Nikon an Alpha? (1 Viewer)

newfie ghost said:

David, what did your friend say when he looked through the SE?

Click to expand...

Actually, he wasn't even curious. But another guy, who just got FLs, did look through them and thought they were "nice, really nice."

Just a reminder that BF is not the real world.

David

When was the term coined ? Have any of the premium manufactures ever used the term to refer to their binoculars ? I paid $180 for a set of binoculars that have superb image quality, are they Alpha ?

This thread was apparently begun because of a post by me in another (the word "is" below in the original is italicised):

pompadour said:

Vandit, glad about your sighting, but I thought the Nikon is an alpha! Now - if there's no definite definition I would not like to get into this!

Click to expand...

I left it at that but it's gone a bit further there, and now here.

One should, I believe, think about the point of using the word. Till recently it meant smthg. definite to nearly everyone: all models by Leica, Sw. and Zeiss (in alphabetical order) and Nikon's HG/Premier and EDG models. They were of a certain standard in terms of optics and construction. The only ambiguity was the porros - the Nikon SEs and Sw. Habichts were usually excluded. At the time no models by other makers were well known to be of that standard.

Now this has changed. I have no experience myself but see it said by many in Bf. without much contradiction (as I recall) that certain models of Meopta, Hawke et al. match those. If the term is going to be used these and comparable porros should now be included in it or it becomes vague, not of much relevance. There will be disputes, however, as the limits of the definition are now not so clear-cut.

I think Jay and Alexis nailed the definition of "alpha" - and that's how I was using it as well.

Not referring just to quality, but overall brand prestige and pecking order as "top of the heap" or the overall reference standard by which other binos are measured.

Plenty of other binos may offer comparable performance, but that doesnt make them alphas. Conversely, not being alphas doesnt imply that a binocular is not as good.

Atleast, that' how I see/use the term. To use a car analogy: a Porsche 911 Turbo, a Mercedes AMG or an Audi SLR may have comparable performance, but they aren't a Ferrari or a Lambo.

Torview said:

How do we define alpha, not all Swaro, Zeiss, Leica models are alpha`s.

Nikon certainly make alpha`s, but Minox, Meopta even Vortex are knocking on the door.

Click to expand...

Not only them. Try looking through Kowa Genesis, Alpen Rainier HD ED, Steiner Nighthunter/Discovery, Docter Nobilem or ED and Fujinon FMT-SX. IMHO all of them could be called 'alphas' if we consider as 'alphas' best products of Minox, Meopta and Vortex.

Us folk down this way don't go in much for the "status" and poncing about of "luxury brands", being rather more down to earth, and fair dinkum about actual performance (sometimes a product's reality being a life or death matter in this harsh land).
Infact there's a culture of being anti anything "Banker" (did I spell that right?) |;|

And while there may be those in the "Big 3" marketing departments that would like the position of "luxury brands" (what with all the leather and stuff), I'm sure that the propeller heads tucked away in the white rooms, are just trying to make the best damn bin that they can, with just a bit more resources than the bean-counters actually dole out. The fat "bankers" in the boardroom however, will be just fine with that price inelasticity.

In economic terms there just isn't the substitution available, and with high-ish barriers to market entry (knowledge, capital outlay, scale requirements, capability leveraging etc.), no real sustainable challengers (close doesn't count in this sense) - like the Zen Master teaching the student about the frog hopping halfway to the wall ....... "distance is small - effort is much".
Besides that, the industry just isn't "sexy" enough (Germans and their leather not withstanding!) to draw the required investment (what with most of the world concerned with shuffling paper and ponzi schemes, as opposed to "real" business).
Hypercompetition will sort that out ..... one day .....

Pompadour, I think the definition is fairly well set, and rather more pragmatic (as my edit of the following quote says)

vkalia said:

Not referring just to quality, but ...... pecking order as "top of the heap" or the overall reference standard by which other binos are measured.

Click to expand...

As Jay, and Alexis, have so eloquently put it, it's also about that history of achievement, and striving to bring the best of what's technically possible during the day, and doing it in such a way that they are masters of their specialization, ahead of the competition.

Alexis Powell said:

The big 3, or euro alphas, have a status based on the quality of their optics, the quality of their construction/design, and from some mix of simply being part of the reality/marketing phenomenon referred to as "German engineering" (or at least germanic engineering . Zeiss and Leica have earned brand status from long histories making industrial, lab, military, and high-end consumer optics. Swarovski is much newer to the scene and hasn't done as much with optics generally, but no consumer can doubt its status as a european maker of luxury consumer goods, what with all the crystal and such. --AP

Click to expand...

