Why is Alpha better than high grade. (1 Viewer)

[exup]

Canon IS 10x42s are "cheap" compared to all the alphas,

Same price as Swarovski ELs ..... both ~ £1600. Are ELs not Alphas?

 

[Binocollector]

Did you compare the glass to an Alpha?

Going by the sheer data one might come to that conclusion, but in a serious comparison... well.
So far I have not seen any mid-range binoculars that could keep up with an Alphaglass, that DDoptics Lux HR would have to be a marvel here.

It is a marvel indeed. And yes, I did compare it to my friend's Swaro 10x42 (not sure about the model however). But it seems you have never looked through a Lux HR -- so, well ...
I think the biggest jump in quality happens much earlier than suggested. Between around 200€ to 600€.
Another great mid-price bino I have is the Kite Cervus HD 8x56 -- AK-prisms, great edge sharpness, long eye-relief (one of the few that works well for me when wearing glasses), very sturdy build quality, 30 yr warranty, etc. It's basically all there. It costs 600€. Compare that to an average 200€ Nikon-plastic-bino like the P7, as much as I like mine, but that is where the real jump in quality happens. After that it is incremental improvements which in sum can very well justify the price-tag of an alpha.
Honestly -- this whole discussion seems to lack from experience on both sides. The "alpha-disciples" haven't looked through enough modern day "mid-range" binos around the 600-1,000€ mark it seems. And vice versa. Look at cloudynights for example. A very prolific member there has sent his Swaro back and kept a Maven instead. He compared the Swaro SLC 10x56 to the Maven B.5 10x56 and rated the Maven better optically. It costs around 1.5k$ vs the 2.3k$ of the Swaro.

 

[Vespobuteo]

You know the studies on the efficiency of binoculars in handheld use, don't you? Brunnckow et al., Vukobratovich and so on? Or Kimmo's thread? (Canon 10x42 IS L Tripod vs hand-held vs IS testing)

I disagree. There are plenty of situations where the "advantage" is far larger, for instance at migration hotspots where you don't have the time to use any external support or sit down.

Sure. No disagreement there. However, I find I sometimes can get an ID through IS binoculars I wouldn't have got with conventional binoculars. So I don't need to use the scope, leaving me to concentrate on the other stuff around. That can be quite useful when there's a lot going on.

Hermann

Not sure how relevant those studies actually are related to practical birding.

If I don't use a scope, I prefer to snap away a few photos of the "migrating birds" and go from there instead...
Todays cameras and lenses are so good that the resolution surpasses any 10x bin, with our without IS.
And with a photo you can always use the collective intelligence of the whole birding community if the ID is tricky....

And using 1 kg bins for prolonged times of viewing isn't viable in the long term, scope on tripod is more efficient.

Since scopes, "conventional" bins and cameras pretty much solves the "birding ID task", it's tough competition for IS bins.

 

[Ted Y.]

An IS can be useful for some people, I don't need it.

Yep, indeed.
I appreciate the IS because of the very rich detail and ease to view (both), otherwise not accessible to me even with a premium.
I prefer the binocular do the stabilization, not the human vision, better results and less stress.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Same price as Swarovski ELs ..... both ~ £1600. Are ELs not Alphas?

At least they were, before Swaro messed with the close focus limit...
but there are now significantly more expensive alphas...
and btw, a lot of cheaper IS-bins as well.

 

[Hermann]

As an aside:

What exactly IS an alpha? Any binocular made by Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss? With a few Nikon and Meopta models thrown in for good measure? Or the Canon 10x42? Or is the maker of no importance?

What are the criteria that qualify a particular make or a particular model to be called an alpha? And after how many years does a particular model lose its alpha status? Say, is the Leica 8x32 BA/BN still an alpha?

What about models that regularly develop problems? Remember the problems early SV models had with their focuser? Did that mean they weren't alphas till Swarovski had sorted these problems out? What about the reported problems with the armour of some current Swarovski models? Can such models that require frequent trips to Austria be called alpha?

Lots of questions. And I could go on for hours ...

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

Says someone who has never had an alpha in front of their eyes...

Andreas

Exactly !

 

[Paultricounty]

Ag

As an aside:

What exactly IS an alpha? Any binocular made by Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss? With a few Nikon and Meopta models thrown in for good measure? Or the Canon 10x42? Or is the maker of no importance?

What are the criteria that qualify a particular make or a particular model to be called an alpha? And after how many years does a particular model lose its alpha status? Say, is the Leica 8x32 BA/BN still an alpha?

What about models that regularly develop problems? Remember the problems early SV models had with their focuser? Did that mean they weren't alphas till Swarovski had sorted these problems out? What about the reported problems with the armour of some current Swarovski models? Can such models that require frequent trips to Austria be called alpha?

Lots of questions. And I could go on for hours ...

Hermann

Agreed. Early gray SF eyecups and focuser issues, Kowa Genesis with rubber armor peeling issues, MHG’s collimation issues, early Leica UVHD rough focuser issues, the list goes on.

 

[exup]

Exactly !

This debate just keeps going around in circles......

You worship your status symbol "alphas" and I'll use my 'mid range ' conventional bins, my IS bins or one of my spotting scopes. 😁

 

[Maljunulo]

Lots of questions. And I could go on for hours ...

Hermann

Hermann;
That way lies madness.
Regards,
Richard

 

[exup]

Early gray SF eyecups and focuser issues, Kowa Genesis with rubber armor peeling issues, MHG’s collimation issues, early Leica UVHD rough focuser issues, the list goes on.

