Several things have come out of this discussion.
Out of the 1,024 (at this moment) visitors to this thread, no one has ventured to answer any of my 3 simple questions concerning the "Alpha" binocular. Should I take that to mean there is no universally accepted "Alpha"? Judging by the comments below my babbling, I would have to say so.
Tenex wonders why the subject keeps popping up. Well, why do some people talk endlessly about their secret formula for cleaning optics and act as if it is tantamount to brain surgery when professionals just do it with no need for fanfare.
Then, we see some folks have their doubts about Nikon being an "Alpha." And well they should. It reinforces what I have harped about for a long time IF THERE IS AN "ALPHA" OUT THERE, IT MUST BE BASED ON THE INSTRUMENT AND NOT ON THE BRAND NAME. All my best binoculars have been Nikon. However, part of that is due to the fact that I treasure quality of VALUE much more than bragging rights and I can assure you the birds couldn't care less. To me, 95% of the of the very best--especially when with decades in optics, I can't see the difference--at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost is a logical move. Nikon certainly SELLS some VERY fine binoculars. I don't know the OEM if it is not Nikon. One thing I have picked up over the years is that some of the most trusted names will not reveal where they get there "flagship" binoculars. And yes Gunut, with no deference to the navy, I think "flagship" is much more descriptive.
Stephen said, "I fully agree that Nikon is not an alpha binocular" [because] ... "They simply were not as good as my Kowa Genesis."
This is the slippery slope that so many on binocular forums find under foot-comparing a BRAND to a PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT. I would compare my 8x32 SE to anything else. But, I would lose no sleep over any disagreement because I know the vast amount of differences people claim they see in various instruments can't be seen by humans. In addition, no two people will see or RECOGNIZE the same issue in the same way or same degree.
While I agree that "Alpha" is incredibly overused, there was method in my madness. I was fishing for information for articles or--down the road-perhaps a book. We now return you to the program ... already in progress.
Bill
Jerry--Bill, the alpha brands are the ones that are the most expensive....
Edj--Can I tell the difference? Sometimes. Of course, "good enough" and "reasonably" vary with each of us;
Stan--A binocular that allows the operator to see the most detail in the most natural way without realizing that they are using a mechanical instrument. (Good job Stan!)
Pileatus--emphases customer service, not instruments.
Padd7-- As it probably means 'first' (as in letters of Greek(?) alphabet), i would assume it meant: best optical quality; best construction quality; best sales and after-sales service etc.
Now, of course, another jar of worms - what is 'best'? (Good question ... that has thousands of answers.)
Dennis--There must be something to alpha's. When objective or subjective testing is done they seem to rise to the top but the difference is only a few % so you have to decide if they are worth the difference. (Maybe I've missed it but I have yet to see the credentials of Allbinos reviewers or the equipment they use.)
Theo98--ALPHA OPTICS=What presents the Best Image, "To YOUR Eyes" (cost a Non-Factor)! As per Chuck's sentiments, I just as soon do away with the misleading term, Alpha?!
The-Wanderer--There are some who would claim that they can see more detail observing through some Canon binoculars, but they don't seem to emerge as being in the alpha class. (I have to agree with Denny on this one.)
Lee--I carelessly think of these brands' top-priced binos as alphas but this doesn't at all mean I think they are perfect, merely that as Chuck put it, they are the cat's meow or, as I put it now, the dog's dangly bits, in the eyes of the brands themselves.
Steve C.--I don't really remember where I even heard the term first applied, but as we seem to have need to pigeon-hole things. (Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth!-the Cowardly Lion, 1939)
Kevin--I've always disliked the word "alpha" to describe binoculars. It's not very accurate.
Tenex--Yes, that's the problem. When you start talking about status people get very sensitive, even if you say "alpha quality"
Theo98--For instance, when I found "The One", it was the only time while glassing I uttered the affirmative phrase, "WOW"!! (My shop was full of the great ones but I enjoyed those WOW moments.)
Maljunulo--Indeed. It's all about the feelings as opposed to the facts. (succinct and accurate!)
Etudiant--Just my opinion, that Swaro reset the requirement for alpha status with their customer friendly service policies. (Looking beyond the mark. But that a piece of a closely related puzzle.)
[/B]Justabirdwatcher[/B]--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."
Ceasar--I don't think that Nikon cares whether binocular aficionados think that their EDGs are "alphas" or not. (Not only are you correct, it should be recognized that trying to follow all the advice coming their way would force companies into bankruptcy.)
Jan--My concerns regarding Nikon and alpha lies in the fact I don't know where/who makes their models. Does a sticker on a good binocular makes that brand to deserve the A-status? (Only to the novice's novice.)