Nikon certainly has the product (EDG), and the price $2/1/2K - Ye gods!! :eek!: ,but it's scattergun approach to market coverage is probably a "brand stretching" feat too far for a true alpha (interesting experiments with Aston Martin $60K city cars notwithstanding - the finite nature of the planet should put paid to that nonsense soon enough anyway).
And while Dennis has proclaimed the SE as :king: (at least until the inevitable arrival of the Swaro 8x32 SV ??? || *snigger* tee hee) lack of waterproofing and maybe a few other bits and bobs sees a fine glass fall at the final hurdle. That's why some technically fine glass, such as the Fujinon FMT-SX (with it's portly *rs* and unpopularly cumbersome IF) and others of similar ilk, get close - but no cigar.

So maybe Nikon is a company with some "alpha" products, rather than an "alpha" company, although with it's long history of fine photographic products, maybe that day (provided some decent strategic direction) is not impossible.

You cannot just stump up and build a "ferrari" type marque overnight, no matter how big the bucket of money, or the technical excellence of the products.


Chosun :gh:

newfie ghost said:

Some folks refer to the "big three"- SWARO, ZEISS and Leica. But what about Nikon? Shouldn't we say the big four?

This is in reference to a topic that came up in another thread.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't specific binoculars be designated alpha rather than the brand name? Separately do we have an agreed upon definition of an alpha bin? Is it more than perceived brand image.

I don't know one birder who would buy a particular binocular brand to impress others. The whole notion seems rather silly and childish. Furthermore, so-called "alpha" quality is a relative term. Modern roofs costing $300-$400 are as good as some of the best models from the 1990's and new models continue to improve. Thankfully, "alpha quality" is a moving target.

Yes, Nikon produces exceptional, alpha-quality bins. The Premier, EDG and venerable SE models are all examples of great birding instruments. Nikon also produces budget-priced models that just don't rise to alpha status. So what.

Let's hope BF doesn't devolve, like so many others, into a status driven forum.

Pileatus said:

I don't know one birder who would buy a particular binocular brand to impress others. The whole notion seems rather silly and childish. Furthermore, so-called "alpha" quality is a relative term. Modern roofs costing $300-$400 are as good as some of the best models from the 1990's and new models continue to improve. Thankfully, "alpha quality" is a moving target.

Yes, Nikon produces exceptional, alpha-quality bins. The Premier, EDG and venerable SE models are all examples of great birding instruments. Nikon also produces budget-priced models that just don't rise to alpha status. So what.

Let's hope BF doesn't devolve, like so many others, into a status driven forum.

Click to expand...

Heaven forbid that BF would devolve into a status based forum where the name alone assures that any binoculars from Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski are presumed to be alpha. That couldn't possibly happen...could it?

The subject matter of the binocular section of Birdforum is more complicated than I thought - too complicated for me!

I had assumed it had to do only with bins in relation to bird observation.

I had formed an idea on the meaning of "alpha" as I had understood its use in Bf. upon that assumption. Hence my last post. Sorry if that's wrong.

PS (added after reading posts below): In my last above "these and comparable porros" means models, not makes.

Roadbike said:

Shouldn't specific binoculars be designated alpha rather than the brand name? Separately do we have an agreed upon definition of an alpha bin? Is it more than perceived brand image.

Click to expand...

Good point indeed.

My original post didn't mention alpha, but whether the big three should be the big 4.

Roadbike said:

Heaven forbid that BF would devolve into a status based forum where the name alone assures that any binoculars from Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski are presumed to be alpha. That couldn't possibly happen...could it?

Click to expand...

Take the swaro cl, it would get crushed by many " lesser brands/ models". Or the old Zeiss conquest, same deal.

Most revered glass on BF cost about 600, the Nikon SE. The SE must be the biggest status symbol on BF.

Pileatus said:

Let's hope BF doesn't devolve, like so many others, into a status driven forum.

Click to expand...

Living in New Jersey, one of the most status driven states, binoculars don't matter. If you seek status Ferrari and Lamborghini are better choices, no one cares about glass, but BF members. Unless you go to Cape May or Foresythe. :-C

Status on BF is the Nikon SE, within reach of many folks.

Pileatus said:

I don't know one birder who would buy a particular binocular brand to impress others. The whole notion seems rather silly and childish. Furthermore, so-called "alpha" quality is a relative term. Modern roofs costing $300-$400 are as good as some of the best models from the 1990's and new models continue to improve. Thankfully, "alpha quality" is a moving target.

Yes, Nikon produces exceptional, alpha-quality bins. The Premier, EDG and venerable SE models are all examples of great birding instruments. Nikon also produces budget-priced models that just don't rise to alpha status. So what.

Let's hope BF doesn't devolve, like so many others, into a status driven forum.

Click to expand...

