• 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.

Stalking the Elusive Alpha (1 Viewer)

This is a purely subjective term and depends largely upon individual perceptions. As I see it, alpha binoculars (whether or not you like the term) are defined by those binoculars produced by Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, and Zeiss that entered the market in the last few years at a price above $2,000 US. I would bend that for the Swarovski SLC series. I also see a terrific tendency to automatically associate those with greatness. As somebody here has said more than once, good marketing need not be truthful, only believed. Yes it helps that those are terrific instruments.

As to who is qualified to make the determination, as far as I am concerned beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, another appearance of human perceptions. I have long held the opinion that the users satisfaction with a binocular lies solely in the ability of the binocular being used to shut off those little voices whispering in ones ear, that there has to be something better, and that since there is I will see it. That singing of little voices may not be quelled until the user gets to the alpha (flagship...whatever adjective you care to use). When the viewer realizes there is no more to be spent, those little voices may well go away. At that point the user just uses the binocular and the class of the glass gets the credit. At another point on the spectrum a less expensive glass may well quell the voices. Available disposable income and perceptions of personal spending preferences play a role here too. Nothing wrong with either, it seems to me to just be human nature.

Cell phones have a site where all of the flagship models are torn apart, piece by piece. The cost of the parts are determined, the phones are evaluated on the quality of the part and the level of construction, and given a repair score. Unless binoculars get a site like that nobody will have the ability to make that sort of determination. Again, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Even a great name on a lesser glass may well confer status on the lesser glass.

As to not being an optical engineer, does that mean you have to be a automotive engineer to evaluate an automobile to see whether or not it suits you? I make no pretensions about being any sort of a optical expert. I am however capable of forming and stating my opinions on various instruments. Win some loose some. Blessed be the name of the game.
 
I've always disliked the word alpha to describe binoculars. It's not very accurate. It is most associated with physics and animals and to the latter is used in the singular.

People around here tend to use alpha to describe a group.

Premium would be my choice to describe a manufacturer's highest quality product. Price not being a factor.
 
I certainly perceive Leica and Zeiss as long standing alpha brands, and have accepted Swarovski as a brand that has comparatively recently acquired alpha status and very recently have come round to the idea that Nikon is an alpha brand too (yes Bob, I am convinced at last). Of course Nikon has been an alpha photographic brand for ages...

Based on my strong conviction that alpha is a status term (except when appropriated to form an adjective, i.e. "alpha quality" optics), I agree about L, Z, and S, but not Nikon. Nikon makes tools, and occasionally executes designs (like the WX bins, or the occasional exotic camera lens) for specification bragging rights. I would argue that Nikon is also not an alpha in the photographic world. Alpha status equates to prestige among competitors. Nikon didn't enter as a prestige brand, Nikon cameras gained a following as reasonable cost solid tools with lots of system options, and now it is simply one maker of dSLRs within a very narrow field. Still photography is such a narrow industry when it comes to equipment for professionals and enthusiasts, there is almost no room for being an alpha brand. There's hardly enough competition to designate high status versus low status brands. Instead, most brands either have a special niche, or else are one of a very few co-equals. One could argue that among dSLR makers that Nikon and Canon are the prestige brands against Pentax, Sony, and Sigma, but Nikon and Canon bodies are owned by such a large percentage of dSLR users, I don't find the argument convincing. By comparison, only a very very tiny fraction of binocular users own Zeiss, Leica, or Swarovski binoculars, even when those brands' lower budget models are included. Speaking of alpha or prestige brands in the photographic world more broadly (than dSLRs), I'd point to brands such as Leica and Hasselblad.

--AP
 
I've always disliked the word alpha to describe binoculars. It's not very accurate. It is most associated with physics and animals and to the latter is used in the singular.

People around here tend to use alpha to describe a group.

Premium would be my choice to describe a manufacturer's highest quality product. Price not being a factor.

Kevin:

I agree with your first point, but price has everything to do with
a makers highest quality product.

This is common with most consumer goods.

If you would compare the top model of most every mfr. to their lesser
models, I would think you can tell some difference. ;)

I think I could.

Jerry
 
Since the advent of the Nikon WX everything else is Beta at best. :)

+1 :)

Based on my strong conviction that alpha is a status term...

