• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Once you have Alpha you can never Backa? (2 Viewers)

I'm not *that* critical when it comes to binoculars. Sure, I like alphas, and my Nikon 10x42 SE is nowadays my favourite pair, not least because it's a porro. But I can bird all day with one of yesteryear's alphas without feeling I'm missing something. Last week I used my sister's Zeiss 10x40 BGATP for a couple of hours - that's still a very nice pair indeed. My most used pair in the winter is the much maligned Zeiss Victory II 10x40. Sure, there's some CA, but it doesn't bother me much and other than that the view is fine, with very high resolution, a nice sweet spot and good ergonomics. And once in a while I use my Zeiss West 8x30 Porro for a short birding trip. That pair is almost 50 years old, and whenever I use it I think what a shame it is Zeiss don't make these with modern coatings. Perfect ergonomics, a very wide field of view, and a build quality that's far better than that of any modern binocular.

I'm far more critical when it comes to scopes. The scopes I've got at the moment (cherry Nikon EDIIIA and Nikon ED50) are good, but I'd be prepared to pay a lot of money for a 60mm or 65mm scope that's optically clearly better than my cherry Nikon EDIIIA. So far I haven't found any. With scopes the optical quality is far more critical than with binoculars in my opinion, especially when you use higher magnifications quite a lot.

Hermann
 
Dennis,

I picked up some of the Vortex Razor HD's. After comparing them to my 8x32SE's I could see a difference. When I really looked at fine detail, the Vortex was just not as sharp. I hated to pay $1000 + for something that did not perform to the same level as my Nikons, so the Vortex went back.

Interesting that everyone in the sporting store said either I was the only one who felt that way or that there was "something wrong with your eyes". There was no way that I had binos that could be better than the Vortex Razors. None of them knew what the Nikon SE's were, but they knew that there are no Nikon binoculars out there that could approach the Vortex binos.

I guess there must be something wrong with my eyes!

Mike

It is a shame you have to pay $2k to get a roof prism binocular that is as good as an SE. If you are a birder and you don't get them too wet get an SE or an EII for $500.00. Alpha view for not too much money.
 
Just to be able to go birding should be a joy and a privilege. I don't understand the use of "it bores me"? So if you don't have an alpha set you would not go out birding? I guess I don't miss what I have never had! So I will carry on birding in blissful ignorance and enjoy every privileged minute of it! And steer clear of alphs's!
The Fury's are fine and so are the Monarch's. The trick is not to get to hung-up on binoculars, they all do a job. No doubt Swarovision's are the best but I have to look at from the 'pound to pound' prospective and then for me the Fury and the like win hands down, only my thought's!

"I don't understand the use of "it bores me"? " They are so good and you get USE to it so lesser glass just dissapoints me when I use them. My point is the quality of binoculars in birding makes a big difference in my enjoyment of the hobby. Take my advice and steer clear of alpha's because you will be forever spoiled. I was happy with my Monarch's too until I started using Alpha's. But my point is you can't go back to Monarch's say after having a Zeiss FL.
 
In 2004 I bought my wife an 8X32 SE along with a Nikon HG 8X42 for myself. A few weeks earlier I'd looked at an SE and summarily dismissed it as "impossible to use" due to blackouts. The HG, in contrast to the SE, had great eyecups, perfect eye relief and was bombproof.

As we birded together, I regularly compared the two binoculars. When I studied details carefully it was obvious the SE was something special. Still, I refused to admit what my eyes were telling me. Ownership is a powerful bias.

After a few weeks of intermittent use, I adapted to my wife's SE and it to me. Blackouts became a thing of the past. I returned the 8X42 HG, purchased an 8X32 SE for myself and never looked back. I simply got tired of asking myself "I wonder what this would look like in her SE?”

Within a few months I also purchased an Ultravid 7X42 because, like many, I bird in the rain. I spent nearly two relaxing hours comparing the Ultravid to my SE. The salesman I dealt with commented that, "the SE was as good as the Ultravid". This was surprising considering there were SE's and E2's sitting in the glass case where we stood. Admittedly, he didn't know how good the porro bins were though he commented, "birders do like them". Yes, it's the same store that recently flushed it's remaining supply of E2's/SE's.

