• 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)

WJC

Well-known member
Binocular forums thrive on the search for the affordable "Alpha" binocular. In a sense, this is a good thing offered up by folks looking for the best binocular available for the price they have to spend. Sometimes that's a great amount; sometimes not nearly so much. Sometimes what I have to say about the hunt for the "Alpha" is taken in a way I had never intended.

So, for my own edification, I would like to ask three questions of those who keep the search alive.

1) First, EXACTLY where is the line drawn between "Alpha" binoculars and the incredibly good binoculars that fall short of being "Alphas"? Is it dollars spent that make the difference? And ...

2) EXACTLY WHO has the necessary skills and experience to make that determination? I have spent my life repairing, restoring, and collimating binoculars and I am certainly not qualified to do so. And ...

3) Are those who lack qualifications in optical engineering (thus not understanding how Seidel aberrations are interconnected) or never having held a focus mechanism in their hands to see its strengths, weaknesses, and complexities really qualified to make pronouncements about what is really the quality level of the binoculars they write about-enough to be seen as gospel?

With today's dearth of qualified consumer-level optical techs, ALL THOSE FOLKS ARE DOING US A GREAT SERVICE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST WAS NOTHING MORE THAN TO CAUSE FOLKS TO THINK A LITTLE DEEPER, LOOK A LITTLE FARTHER, AND EXPECT A LITTLE MORE. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
* I'm not talking about people who may expertly repair a small number of one company's product; I'm speaking of those who fix everything that magnifies and has been in production for many decades. So, Gary and Pete ... Please don't get your knickers in a twist.

That was supposed to be in an edit I tried to make in the original. I tried SEVERAL times to edit it in but the program would NOT allow me to edit. It would not allow me to DELETE my own words (the delete option was not even shown).
 
Last edited:
Bill, the alpha brands are the ones that are the most expensive....

Jerry

Gosh, Jerry:

That being the case, we might have another line to draw. See below.:cat:

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-02-01 at 7.05.40 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-02-01 at 7.05.40 PM.jpg
    607.8 KB · Views: 145
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
 
Last edited:
Well, here goes.

A binocular that allows the operator to see the most detail in the most natural way without realising that they are using a mechanical instrument.

Stan
 
I suppose you go right back to definitions of Alpha and who coined the phrase.
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'?
Is it that you get what you pay for, or you use what you can afford?
Both are ok with me.
 
..........
1) First, EXACTLY where is the line drawn between "Alpha" binoculars and the incredibly good binoculars that fall short of being "Alphas"? ......

The question reminded me of this sentence from an opinion by Justice Potter Stewart.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it ...."
 
Since the advent of the Nikon WX everything else is Beta at best. :)
However, since most of us here are either birders, seven-stone weaklings or ancien pauvre, or a combination of these we can be quite happy with the alternatives.

John
 
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not qualified in no uncertain terms. I just like to look at birds!

I really have never even LIKED the term "alpha" when speaking of binoculars. I always just kinda assumed it meant the the top binocular from the top four makers; Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon. Nothing more, nothing less. I suppose it also means something similar to "the cream of the crop," "the cat's meow," etc, etc.

It's really a slippery slope to pick the best of ANYTHING, IMO. All have pros/cons, perfection doesn't exist mainly because WE aren't perfect and I'm a long ways from that. Of course the pursuit of perfection doesn't come cheap...
 
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?! ;)

Ted
 
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.
 
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 would definitely place the Canon 10x42 IS-L in the alpha class. If you want to see a lot without a tripod it is in a class by itself. It is the alpha porro.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

Lee
 
Last edited:
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?! ;)

Ted

Ted,

Just out of curiosities sake, what would you suggest be used instead? I don't really remember where I even heard the term first applied, but as we seem to have need to pigeon-hole things, something will get used.
 
the Flagship.....of its brand...

all brands have a Flagship model.....but some brands are crap bottom to top.....

trying to figure out the industries Flagship is another story.....

bet Bill likes the Flagship moniker....
 
Last edited:
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