Yes, that's the problem. When you start talking about status people get very sensitive, even if you say "alpha quality", which I think just means a bino that even picky folks feel satisfied using. That's a matter of those "voices in the head" (Steve's term?) shutting up and letting you enjoy the view, which obviously happens at various levels of optical and mechanical quality for each of us. Wanting "the best" isn't necessarily frivolous if you feel nothing is quite good enough yet, as Better View once put it. Or maybe for some those voices also involve just feeling you've spent enough, I don't know.

The more interesting question is why these arguments about "alphas" are eternally restarted and repeated. I think it involves this ongoing confusion between status and quality, and how much issues of status or prestige trigger people. Enjoy your view, everyone.
 
Ted,

Just out of curiosities sake, what would you suggest be used instead?

Good question, Steve.

Not really sure what adjective, descriptive noun or nomenclature to advise anyone else, or the market in general to use? I think it would be more of a personal choice. For instance, when I found "The One", it was the only time while glassing I uttered the affirmative phrase, "WOW"!!!

For me, that "WOW" is My Alpha...uh, I mean, -WOW-! Other than that, like Kevin, I also like Premium, Best, Top Tier or a host of other desirable synonyms. Of course, all should be seasoned to taste and served with a glass of personal humility!! B :)

Ted
 
I guess some do not include Nikon as a premium Binocular member , but they do not really delve in the upper premium binocular market- save for the Hg/LX in 2002 and the EDG in 2010. They seem to make more mid to low priced affordable glass like their cameras since they have a different business model. Leica sells lens for over 10K. The others L, Z and to a later extent S have made levels of premium glass for years. Some however do admit that they (Nikon) have made some wonderful different models over the years. So for some it is History, for some it is price, which makes one a Premium Bino manufacturer.

A.W.

A.W.
 
"Premium would be my choice to describe a manufacturer's highest quality product. Price not being a factor."

Kevin:

I agree with your first point, but price has everything to do with
a makers highest quality product.

This is common with most consumer goods.

If you would compare the top model of most every mfr. to their lesser
models, I would think you can tell some difference. ;)

I think I could.

Jerry

What I mean by price not being a factor is that it, in itself, is irrelevant. It also may not be a a guarantee of performance.

Kowa's "premium" line are Genesis. 8x33 versions sell for about $1100., give or take.

Leica's Uvid HD+ 8x32s are about $2100. give or take a bit.

They are both their respective manufacturer's premium bins in that class.

Some think the Kowa is as good or better, performance wise. It certainly competes.
 
Last edited:
I guess some do not include Nikon as a premium Binocular member , but they do not really delve in the upper premium binocular market- save for the Hg/LX in 2002 and the EDG in 2010. They seem to make more mid to low priced affordable glass like their cameras since they have a different business model. Leica sells lens for over 10K. The others L, Z and to a later extent S have made levels of premium glass for years. Some however do admit that they (Nikon) have made some wonderful different models over the years. So for some it is History, for some it is price, which makes one a Premium Bino manufacturer.

A.W.

A.W.

I'm dealing with some food poisoning, right now. But, I should be back in commission by monday. If not, the viewing will be at ...

Bill
 
I guess some do not include Nikon as a premium Binocular member , but they do not really delve in the upper premium binocular market- save for the Hg/LX in 2002 and the EDG in 2010...

I argue against Nikon as an alpha binocular brand, but I think it is hard to deny that Nikon has long offered premium/top-end binoculars. Besides the HG/LX and EDG, when it comes to birding bins there was/is the Classic Eagle roof, SE (and EII) porros, and LX pocket roofs. Beyond that, they offer several excellent porro models for other purposes, including the ProStar, Astroluxe, and WX. The Nikon Fieldscopes had top-end performance when first released and later they offered superb performance at a budget price in comparison to their (sometimes slightly better) competition.The ED50 is still arguably the best smallest scope.

--AP
 
I argue against Nikon as an alpha binocular brand, but I think it is hard to deny that Nikon has long offered premium/top-end binoculars. Besides the HG/LX and EDG, when it comes to birding bins there was/is the Classic Eagle roof, SE (and EII) porros, and LX pocket roofs. Beyond that, they offer several excellent porro models for other purposes, including the ProStar, Astroluxe, and WX. The Nikon Fieldscopes had top-end performance when first released and later they offered superb performance at a budget price in comparison to their (sometimes slightly better) competition.The ED50 is still arguably the best smallest scope.

