Today’s Alphas are tomorrow’s...???
Seems to be mostly a marketing term.. to help cope with market saturation?
PEter
It could appear that way but I have never seen any of the 'alphas' use the term 'alpha' in any way at all.
Lee
Today’s Alphas are tomorrow’s...???
Seems to be mostly a marketing term.. to help cope with market saturation?
PEter
It could appear that way but I have never seen any of the 'alphas' use the term 'alpha' in any way at all.
Lee
That's a good point. It doesn't really mean anything, or at least it's mostly fuzzy boundaries, approximating 'very good and probably very expensive'. Who invented the term 'alpha' in relation to binos? Was it someone on BF? C'mon, 'fess up!
Wow! You AGREE!:t: That is the first time I have ever had anybody agree with me on Bird Forum. Their methods aren't perfect I am sure but at least they do some objective testing.
https://www.allbinos.com/2.1-article-How_do_we_test_binoculars_.html
Bill,
I have certainly found correlations between some objective measures and my rating of a binocular. For instance, there is some correlation between binocular price and my experience of optical/mechanical quality and customer service. But I also believe that each binocular is kind of a “blue plate special.” A large number of design, manufacturing, and after market serviceability decisions are made when a binocular is brought to market at a particular price point. There are always constraints and trade offs must be made. Sometimes the package suits you better and sometimes not so much. We see this even at the highest price points where there are definite differences in how the makers approach designing and marketing their top of the line offerings.
- There can be no EXACT line between Alpha and incredibly good binoculars that fall short of Alpha because that implies agreement on a set of measurable features that would allow universal agreement on how to rank order the experience of using each binocular in a collection of binoculars. If there is anything demonstrated by this thread in particular and the forum more generally, it is that while you can take many objective measures of a binocular, the subjective response to that binocular will vary from one person to the next. You have stated as much in the “Which is Better?” section of da book.
- Nobody is qualified to draw a line which cannot be drawn. Yet, anyone is qualified to express what their experience of a particular binocular may be. To the extent that I have had experience which confirms (or denies) the experience of someone else with a given collection of binoculars, I have some calibration of the likelihood that their opinion of a binocular is likely to correlate with what I am likely to think about that binocular.
- Nothing should be seen as gospel (an interesting choice of words when you seem to be striving for objective measures). And yet, even in areas which are rather subjective I've been able to figure out whose advice I value. My point is that even without universal agreement on a precise ordering, we should not be surprised that an individual might discriminate between one binocular and another and thus have a preference. Nor should we be shocked to find others whose preferences mimic our own.
Alan
Bill,
A large number of design, manufacturing, and after market serviceability decisions are made when a binocular is brought to market at a particular price point.
Alan
Hi, John:
My original question was: where is the line drawn between "Alpha" binoculars and those VERY good binoculars that don't rate as being "Alphas"? Also, who is qualified to make that distinction? Where I personally draw the line is when the performance of the so called alpha is too close to the sub alpha that makes spending the excess money a bad idea. The only one, IMHO, who is able to make that distinction is ME, because they are going to be my binoculars. I have fallen into the trap of listening too closely to so called experts about what is best for me, and wound up regretting it (Swaro SV 8x32 and it's horrendous glare control issues).
Finally, what gives the reviewers the authority to make that distinction when many don't qualify any more than some of our BF readers——except that they have a MORE ALPHA vehicle for spreading their opinions. :cat:I guess they feel they have the authority because they actually own it. I've found that most everyone will recommend their own binoculars, especially the uber expensive ones, because they need to keep telling themselves that the money they spent was worth it. Many times it isn't, and I've done the same thing. When I'm glassing for big game with a client, they cannot believe I can find 3 times more game with my Meopta Gold Ring HD, Toric, etc than they can with their Ultravid HD's.
Bill
There is nothing wrong with Nikon's USA warranty. If you purchase a new non-gray market Nikon binocular and register it with Nikon and a problem shows up in it, simply contact Nikon by e-mail with your registration and purchase information and they will either repair it or replace it with a new one at their option.
I have had a well used 4 year old EDG replaced with a new binocular and a one month old Monarch HG replaced with a new binocular under Nikon's warranty.
I am confident that they will do the same thing with their numerous economy line binoculars.
Bob
...There can be no EXACT line between Alpha and incredibly good binoculars that fall short of Alpha because that implies agreement on a set of measurable features that would allow universal agreement on how to rank order the experience of using each binocular in a collection of binoculars...
This might be the first "alpha binocular" post on BF by caesar back in 2007:
"I think the Nikon 8 x 32 LX L can still be found for under $900.00. I have one. They're tough! The LX L is definitely an "Alpha" binocular and belongs right up there with the big three /../"
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=989230&postcount=4
...I have never seen any of the 'alphas' use the term 'alpha' in any way at all..
Hi, Alan:
And if a largely universal line cannot be drawn, does the "alpha" binocular exist?
BC
I would substitute the word "compromises" in place of the word "decisions" in the statement above.
It suddenly dawned on me that this recurrent obsession with alpha has nothing at all to do with optics. B
I corrected my post.Most of the discussion seems to deal with mechanical problems affecting the binoculars.
Bob
There's a lot wrong with it. Nikon only warrants an optic to the original purchaser, unless it has recently changed. That's piss poor IMO, when commanding a premium price for a glass like the EDG, or MHG for that matter.
A Warranty costs money. Everyone pays for it when they purchase binoculars.
If Nikon wants to save money on the price of these warranties by not extending them to 2nd hand purchasers it is because they made a business decision to do so.
If Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss made the numbers and varieties of binoculars that Nikon makes they wouldn't be insuring the 2nd hand buyers of their binoculars either. It is likely that the three of them together don't make and sell as many binoculars as Nikon does.