What Really Constitutes a Alpha Grade Pair Of Binoculars ? (2 Viewers)

[Pileatus]

One birder's alpha is another's beta.

 

[Troubador]

For me the A-brands are those mfrs who make their own products which are of outstanding quality.
That leaves from Swarovski all products, from Zeiss the Terra, Conquest and pocketline excluded, from Leica the Trinovid excluded, from Nikon only the WX and EDG, from Kowa the Highlander and XD Prominar Fluorite line and from Meopta the Meostar line.
Having said this, Swarovski is the only brand that does not outsource production. Seen in that light there is one Mother Alpha and five Alpha's.

Jan

This is a good description of 'alpha'.

Swarovski has the Kahles brand as a separate company which allows it to play in the 'middle market' without devaluing the 'Swarovski' brand but doesn't it provide the same kind of market access as Trinovid and Conquest using models made in the Far East?


Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

For me the A-brands are those mfrs who make their own products which are of outstanding quality.
That leaves from Swarovski all products, from Zeiss the Terra, Conquest and pocketline excluded, from Leica the Trinovid excluded, from Nikon only the WX and EDG, from Kowa the Highlander and XD Prominar Fluorite line and from Meopta the Meostar line.
Having said this, Swarovski is the only brand that does not outsource production. Seen in that light there is one Mother Alpha and five Alpha's.

Jan

As I said further along - 'Alpha' products must be leading or near leading in all performance parameters.

You can't be among the heaviest of the bunch, not be leading, or close to on Fov, and still be regarded as 'Alpha'.

This discounts Kowa and Meopta for me, also Canon 10x42L IS, and Nikon WX (which might be an effective mounted astronomy tool, but practically useless for birding). Also the older non-waterproof former 'Alphas' - although I acknowledge that in fair weather and if the ER suits, they are still Alpha.

Really, only Swarovski NL, SV, SLC A-K 56mm, perhaps CL B, Zeiss SF, HT (the defunct 42mm), and Leica NV cut it. Arguments could be made to include the UVHD+ and older (and current) Zeiss FL's too.





Chosun :gh:

 

[paddy7]

This seems to me to be a 'chicken and egg' discussion, in that Alpha is a description that would have come long after the manufacture of binoculars by the companies regarded as typifying it.
So, 'the best' binoculars end up described as alphas, and then subsequently comes the attempt to define what that actually means....
Well, i guess it means what it did when the term was coined, and there have been many interpretations of the criteria within this and other threads.

 

[gcole]

As I suspected ... owners of Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica would for the most part suggest their brand and only theirs could be of Alpha quality. No doubt these three can not be denied their place in the Alpha market but its time for reality to set in .... Maven , Meopta, Kowa and yes Nikon are now producing Alpha Quality Optics.

 

[Sebzwo]

Repairability, servicing and spare parts availability over a long time.

 

[jan van daalen]

This is a good description of 'alpha'.

Swarovski has the Kahles brand as a separate company which allows it to play in the 'middle market' without devaluing the 'Swarovski' brand but doesn't it provide the same kind of market access as Trinovid and Conquest using models made in the Far East?


Lee

Hi Lee,

It does give Swarovski the same access. That is correct. Kahles is, since 1975, owned by Swarovski but operates still as a "independent" company. Like Tyrolyt and Crystal also operate independent.

You do seem to agree with me that participating in the middle market (read:the Conquest/Terra concept) is devaluing a Alpha status brand........Mmmmm, that one is new for me

Jan

 

[Troubador]

Hi Lee,

It does give Swarovski the same access. That is correct. Kahles is, since 1975, owned by Swarovski but operates still as a "independent" company. Like Tyrolyt and Crystal also operate independent.

You do seem to agree with me that participating in the middle market (read:the Conquest/Terra concept) is devaluing a Alpha status brand........Mmmmm, that one is new for me

Jan

LOL, my comments should be taken in the context of your description of what an alpha brand is: "For me the A-brands are those mfrs who make their own products which are of outstanding quality". By this definition, selling binos not made by yourself devalues your status as an alpha.