The Ultravid was great but I never adapted to its soft edges. Argue, if you want, but the edges are not sharp. As much as I used and enjoyed the Ultravid I knew I'd buy the first "SE-like" roof bin I could find, regardless of cost. The first time I picked up the 8.5X42 Swarovision I said, "That's the SE view I'm looking for". My wife, a die-hard SE user, agreed. Other SE users on BF have said the same thing about the Swarovision. There's a reason we say what we say.

Exactly my feelings! The SV is a waterproof SE. Maybe a little better because it has the sharper edges. But if you can get them wet get the SE or the EII(if you like the bigger FOV).
 
I'm not *that* critical when it comes to binoculars. Sure, I like alphas, and my Nikon 10x42 SE is nowadays my favourite pair, not least because it's a porro. But I can bird all day with one of yesteryear's alphas without feeling I'm missing something. Last week I used my sister's Zeiss 10x40 BGATP for a couple of hours - that's still a very nice pair indeed. My most used pair in the winter is the much maligned Zeiss Victory II 10x40. Sure, there's some CA, but it doesn't bother me much and other than that the view is fine, with very high resolution, a nice sweet spot and good ergonomics. And once in a while I use my Zeiss West 8x30 Porro for a short birding trip. That pair is almost 50 years old, and whenever I use it I think what a shame it is Zeiss don't make these with modern coatings. Perfect ergonomics, a very wide field of view, and a build quality that's far better than that of any modern binocular.

I'm far more critical when it comes to scopes. The scopes I've got at the moment (cherry Nikon EDIIIA and Nikon ED50) are good, but I'd be prepared to pay a lot of money for a 60mm or 65mm scope that's optically clearly better than my cherry Nikon EDIIIA. So far I haven't found any. With scopes the optical quality is far more critical than with binoculars in my opinion, especially when you use higher magnifications quite a lot.

Hermann

"With scopes the optical quality is far more critical than with binoculars in my opinion, especially when you use higher magnifications quite a lot." Definitely agree with that. It's hard to beat that Nikon Scope you have.
 
It is a shame you have to pay $2k to get a roof prism binocular that is as good as an SE. If you are a birder and you don't get them too wet get an SE or an EII for $500.00. Alpha view for not too much money.

I consider myself very, very fortunate to have gotten some EIIs for a princely $270 last summer. I do get alpha envy, such as the other day when I tried a friend's new Swarovisions on a gloomy, wet day--they were very bright, very sharp, and reminded me very much of, well, SEs. Are SVs worth $2000 more than my EIIs? Only if I had $2000. Otherwise, alpha comparisons are academic abstractions.

My friend with the SVs, who used 10x SEs for many years, looked through my EIIs and said, "these are really good."

Now if I could just keep the rubber on them. :C

David
 
Dennis, like I said, I don't find myself missing something else when I am using my Canons or Furys. Sure, I'm aware there's an optical difference but I don't care because it really is rather slight when you're actually using the bins as designed. Then again, I'm not the avid birder than some of you guys are.
 
No, I do not personally find that to be evevn remotely close to the case. While I will say the alpha is better, $2k for an alpha simply does not, in my view, justify the price. I have spent quite a bit of time with Swaro and Zeiss, and have a Razor HD, I simply don't think the difference is there. Others will undoubtedly disagree and that's fine.

Hear! Hear! -::clap:)
 
I consider myself very, very fortunate to have gotten some EIIs for a princely $270 last summer. I do get alpha envy, such as the other day when I tried a friend's new Swarovisions on a gloomy, wet day--they were very bright, very sharp, and reminded me very much of, well, SEs. Are SVs worth $2000 more than my EIIs? Only if I had $2000. Otherwise, alpha comparisons are academic abstractions.

My friend with the SVs, who used 10x SEs for many years, looked through my EIIs and said, "these are really good."

