• 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.

Which sub-alpha bino (1 Viewer)

Dennis,

The Monarch HG has a Magnesium alloy frame that is lighter than the SLC and the Conquests. There is a cutaway photo of its magnesium alloy skeleton of the Monarch HG body in the link below.

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/binoculars/monarch-hg-10x42.html

As for the big eyecups:

I think they make the rubber part of the eye cups big because lots of people, like me, brace them up against their brow ridge when they use the binocular. I get blackouts if I put them back in my eye sockets. Also, I don't like the rubber ring rounded off. I like them squared off because it is easier to brace them against my brow ridge. Before I had my cataract surgery I wore glasses and I liked big rubber rimmed eye cups because I had big eye glasses.

There is one exception. I can put the eye cups of my Swarovski CL Companion 8x30B back into my eye sockets without getting blackouts because of the "Optical Box" design of its oculars

Bob
Ceasar. Thanks, for the explanation. Very helpful.
 
In what way/s is the SLC considered to be less than "alpha"?
Thanks. A question, seeking information, not a criticism.
(If close focus is an issue we can consider the previous model.)
 
adhoc (post #22),

Tobias Mennle wrote this about the SLC:
„I suspect the SLC has been downgraded a bit compared to its predecessor to conquer a new niche below the premium model Swarovision. The SLC looks a bit softer than the others, especially below 10 meters, and does not quite achieve the wowing view of an alpha bin. That´s annoying because the design is well balanced, the view is very comfortable, and the price and brand suggest premium quality....“

For the rest of his review, see
http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

This is one (serious) view, and I am sure Tobias is not alone with his opinion.

I for myself think a bit more highly of the SLC 8x42 and 10x42 and rate them among the alphas, so the debate could go on (well, at least the x56 models of the SLC series seem almost universally recognized as alpha).

But then, didn‘t we have a very looooong debate here recently about what is „alpha“ and what not? ;)

Canip
 
Last edited:
[..]Tobias Mennle wrote this about the SLC:
[..]
For the rest of his review, see
http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html
[...]
Tobias certainly knows lots about binoculars (and holds strong opinions as well, which isn't a bad thing at all). And he has the distinct advantage, in the above-referenced article, of actually looking through the SLCs (which is more than I've done) and directly comparing them with others.

And while I certainly don't want to go here:
[..]didn‘t we have a very looooong debate here recently about what is "alpha" and what not? ;)
...I do think its worth re-emphasising something Bill said earlier in this thread:
You can spend more than $2,500 on a fine Alpha binocular. Or, you can spend less than $1,000 on one that has 95% to 97% of its performance and longevity and, unless you’re a super-nitnoid won’t be able to perceive the difference.
I own some very nice binoculars, some of which might be considered "alpha", or might be old enough that they might only be considered "near-alpha". Those are Zeiss FLs in 8x32 and 10x56. I also own some bins which might be considered "sub-alpha": Tract Toric 8x42s, and Nikon EIIs in 8x30 and 10x35. I find the views from those more than adequate for my purposes and hardly notice the difference, in practice, when using them rather than comparing them.

For me (others may differ, and almost certainly will) I am very happy with the quality of view I get from my "sub-alpha" bins and wouldn't pay a cent extra for the somewhat improved views through an "alpha". I own those Zeiss FL 8x32s (for which, at least, I paid an "alpha"-level price) for reasons of physical size, ergonomics, etc. etc. and not for the better view, as such (although I do appreciate it). If I'd been able to meet those non-optical requirements in a "sub-alpha" bin with slightly lower optical performance for half the price or less then I would have done so in a heartbeat. I could easily have used the $1,000 or more saved for something else. (Note: I own the Zeiss FL 10x56s simply because I stumbled across an exceptionally good deal where I paid a less than "sub-alpha" price for pristine 2nd-hand bins, which I do get good use from.)

As I say, others may differ from my approach here. But for me, and for my purposes, chasing diminishing returns to purchase the last few available percentage points of performance from a binocular isn't really my thing. If it is yours then: great! I just think it is worth pausing to consider, before paying tip-top dollar, whether the cost of the absolute best is worth it when near-enough might, as it is for me, be good enough for you too.

...Mike
 
Mike
You speak with wisdom and are very close to the way I consider binos these days but the reasons why different folks buy binos are as varied as the numbers of people buying them.

I know folks who want a WOW experience every time they look through their binos while others seek only comfort in use, others want a total lack of chromatic aberration or astigmatism while others want the closest possible close-focus or technical excellence. Others can't resist the appearance and style of their favourite binos while others (me) can discover that a bino that they at first thought ugly (Meopta MeoStar B1 8x32) has now become an all-time favourite because of its blend of quality and accessible price and its appearance has now magically transformed it one that is handsome and neat. Folks who only have one bino can understandably want this instrument to be the absolute best available for the price they can afford and this can lead to lust-anxiety when a new model comes out and becomes a must-have.