--AP

Alexis:

You have explained things well. Nikon has some alpha binoculars.

You have named several models.

Jerry
 
+1 :)
Yes, that's the problem. When you start talking about status people get very sensitive,

Indeed. It's all about the feelings as opposed to the facts.

As in the review which said "B is a better binocular than A, but we downgraded it because it costs so much, and we hereby declare A the winner."

That kind of nonsense is where this type of thinking inevitably ends up.
 
Last edited:
Just my opinion, that Swaro reset the requirement for alpha status with their customer friendly service policies.
For an item such as a binocular, a piece of precision optics that can be expected to serve for decades, that move towards sustained support was transformative.

Zeiss and Leica are not as customer focused in this regard afaik, perhaps because corporate priorities are elsewhere, so they lose a star in comparison.

Nikon and Canon are still less binocular oriented than either Zeiss or Leica, their service concept is driven by their camera business, where model turnover is much faster and service irrelevant except to a handful of pro camera users.
That puts these firms firmly in the mid tier, another notch below Zeiss and Leica, even though both make some products of unique excellence, such as Canon's line of stabilized glasses.
 
When an ole Swabby talks about food poisoning, it normally includes the consumption of rot-gut whiskey and whatever comes after consuming several pints of that is referred to as "food poisoning".

The Alpha term to me means the head/leader of whatever we are discussing. Relative to binoculars - it would be the best optical instrument the company puts out. When referencing ALPHA binocular companies, again, those putting out the best optical components in a binocular. Understanding the specifications of the optic is what will probably cause us to call a binocular an ALPHA.

All I think I might know is "ALPHA anything" usually runs into money - at least that is what the monkey said when he peed into the cash register.
 
my search for "good enough"

As I age, my eyes also age; and they are not as good as they once were,
and were not that good then either.
My hope is better optics will allow me to see better, to see more detail.

To quote, or paraphrase Al Nagler
" one should get the best optics that one can "reasonably" afford"

Can I tell the difference? Sometimes
Of course, "good enough" and "reasonably" vary with each of us;
but one can hope and dream.

edj

So, this is where I have arrived after 25-30 years of playing with optics. There is alpha quality, and then there is "good enough."

These days, I search for "good enough" and call it a day. I have repeatedly been reminded that image isn't everything and the form and function matter a lot to me. One of the "lines" I draw is how bad I would feel if I accidentally left my binoculars on top of my car and drove off. I want the pair that falls just under the "I feel awful" line, if that makes sense.
 
I guess some do not include Nikon as a premium Binocular member , but they do not really delve in the upper premium binocular market- save for the Hg/LX in 2002 and the EDG in 2010. They seem to make more mid to low priced affordable glass like their cameras since they have a different business model. Leica sells lens for over 10K. The others L, Z and to a later extent S have made levels of premium glass for years. Some however do admit that they (Nikon) have made some wonderful different models over the years. So for some it is History, for some it is price, which makes one a Premium Bino manufacturer.

A.W.

A.W.


The EDG goes back to about 2007 when the EDG I was introduced. It had double hinges. When the single hinged EDG II was introduced in Europe in 2010 the double hinged EDG I was dropped.

I doubt if there were any major changes done to the EDG's optics; so basically the Nikon EDGS are now 10 years old and if Allbinos ratings mean anything at all they are still right up there with the best of them. It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon decided to come out with new ones in a few years.

And note that the EDGs have only the 5 traditional binocular formats; 8/10x32, 8/10x42 and 7x42 with SP prisms. No 8.5x's. No 8/10x56s. All 5 have flat fields. None of them can be properly called wide field binoculars but the 8x32, 8x42 and 7x42 are close enough. What they do they do very well and they do it without fanfare.

I don't think that Nikon cares whether binocular aficionados think that their EDGs are "alphas" or not. If one wants a top of the line all purpose binocular Nikon has one for you at a price and quality that can compete with the best binoculars that Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski have.

Bob
 
I don't think that Nikon cares whether binocular aficionados think that their EDGs are "alphas" or not. If one wants a top of the line all purpose binocular Nikon has one for you at a price and quality that can compete with the best binoculars that Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski have.

Bob

I agree.....I for sure can say that the EDG II may very well be the best binocular I have, Alpha or not. It sure checks a lot of boxes!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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