• 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.

When did Swarovski become an "alpha" brand...? (1 Viewer)

Henry post 18 you may be correct in saying binocular enthusiasts in the 1980s were aware of the optical superiority of porro prisms over roofs. This was not the case with the birdwatching community in the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology in their respected booklet on Binoculars circa 1974? Extolled the advantages of the new roof prisms (basically Zeiss and Leitz) also John Gooders author of "Where to Watch Birds" and possibly the first professional birdwatcher in the UK appeared in advertisements for Zeiss West in the more serious journals. The message to birdwatchers was clear roof prisms are best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patudo and Robert,

You're correct. In the 80s there was no broad awareness that the roofs were not all they were cracked up to be. Magazine reviewers and big time birders to say nothing of normal consumers ate them up, even praising their purportedly superior optical quality. There's never been a better example of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Henry
 
From 1978 through to 1995 British Birds ( https://britishbirds.co.uk ) published the results of five surveys of the binocular and telescope choices of their members. I’ve attached copies. They give a clear idea of what were then UK birders preferences, and include list prices, along with popularity and overall performance ratings by the respondents.

In considering whether Swarovski was considered an Alpha brand, at least by UK birders during the period, I’d draw attention to the following:

ROOF PRISM vs PORRO
The Zeiss West and Leitz/Leica choices are roof prism models (by the time the surveys start, neither firm is making Porros suitable for birding). In contrast, for most of the period the only Swarovski’s featured are their traditional style Porro 10x40’s - referred to as the Diana. Only the 1995 survey includes Swaro’s SLC models (the 8x30 was introduced in 1985, and the x42’s in 1992).

POPULARITY
Zeiss West is the overwhelming choice; Leitz/Leica is a distant second, and; Swarovski is an equally distant third.

PERFORMANCE
In contrast, the three brands are rated much more closely, with the differences a matter of degree. Optically the ratings are suspect when one considers the comparison is of non-phase coated RP’s binos to Porro models (phase coating was first introduced by Zeiss in 1989, other manufacturers soon followed).

So it seems that at least for the great majority of UK birders - in terms of popularity - it’s not until the introduction of the x42 EL’s in 1999, that Swarovski is recognised as an Alpha binocular manufacturer.

A post by giosblue ( https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=313992 ) alerted me to the surveys. They can still be downloaded from the BB website using ‘binoculars and telescopes survey’ in the basic search function. The site includes access to articles from 1907 onward!

Googling around, I found that the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club also has an on-line archive from it’s first issue in 1958 ( https://www.the-soc.org.uk/about-us/scottish-birds-soc-s-journal ). From the early 1970’s onward there are advertisements for optics, which will be of interest to some forum members
 

Attachments

  • 1978 British Birds Survey.pdf
    175.5 KB · Views: 51
  • 1983 British Birds Survey.pdf
    184.4 KB · Views: 31
  • 1985 British Birds Survey.pdf
    208.7 KB · Views: 35
  • 1988 British Birds Survey.pdf
    439.6 KB · Views: 44
  • 1995 British Birds Survey.pdf
    155.8 KB · Views: 50
Patudo said:
Really interesting stuff Henry. Could you (or any other birder of that vintage) recall whether the birding community was as informed - or held similar views - back then? I'm wondering whether the desirability of roof prism binoculars prior to phase coating had at least as much to do with their non-optical advantages (waterproofing, handling etc).
Click to expand...

Patudo
Our experience of having to send our Swift porros back to the importer (Pyser) time after time after time to have the internal condensation cleaned out after we had used them in the rain on holiday was one factor that pushed us towards roofs. The other was how much more compact roofs were. The Swifts were enormous and took up a lot of space in our motorcycle panniers whereas the roofs didn't. So yes it was compactness and weather-proofing that pushed us into the arms of Leitz and Zeiss.

Lee
 
I was first introduced to Swarovski as a premium binocular maker in 2004 by Sam Sweiss at the now defunct Scope City in San Francisco. Alas I didn't listen to him, mostly because I don't like the open-bridge design, and kept buying Leicas instead until 2016.

I remember seeing a presentation somewhere that explained Swarovski slowly but methodically raise itself to alpha status by improving its coatings, unfortunately I can't locate the source any more.
 
"So it seems that at least for the great majority of UK birders - in terms of popularity - it’s not until the introduction of the x42 EL’s in 1999, that Swarovski is recognised as an Alpha binocular manufacturer".