Alphas with quality defects higher than cheap Svbonys

 

[dries1]

I remember Bill Cook spoke about the term Value, it does have different ranges for all individuals.

 

[Hermann]

Hermann;
That way lies madness.

Only if you take the discussions here too seriously ...

Hermann

 

[Vespobuteo]

As an aside:

What exactly IS an alpha? Any binocular made by Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss? With a few Nikon and Meopta models thrown in for good measure? Or the Canon 10x42? Or is the maker of no importance?

What are the criteria that qualify a particular make or a particular model to be called an alpha? And after how many years does a particular model lose its alpha status? Say, is the Leica 8x32 BA/BN still an alpha?

What about models that regularly develop problems? Remember the problems early SV models had with their focuser? Did that mean they weren't alphas till Swarovski had sorted these problems out? What about the reported problems with the armour of some current Swarovski models? Can such models that require frequent trips to Austria be called alpha?

Lots of questions. And I could go on for hours ...

Hermann

Alpha means the leader of the pack (in ethology). By definition it can be only one.
In the Swaro pack, it's the NL, SF for Zeiss etc, NV for Leica etc.

Occasional "error reports" on BF doesn't say much about quality issues relative to sales numbers.

I would be more worried when buying bins with slow/lacking service / warranty.

 

[Troubador]

Alpha means the leader of the pack (in ethology). By definition it can be only one.
In the Swaro pack, it's the NL, SF for Zeiss etc, NV for Leica etc.

Occasional "error reports" on BF doesn't say much about quality issues relative to sales numbers.

I would be more worried when buying bins with slow/lacking service / warranty.

Your definition is absolutely correct but to some extent the situation on Birdforum has been confused because 'alpha' used to be the term used here to describe the status of the top three brands, Leica, Swaro and Zeiss. More recently this usage has faded and alpha has increasingly been used for individual models.

Lee

 

[WJC]

Your definition is absolutely correct but to some extent the situation on Birdforum has been confused because 'alpha' used to be the term used here to describe the status of the top three brands, Leica, Swaro and Zeiss. More recently this usage has faded and alpha has increasingly been used for individual models.

Lee

I have a bino that someone a few years ago determined was an ALPHA. It is never taken from the house. My birding glass is an 8x40 B&L. The quality of the experience rests with the observer, not his or her equipment.

Optical engineers will tell you that once you reach a certain point, it takes a 90% increase in cost to achieve a QUANTIFIABLE 10% increase in optical quality.

Thus, so many people are eager to spend an inordinate amount on a binocular to get an increase in performance they can only PERCEIVE and brag about. But then, it seems on binocular forums, that is the name of the game.

“A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.” — Aristotle

 

[kimmik]

I have a bino that someone a few years ago determined was an ALPHA. It is never taken from the house. My birding glass is an 8x40 B&L. The quality of the experience rests with the observer, not his or her equipment.

Optical engineers will tell you that once you reach a certain point, it takes a 90% increase in cost to achieve a QUANTIFIABLE 10% increase in optical quality.

Thus, so many people are eager to spend an inordinate amount on a binocular to get an increase in performance they can only PERCEIVE and brag about. But then, it seems on binocular forums, that is the name of the game.

“A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.” — Aristotle

$100 is 10x $10. I'm sure you've spent $100 on a meal at least once when many don't.

 

[Troubador]

I have a bino that someone a few years ago determined was an ALPHA. It is never taken from the house. My birding glass is an 8x40 B&L. The quality of the experience rests with the observer, not his or her equipment.

Optical engineers will tell you that once you reach a certain point, it takes a 90% increase in cost to achieve a QUANTIFIABLE 10% increase in optical quality.

Thus, so many people are eager to spend an inordinate amount on a binocular to get an increase in performance they can only PERCEIVE and brag about. But then, it seems on binocular forums, that is the name of the game.

“A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.” — Aristotle

Bill you are partly right. The other part is the fact that many birders enjoy their birding by 'collecting' species. They make lists of the species they have seen and some have many lists: a life list, a list of birds seen close to home, a list of birds seen on various holiday destinations etc. The reason they want every last 0.1% of theoretical optical improvement is that they suffer from the anxiety that if they don't do this they will miss identifying birds that are a frightful distance away and therefore be unable to add another species to their list.

Lee

 

[kimmik]

Bill you are partly right. The other part is the fact that many birders enjoy their birding by 'collecting' species. They make lists of the species they have seen and some have many lists: a life list, a list of birds seen close to home, a list of birds seen on various holiday destinations etc. The reason they want every last 0.1% of theoretical optical improvement is that they suffer from the anxiety that if they don't do this they will miss identifying birds that are a frightful distance away and therefore be unable to add another species to their list.

Lee

TV easily costs more than the best bins and no one complains about spending too much.... I have no TV at all lol.

Some people (like me) just enjoy beautiful vision.

 

[exup]

Bill you are partly right. The other part is the fact that many birders enjoy their birding by 'collecting' species. They make lists of the species they have seen and some have many lists: a life list, a list of birds seen close to home, a list of birds seen on various holiday destinations etc. The reason they want every last 0.1% of theoretical optical improvement is that they suffer from the anxiety that if they don't do this they will miss identifying birds that are a frightful distance away and therefore be unable to add another species to their list.

Lee

Understood, but why then do they reject the tools that give them the best chance of not missing a bird?

Not to again bounce back to the IS bins debate......but, IS bins will give the user a big (20-35%+) advantage over any alpha bins, with their 0.x% optical advantage.

I will qualify the above statement a bit ..... light transmission, water resistance and size/weight, coupled with reduced ergonomics are the compromises for the more detailed IS image.