Now if I could just keep the rubber on them. :C

David

Yes, you are fortunate, that's a very good price. I bought my EIIs from The King of Swing for closer to $500 before he bought the SV EL. But they have peel proof armoring, so even a potato peeler can't harm them. -:)

If you were one of the fortunate ones who bought an 8x32 EDG for $999 + $500 Nikon camera, I'd say that alpha was worth it. Take the value of the camera away and that's a net cost of $499, the same price as the 8x32 SE had been selling for before SE mania set in two years ago when Amazon's price skyrocketed to $745. Now you can find the 8x SE at select dealers for between $614.95 and $545 (lowest) at the low end, higher at other dealers, and over $1,000 from UK dealers.

Whatever the price, you have to wait 3-5 weeks to receive them or until they have enough orders to make it worthwhile to get them shipped from Japan.

Once the scales fall from the eyes of the alpha blinded, I think you will see the SE prices shoot high again like they did a couple years ago.

My 8x30 EII is exceptionally bright for an midsized bin, brighter than the 8x30 SLCneu with dielectric coatings. But, of course, a less expensive full sized porro such as an old Fujinon BFL 8x42 will do better under very poor light or at twilight, you don't need to buy a full sized uber priced alpha to get that, and that's no "academic abstraction"! :)

But it is technical (skip down to "Light Transfer").

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1761

Brock
 
Last edited:
I consider myself very, very fortunate to have gotten some EIIs for a princely $270 last summer. I do get alpha envy, such as the other day when I tried a friend's new Swarovisions on a gloomy, wet day--they were very bright, very sharp, and reminded me very much of, well, SEs. Are SVs worth $2000 more than my EIIs? Only if I had $2000. Otherwise, alpha comparisons are academic abstractions.

My friend with the SVs, who used 10x SEs for many years, looked through my EIIs and said, "these are really good."

Now if I could just keep the rubber on them. :C

David

Get the newer EII's with the black leatherette. I hear it stays on better than the older gray models.
 
No.

;)

Depends if you are definining "Alpha" by price or optical performance. Seems to me that you are defining "Alpha" as any roof prism bin over $1000 or the Nikon SEs or EIIs. If that is the case then my answer is no.
 
Last edited:
I can use both with pleasure

While I own alpha models, I can also enjoy so called "lesser" ones. Maybe it would make a greater difference if I used the cheaper models all day long. But around the house, I often use older non-alpha models, or something like a Leupold Yosemite 6x30. I'm always amazed about that model's fine view! And with some of the older ones, my main gripe is the reduced FOV due to lack of true eyeglass-wearer eyepieces. Or the fact that they don't focus as close as the newer ones. If one does not want to or can't go for an alpha model, I think the best/most economical solution is to go for a decent porro model. I also own an old so called alpha, a Leitz Trinovid of the first generation, and that is definitely not worth getting should someone consider this solution as an entry into the "alpha world".
 
Once you have birded and used alpha binoculars for any length of time do you find it hard to use lesser binoculars in the field?

Hi Dennis, I find this to be true. Maybe not while actually birding, because most binos (even cheap and nasty ones) are perfectly adequate to the task of most birding situations. But once my eyes became accustomed to top-quality glass, I found that images from lesser glass took on a tired, washed-out, impression. Less light, less sharpness, CA, whatever - it's a "whole-package" thing. Top-quality binos don't have to cost a fortune, though, as previous posters have pointed out.


I consider myself very, very fortunate to have gotten some EIIs for a princely $270 last summer. I do get alpha envyDavid

You can lose the envy, David. The EII's are top "alpha" binos. My last two definite "keepers" are SV 8.5x42 and EII 8x30. Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
You can lose the envy, David. The EII's are top "alpha" binos. My last two definite "keepers" are SV 8.5x42 and EII 8x30. Enjoy!

I do, and I will! The envy was mostly because of the rain and the big flap of rubber I needed to glue down over the left housing. I'm learning to worry less and just use them!

David
 
I have just made a profound observation and I wonder if any of you have ever experienced it. Once you have birded and used alpha binoculars for any length of time do you find it hard to use lesser binoculars in the field? I have Swarovision 8.5 x 42's now and I have used them extensively in the field. From time to time I have tried using lesser binoculars and I just don't enjoy birding as much as with the Swarovision's. I don't mean cheap junk binoculars either I mean $1000.00 and up binoculars. My memory retains the view I had with the Swarovision's and when the view is not as good it dissapoints me and actually bores me. You know everybody says the alpha's give small incremental improvements in your view but when it comes down to it that small difference makes a big difference in your birding enjoyment. Just an observation and I wondered if any of you have experienced it.