John, thank you for including the very interesting links to the "British Birds Binocular and Telescope Surveys" I remember the 1978 and 85 surveys as I subscribed to the magazine. A word of caution they were as much perceptions and opinions rather than stringent objective analysis. Interesting and useful surveys nether the less. I remember over rating the Nickel Supra telescope out of pure sentimentality!

The discussion on this thread revolves around the term "Alpha". Am I right in thinking this is a "Bird Forum"concept or does it come from the grading of personalities and film stars the Alpha Male/Female?
I ask this because I not clear whether we are discussing popularity or optical quality/design.

From all the threads two areas of general agreement are emerging:-
1)Swarovski Optiks have been producing top quality optics for decades
2)Swarovski only became popular or regarded as "Alpha" after the launch of the ELs

It is the classic division between Fact and Feeling.
Henry Link also quite rightly reminded us of the Emperors Clothes
 
Last edited:
Robert

Try to get folks to explain 'alpha' in this context and you will probably get as many definitions as people.

But in response to your question 'does alpha mean excellence or popularity' I think the answer in the UK is probably a bit of both. Back in the days of porros and the first 35mm cameras, the names Leica and Zeiss were held in high regard for the excellence of their products. This was well before the days of the mass-popularity of birding and so before binos could really be said to be 'popular' in any sense. At this time you got strange and suspicious looks from 'ordinary' folk who saw you walking about with binoculars around your neck.

The reverence for Zeiss and Leica continued into the era of birding and bino acceptance and Swaro burst onto this scene with Gerold Dobler's team effort the EL. In terms of 'popularity' I would say during this time that Swaro, Zeiss and Leica were what many, perhaps most, birders aspired to and Swarovski most of all. In terms of popularity Swaro is the best seller world-wide of binos at alpha price levels, but Swaro isn't 'alpha' IMHO because Swaro binos are popular but because they are mostly excellent.

In my concept of 'alpha' there is a respect for long-established brands who in the days when big leaps in technical excellence were still possible, excelled, and hardly any influence from how popular or not these brands might be today.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Lets remember Nikon and how they are important in the history of alpha binoculars.

Steve Ingraham in "Better View Desired", said in 1998 that when Nikon introduced the Venturer LX,
this model was the brightest and had the most resolution of any birding binocular.

It was his reference standard at that time. The LXL carried on the tradition, and then the EDG.


Jerry
 
Totally agree Jerry.
Lets not forget the Nikon 8x32 SE which according to comments on this Binocular Forum is very highly regarded. I also understand it's the model Bill Cook uses. A man whose opinion I rate highly.
 
maico said:
Swarovski was a optics and binocular supplier to the Wehrmacht in WWII

https://www.flickr.com/photos/binoc...rK-K5Ge6b-7x5CEd-kxeY4U-qKEurE-hCUib9-6BJYTj/
Click to expand...


I must confess I'm struggling to fathom the intent behind this comment. Having manufactured products for the Nazi war machine in itself certainly doesn't make a manufacturer or its products an "alpha"; and plenty of other well-known companies did exactly the same - Porsche, Mercedes, Leitz (beh), Zeiss (blc), etc.


John A Roberts said:
From 1978 through to 1995 British Birds ( https://britishbirds.co.uk ) published the results of five surveys of the binocular and telescope choices of their members. I’ve attached copies.

...Optically the ratings are suspect when one considers the comparison is of non-phase coated RP’s binos to Porro models (phase coating was first introduced by Zeiss in 1989, other manufacturers soon followed).
Click to expand...

Thank you for compiling those surveys, John!

The other possibility, of course, is that whatever improvements brought about by phase coating could (gasp!) amount to no more than what one of our learned friends is so fond of terming "stacking BBs"...:cat:
 
Last edited:
Just to add. I'm really enjoying all the contributions to this thread - I'm learning a lot, and having a lot of memories flooding back, and I am reminded that whilst they may be optically excellent, I really just never liked the look of the SL binoculars...
 
