happy with their Hensoldt abbe koenig prisms. No newfangled coatings required......

 

[gunut]

roofs didn't really come into their own commercially until the Leitz Trinovid in the mid 60s.....I think they are still a sweet bin....mechanically they are awesome and optically as good or better than any from their era..... if there is such a thing as a sexy bin the early Trinovids are them....

 

[Alexis Powell]

Everyone in Germany from Rommel down seemed happy with their Hensoldt abbe koenig prisms. No newfangled coatings required......

There's no accounting for taste. I guess I have higher standards than they did. AK prisms don't need dielectric coatings but they definitely benefit greatly from PC coatings.

--AP

 

[Pinewood]

Everyone in Germany from Rommel down seemed happy with their Hensoldt abbe koenig prisms. No newfangled coatings required......

Hello Maico,

Perhaps, but the German Navy was using coated optics and Hensoldt was selling binoculars with coated optics to the Swedes, at the same time as the United States military was insisting on coated optics

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

 

[SuperDuty]

I've always stated the you cast your vote on what you truly think about an optic with your wallet, then confirm the vote when you keep it long term.

 

[Pileatus]

I've always stated the you cast your vote on what you truly think about an optic with your wallet, then confirm the vote when you keep it long term.

Very well said.

However, the naysayer would say you spent all your money on the wrong bin, you're broke and now you spout tripe to justify to yourself what you clearly must know is a terrible lapse of judgment. Based on publicly available binocular specifications you cannot possibly be happy and are, therefore, delusional. Go ahead, they say, keep fooling yourself. That smile on your face is just masking your pain. I thought it was the result of finding another rarity, but what do I know.

 

[maico]

Hello Maico,

Perhaps, but the German Navy was using coated optics and Hensoldt was selling binoculars with coated optics to the Swedes, at the same time as the United States military was insisting on coated optics

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Franks got some pictures of the Hensoldt prisms

https://www.flickr.com/photos/binocwpg/5246810382/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/binocwpg/5246203669/in/photostream/

 

[Canip]

roofs didn't really come into their own commercially until the Leitz Trinovid in the mid 60s.....I think they are still a sweet bin....mechanically they are awesome and optically as good or better than any from their era..... if there is such a thing as a sexy bin the early Trinovids are them....

Fully agree with what you say about the early Trinovid - I still hold my 10x40 in high esteem. It is so much smaller and lighter than later models. But I have to admit that compared to porros from the same epoch, e.g. the 1970s Habicht 10x40, the difference in contrast / sharpness is considerable - at 10x magnification, the lack of phase coating in the Leitz clearly shows.

 

[Troubador]

roofs didn't really come into their own commercially until the Leitz Trinovid in the mid 60s.....I think they are still a sweet bin....mechanically they are awesome and optically as good or better than any from their era..... if there is such a thing as a sexy bin the early Trinovids are them....

Here is Troubadoris's well-used Trinnie.
Lovely.

Lee