Not one, really? I bump into quite a few of those folks, especially when a mob of chasers descends on one of my regular birding spots. I can't endorse the distinction between alpha quality and alpha brands because I think the former is a misnomer. Alpha bins are those with status, and are likely of high quality, but the status is what it is first and foremost about. You can try to redefine the term by using as you like, but until that use gains widespread recognition, it only creates confusion. Personally, I'm not inclined to call bins with top-end optical quality alphas on that basis, because for me, the word denotes status. The alpha wolf is not necessarily the strongest etc, but some combination of its physical and social abilities, and its history in the pack, allows it to attain that _status_.

Recognition of the way status operates in the world of marketing is not endorsement. I think Birdforum is a sophisticated enough place to support discussions of brand status, as well as discussions of awesome products that are unsurpassed as tools for birding.

--AP

newfie ghost said:

Good point indeed.

My original post didn't mention alpha, but whether the big three should be the big 4.

Click to expand...

I think that Top 3 (or 4) Brands = Alpha Brand Names. Either one is way of making a status symbol from something as simple and functional as a pair of bins. Alpha is just more condescending, argumentative, and annoying. Hopefully those that favor the name are not using it in the same sense as an alpha male leadng some pack of animals.

I think that specific binoculars within the stable of bins from several manufacturers are high perforners and more than worthy of the price. The Nikon E II is an excellent example. The word Alpha does not seem to capture that description at all.

Pileatus said:

I don't know one birder who would buy a particular binocular brand to impress others. The whole notion seems rather silly and childish.

Click to expand...

it happens all the time -- but it's not a conscious thing. Brand image is a very marketing powerful force.

Roadbike said:

I think that Top 3 (or 4) Brands = Alpha Brand Names. Either one is way of making a status symbol from something as simple and functional as a pair of bins. Alpha is just more condescending, argumentative, and annoying. Hopefully those that favor the name are not using it in the same sense as an alpha male leadng some pack of animals.

I think that specific binoculars within the stable of bins from several manufacturers are high perforners and more than worthy of the price. The Nikon E II is an excellent example. The word Alpha does not seem to capture that description at all.

Click to expand...

I only see the word alpha discussed in terms of binoculars. One doesn't say alpha car, or alpha house. When did this wolf term get applied to binoculars? It is odd if you think of it.

Roadbike said:

Alpha is just more condescending, argumentative, and annoying. Hopefully those that favor the name are not using it in the same sense as an alpha male leadng some pack of animals.

Click to expand...

Whether users know it or not, I am quite sure the application in the binocular context derives from its use as a dominance hierarchy label, as with wolves for example. There are also alpha females. And the alpha label doesn't always denote leadership in the literal sense, sometimes has more to do with reproductive opportunity and access to food.

--AP

newfie ghost said:

I only see the word alpha discussed in terms of binoculars. One doesn't say alpha car, or alpha house. When did this wolf term get applied to binoculars? It is odd if you think of it.

Click to expand...

That's a good question and I've been trying to remember when I first encountered it. I subscribed to BVD in the early 1990s and I don't remember Steve Ingraham ever using the term. It wouldn't fit his style anyway, but I could imagine it being used by the other folks who reviewed bins back then, like in reviews from The Living Bird or New Jersey Audubon/Pete Dunne. I'm not going to dig through my print binocular review archive, but I see in Ken Rosenberg's article (perhaps the first Cornell review to be distributed electronically--in 1999, http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/spring99/binos.html) that a reviewer refers to their optically favorite bin as "top dog." More generally, in that review, the best bin are called "Top guns."

I'm fairly certain that I didn't see the term in use before it became widespread here on Birdforum. If I used the search tools correctly, the first reference to alpha bins on Birdforum was in this post in 2004, but it is used as a generic label like binocular A or binocular B, not to denote status:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=252130&highlight=alpha#post252130

The next hit I get is this one in 2006, and here it is used as a status/quality term:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=593266&highlight=alpha#post593266
and then Dennis in 2006:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=597149&highlight=alpha#post597149
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=601205&highlight=alpha#post601205
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=607439&highlight=alpha#post607439

Here's a good early Birdforum usage by Otto McDiesel (or Luca--their posts were synonymized), also from 2006.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=636191&highlight=alpha#post636191

So, I'm sure Dennis will be thrilled to learn that it looks he can take credit for getting the ball rolling for its regular use here. Actually, now that I've had the time to look a little deeper, it seems it did not come into regular use until maybe 2007 or so. I'm going to drop my exploration there, but someone more interested could easily scroll through a few more pages of search output and get a better sense of when it really picked up.

Here's one last note. I see from Google searching that Wayne Mones uses the term regularly in his reviews on Better View Desired and elsewhere, starting in late 2005.

--AP

Alpha can have lots of meanings, but I think Alexis has referenced a common
thought, as in the Alpha male, top dog, leader of the pack.

The Alpha binoculars that are often referred to are leaders in the field of sport
optics.

Jerry