BUT, the alpha concept which has changed its meaning on Birdforum over the years is not necessarily one that I consider important and in today's market it is good commercial practice for top brands to have less expensive models to sell and which provide a 'ladder' for the user to climb up to the alpha models if they wish. This is the same kind of concept as practiced BMW and Mercedes-Benz and which has allowed them to steal some market share from middle brands like Ford and Vauxhall / Opel etc.

Lee

 

[Alexis Powell]

Don’t tell that to the Meopta :C or Nikon fans :C I am sure their eyes think their seeing the same view that the Swarovski/Leica people are.

_I_ am_ a Nikon and Meopta fan, but that has nothing to do with whether they are alpha brands. Brand prestige is an essential ingredient and those brands don't have it. At least that is my observation of how the term is used. Those brands make or market superb tools that can be every bit as good or better than bins from the prestige brands. Quality, prestige, and luxury have different meanings but they often come together in products (and their places in the market), hence frequent confusion of their meanings. In the world of watches, the alpha label is not applied, but if it were, Rolex would be a good example. Rolex has an abundance of prestige that is not explained by the quality of its products (which is excellent but certainly not top-end). Many luxury watch brands (i.e. producers of super expensive watches) are comparatively lacking in prestige, and many makers of watches do not have prestige and cannot their products at luxury prices despite high name recognition and high quality.

--AP

 

[mwhogue]

As I suspected ... owners of Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica would for the most part suggest their brand and only theirs could be of Alpha quality. No doubt these three can not be denied their place in the Alpha market but its time for reality to set in .... Maven , Meopta, Kowa and yes Nikon are now producing Alpha Quality Optics.

IMO Nikon EDG is "alpha" quality right along with the big 3 from Europe. I put the Kowa 10.5x44 in the alpha class as well. I have never owned a Meopta nor a high end Maven so can't comment on those.

Mike

 

[dries1]

Premium glass

Good analysis.

Sadly, price is now a large driving factor as nobody wants to include a $1000 glass on the "Alpha" list when they've paid more than twice that to join the Alpha Club themselves. :t:

For example: It may be splitting hairs to exclude the latest Meostars from the Alpha list when they check nearly every box to most viewers. If Meopta had priced them at $2000, I feel they'd likely carry the Alpha label. Literally zero marketing effort from Meopta as well.

On the other hand, some feel it must be a European glass to earn entry in the Alpha list, regardless of what the actual glass performance is.

Nikon EDG's are also no-doubt an Alpha quality bin, but lack of Nikon marketing, and the fact they don't come from Europe largely kept them from being a really big player in the Alpha game.

It's all become a bit silly, yet anyone who is in the optics hobby is a player in the game. That being said, there has never been so many good choices in optics as right now.

This, :t::t:

Andy W.

 

[b-lilja]

I would think it's:

• Absolute top of the line performance
• Build quality
• Brand longevity

It is funny to me people would exclude Nikon. Nikon is a venerable, outstanding optics brand, arguably the best in the world. Same goes for Canon, if the IS can be considered of alpha optical quality. Any other opinions about these brands, to me, honestly are purely racist. :smoke:

 

[Chosun Juan]

I would think it's:

• Absolute top of the line performance
• Build quality
• Brand longevity

It is funny to me people would exclude Nikon. Nikon is a venerable, outstanding optics brand, arguably the best in the world. Same goes for Canon, if the IS can be considered of alpha optical quality. Any other opinions about these brands, to me, honestly are purely racist. :smoke:

Wow ! :eek!:
That's a bit of a wack-job interpretation !! :bounce:
But you know - whatever. There are certainly some racist hombres around .......

Speaking just for myself - the reason I would not currently count Nikon or Canon, is as I have already explained if anybody bothered to read that and take it on board. As fine a glass as they are, they have some glaring misses:-

The Nikon Porros - extra wide field EII, and flat field SE, are no longer in regular production, nor officially rated as waterproof. The EDG II is also no longer in production, and service support for Nikon binoculars has been drastically reduced. The optically excellent WX is a brick and not of practical birding use.