I haven't found that to be the case at all. There just is not much of an improvement when going from say a $500 to $1,000 bin to one costing $2,000 Certainly not enough to justify paying an additonal $1,000 to $1,500!! I think that the brand name and bragging rights may play a significant part in the pleasure of $2k bins.

A pair of Nikon EII's will deliver exceptional bird images and cost a fraction of alpha bins.
 
Last edited:
Hi Dennis, I find this to be true. Maybe not while actually birding, because most binos (even cheap and nasty ones) are perfectly adequate to the task of most birding situations. But once my eyes became accustomed to top-quality glass, I found that images from lesser glass took on a tired, washed-out, impression. Less light, less sharpness, CA, whatever - it's a "whole-package" thing. Top-quality binos don't have to cost a fortune, though, as previous posters have pointed out.




You can lose the envy, David. The EII's are top "alpha" binos. My last two definite "keepers" are SV 8.5x42 and EII 8x30. Enjoy!

"But once my eyes became accustomed to top-quality glass, I found that images from lesser glass took on a tired, washed-out, impression. Less light, less sharpness, CA, whatever - it's a "whole-package" thing. Top-quality binos don't have to cost a fortune, though, as previous posters have pointed out."
EXACTLY! That's the point I am trying to make in this thread! EII's are probably the cheapest alpha you can get. I would say they are very close to the SV although there edges are not as sharp. I have come to like the sharp edges on the SV because I don't have to move my binoculars as much. You can look around the field for birds all the way to the edge. It is kind of like looking through a porthole on a submarine. It saves you time and sometimes you can ID birds you wouldn't normally be able to in one field. Great for doubles or flocks. Big FOV too about 400 feet. They are an unfair advantage at a birding competition because you can ID faster without moving your binoculars as much.
 
Last edited:
I haven't found that to be the case at all. There just is not much of an improvement when going from say a $500 to $1,000 bin to one costing $2,000 Certainly not enough to justify paying an additonal $1,000 to $1,500!! I think that the brand name and bragging rights may play a significant part in the pleasure of $2k bins.

A pair of Nikon EII's will deliver exceptional bird images and cost a fraction of alpha bins.

"There just is not much of an improvement when going from say a $500 to $1,000 bin to one costing $2,000"
I disagree with that statement. There is a difference and it is noticeable. Once you get used to a 2K roof it is hard to backa to a 1K roof. EII's and SE's are the exception.
 
While I own alpha models, I can also enjoy so called "lesser" ones. Maybe it would make a greater difference if I used the cheaper models all day long. But around the house, I often use older non-alpha models, or something like a Leupold Yosemite 6x30. I'm always amazed about that model's fine view! And with some of the older ones, my main gripe is the reduced FOV due to lack of true eyeglass-wearer eyepieces. Or the fact that they don't focus as close as the newer ones. If one does not want to or can't go for an alpha model, I think the best/most economical solution is to go for a decent porro model. I also own an old so called alpha, a Leitz Trinovid of the first generation, and that is definitely not worth getting should someone consider this solution as an entry into the "alpha world".

I like the Leica Trinovid 8x32 BN. Excellent all around binocular if you find one. It has some CA and it is not as good as the Zeiss 8x32 FL BUT sometimes you can find one for about $600.00 and that is a bargain. Built like a tank and REALLY compact! Sweet.
 
"There just is not much of an improvement when going from say a $500 to $1,000 bin to one costing $2,000"
I disagree with that statement. There is a difference and it is noticeable. Once you get used to a 2K roof it is hard to backa to a 1K roof. EII's and SE's are the exception.


Negative.....as has been mentioned many times, there are at least 5 pair of binos I've used, all $1000 or less, that will show you everything, anything, etc that SV will. I test them against my SLC HD several times each year and only further verifies my findings. If you're not looking at them side by side you won't even know what you're supposedly missing. The people who have $2300 hanging around their necks are in denial.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top