Maico, post 22,
During WW-2 every optical company in occupied Europe was forced to make optical products for the German army. Some refused to do so, like Nedoptifa/Bleeker in The Netherlands, that company refused to make binoculars for the German army and turned to the production of microscopes etc. However, the company was completely turned into waste in 1944 when the German army had received information that Jewish persons were hidden in the buildings. Dr. Bleeker spoke German very well (Dutch school education) and received the German officer when the building was entered; the officer seemed to be surprised that a woman was in charge of the company and she kept him busy for quite some time, so the Jewish persons could escape. A short time later the inventory of the company was completely demolished. Dr. Bleeker en her companion director Willemse had to go into hiding first in a church in Zeist and later in Zutphen as "guests"of a medical doctor and his wife. Willemse's father was murdered in Utrecht since he had printed illegal pamphlets. To do so the men to be shot walked along a grass path in a fortress in Utrecht and they were shot in the back.
Like other optical companies in Europe Swarovski made 6x30 porro's for the German army, you can find some information about it in my powerpoint you have seen already and the data shown in this topic.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Patudo said:
I must confess I'm struggling to fathom the intent behind this comment. Having manufactured products for the Nazi war machine in itself certainly doesn't make a manufacturer or its products an "alpha"
Click to expand...


and plenty of other well-known companies did exactly the same - Porsche, Mercedes, Leitz (beh), Zeiss (blc), etc.
Click to expand...

And IBM, General Motors, Ford, Renault, Coca-Cola or Kodak. What was their excuse? Louis Renault died in prison for collaboration, and his company was confiscated. His US cohorts got scot-free.

Leitz initially refused, but had to agree to make optics for the military to secure the release of his daughter Elsie, who was arrested by the Gestapo trying to help Jews escape:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train
 
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Maico, post 22,
During WW-2 every optical company in occupied Europe was forced to make optical products for the German army. Some refused to do so, like Nedoptifa/Bleeker in The Netherlands, that company refused to make binoculars for the German army and turned to the production of microscopes etc. However, the company was completely turned into waste in 1944 when the German army had received information that Jewish persons were hidden in the buildings. Dr. Bleeker spoke German very well (Dutch school education) and received the German officer when the building was entered; the officer seemed to be surprised that a woman was in charge of the company and she kept him busy for quite some time, so the Jewish persons could escape. A short time later the inventory of the company was completely demolished. Dr. Bleeker en her companion director Willemse had to go into hiding first in a church in Zeist and later in Zutphen as "guests"of a medical doctor and his wife. Willemse's father was murdered in Utrecht since he had printed illegal pamphlets. To do so the men to be shot walked along a grass path in a fortress in Utrecht and they were shot in the back.
Like other optical companies in Europe Swarovski made 6x30 porro's for the German army, you can find some information about it in my powerpoint you have seen already and the data shown in this topic.
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...

Most interesting Gijs (if rather sobering to be reading over breakfast)! Many thanks for sharing this information!

Chris
 
NDhunter said:
Lets remember Nikon and how they are important in the history of alpha binoculars.

Steve Ingraham in "Better View Desired", said in 1998 that when Nikon introduced the Venturer LX,
this model was the brightest and had the most resolution of any birding binocular.Jerry
Click to expand...

I bought a pair of those, based on that review and only replaced them when I discovered that the EL SV could see a bit (but noticeably) better into dark areas from lighted areas.

The EL SV continue to amaze me practically every time I use them.
 
In the usual way - while I was looking for something else on the ‘net - I came upon the following . . .

In the Spring 2007 edition of the Zeiss Historica Society journal, there is an article by Francois Vuilleumier ‘Are Zeiss binoculars the preferred instruments for birdwatching?’ (see from page 13 on at https://issuu.com/zeisshistoricasociety/docs/pdf_zhs_journal_spring_2007 ).

It is of interest as an 11 year old article that, references then contemporary and earlier views on birding binoculars, and in doing so touches on several issues raised by those who've posted to this thread.

Francois also provides an analysis of the data from 4 of the British Birds surveys that I referred to in my earlier post (see the attached table).

And from the last paragraph of page 19 onward, there are his observations as to the reasons for the ascendency of Swarovski as a preferred choice of bird watchers.
 

Attachments

  • Analysis of BB data.pdf
    164.6 KB · Views: 87
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.

Similar threads

T
First Love Rekindled
Replies
8
Views
892
Tringa45
T
G
Is it just me?
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
8K
Paultricounty
P
Joe H
Random Ramblings on the CL 7x21 Curio
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
Sky2goflying
Sky2goflying
Passakorn
How do other alphas compare to the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and Zeiss Victory 8x25 Combo?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Rg548
R
rollingthunder
12x42 NL Pure.....
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
SuperDuty
SuperDuty

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top