The Canon IS models in 42mm size and above are also way above even the highest regular format weight. Their ergonomics could be described as an acquired taste at best to woeful if being ungenerous. This rules them out.

I don't give a flyin' what colour they are, or where they come from - they are deficient in some key areas ......






Chosun :gh:

 

[dries1]

This coming from a person who owns a Zenray, and who can describe the characteristics of a glass after a brief encounter.

Andy W.

 

[Robert Wallace]

May I suggest that the definition of an "Alpha" binocular is that it has a high bling value.

 

[Chosun Juan]

This coming from a person who owns a Zenray, and who can describe the characteristics of a glass after a brief encounter.

Andy W.

Your point being ..... ? :cat:






Chosun :gh:

 

[dries1]

You are entitled to your opinion, and that is fine, but you come across a bit harsh on Nikon. They have made alpha binoculars in the past and the WX was never meant to be a birding glass, it is quite obvious.

I agree the term racist is a bit much, but I cannot give credence to someone's opinion who has never spent an extended time with many varying types of glass, and who only gives salty opinions.

Andy W.

 

[Chosun Juan]

1. You are entitled to your opinion, and that is fine, but you come across a bit harsh on Nikon. They have made alpha binoculars in the past and the WX was never meant to be a birding glass, it is quite obvious.

2. You seem to be a hypocritical person in general, perhaps you have not used any premium Nikon glass for an extended period of time.

3. I agree the term racist is a bit much, but I cannot give credence to someone's opinion who has never spent an extended time with many varying types of glass, and who only gives salty opinions.

Andy W.

1. Yes I am.
No, I'm not harsh on Nikon - merely pointing out the reality of the situation. The EDG II is a fine glass - Alpha level as I have said. However, it is now not made, and now not well supported - therefore it is now out of the running. The WX is one of those way out of the parametric range 'halo' models, like the 'Noct' series of superfast lenses. It is what it is - but it's no walkaround birding glass. If Nikon was going to be an Alpha company then why not make a new class leading Alpha roof as Swarovski has just done .... ?

2. That's a d**k comment - what the heck do you mean by that !?! I'd ask for some examples but I doubt you'll find any genuine one's - best just beat a hasty retreat and lick your wounds.

3. Your gonna have to define 'extended' time, and then justify it's relevance to me. It seems typical of the 'cliquey' put downs that some here like to indulge in, in order to elevate their own station (I will note that I have never experienced this type of behaviour from any of the many technical practitioners here, engineers, scientists, or the genuinely well versed aficionados and collectors etc - instead it always seems to come from a certain type ..... )

I don't have to 'defend' my 'binocular resume' to anyone - I've probably had more pairs of Swarovski's through my hands for example than long term Swaro owners. Varying glass - yeah, got the T-shirt bro.

'Salty opinions' ..... ? What the heck is that meant to mean ? - sounds like something from the d**k side of the ledger again .....

If you bothered to read and comprehend my earlier posts in this thread you will see that the positions are entirely consistent. As much as people are entitled to their opinions - these types of definitions are tied to business underpinings and models .....

If you follow the Imaging Market and Financials, and other related Business Endeavors, you will see that the Camera makers more than have their hands full. Personally I would expect Nikon to re-enter the 'Alpha' fold at some stage, but they're busy with spot fires at the moment. When next they look, they will see that the Alpha bar has been set mighty high ......






Chosun :gh:

 

[dries1]

Blah, Blah.....snooze. Back to ignore.

Andy W.

 

[gcole]

Whoa oooo ... You can mess with my dogs pedigree but do not disrespect by Bino’s :-O I guess their will always be strong attitudes with never ending amount of opinions. The reality is that the $800 - $1200 pair of Binoculars now being sold today, no matter who actually makes them or who actually sources and sells them are among some of the finest binoculars available today.