As you and Bill (and others) have pointed out, there are great nature observations and enjoyment lurking in many a bino priced at less than top dollar but some folks get pleasure from owning the latest top dollar models while other folks spend their top dollars on cars, dining out or safaris or hi-fi or, well, you name it.

There is room for all shades of bino-obsession on Birdforum, which is just as well.....

Lee
 
At this level, ergonomics determine many a glass in the end. How they feel on your face is right up there with the optics, for me it was the Meopta 8X32, while I loved the optics, the eye-cups could not work with the contour of my sockets.
Additionally, That quote from Bill is so true, and now, many a choice of excellent glass for half the price of the premium glass out there. IMO if you want to get a premium glass, get one used for over 1/2 the price of a new one.
As a side note IMHO, the FL 10X56 is a premium glass-even today (as well as the others in the FL line), I use it extensively, as is the SLC X56 series. I have only tried the smaller aperture SLC 10X42 once in the field briefly, and IMO it is indeed a premium glass.

As a side note I hate the description "Alpha", I leave that term for the animal world.

Andy W.
 
As a side note I hate the description "Alpha", I leave that term for the animal world.

Andy W.

My dog is quite small ... a chug. Even so, I don't get to be Alpha. Anyone with a chug in the family knows what I mean. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
[..]but the reasons why different folks buy binos are as varied as the numbers of people buying them.
[..]
There is room for all shades of bino-obsession on Birdforum, which is just as well.....
Quite so! I certainly wouldn't want to suggest otherwise. Nor would I suggest my variety of bino-obsession would necessarily suit anyone else. I'm certainly glad of those who buy (and especially report on) the higher-end stuff. They do the rest of us great favours. As do those who explore high value yet lower cost bins.

...Mike
 
The term may not be popular but there is no denying it's usefulness on a forum like this. You say the word and everyone is aware of the handful of the instruments being referred to. For my part, ""sub-alpha"in the heading was purely a cost factor. The ones listed as far as i am aware are the current "second-tier" from a cost perspective relative to the "upper tier". And asking which "second-tier"optic in the heading doesn't have nearly the ring to it (or attention grabbing ability;))

As discussed, everyone is different and taking their own path. As someone that doesn't intend to have a high bino turnover I would prefer to own one very good product as opposed to multiple of a lower quality. For my use, the benefits of slight aperture or magnification differences isn't important. If i need more aperture and magnification I will take a spotting scope as a better tool but not everyone feels this way.

Having also dabbled in photography the cost of the best binoculars looks downright cheap in comparison. Someones $2000 to $4000 camera body is not going to last and will be out of date a well before their $2000+ binocular. Current model alpha camera body is the Canon 1Dx II which is $5499 at B&H. Then throw the cost of lenses on top. This makes owning a quality binocular for 10+ years look cheap in comparison.
 
Last edited:
In what way/s is the SLC considered to be less than "alpha"?
Thanks. A question, seeking information, not a criticism.
(If close focus is an issue we can consider the previous model.)
adhoc (post #22),

Tobias Mennle wrote this about the SLC:
„I suspect the SLC has been downgraded a bit compared to its predecessor to conquer a new niche below the premium model Swarovision. The SLC looks a bit softer than the others, especially below 10 meters, and does not quite achieve the wowing view of an alpha bin. That´s annoying because the design is well balanced, the view is very comfortable, and the price and brand suggest premium quality....“

For the rest of his review, see
http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

This is one (serious) view, and I am sure Tobias is not alone with his opinion.

I for myself think a bit more highly of the SLC 8x42 and 10x42 and rate them among the alphas, so the debate could go on (well, at least the x56 models of the SLC series seem almost universally recognized as alpha).

But then, didn‘t we have a very looooong debate here recently about what is „alpha“ and what not? ;)

Canip
Thanks Canip. Sometimes Tobias can be a bit individualistic!
Personally I would rate the SLC "alpha" but
I may have missed testing it for this or that criteria.
The "lo...ong debates" tend to be, shall we say, philosophical.
During this delay in my responding it seems that happened right here!
At times more useful is specific info. such as I seek,
in regard to a particular model or particular optical aspects.
I hope whatever responses to my query are useful to Oxygen (the OP).
 
Having also dabbled in photography the cost of the best binoculars looks downright cheap in comparison. Someones $2000 to $4000 camera body is not going to last and will be out of date a well before their $2000+ binocular. Current model alpha camera body is the Canon 1Dx II which is $5499 at B&H. Then throw the cost of lenses on top. This makes owning a quality binocular for 10+ years look cheap in comparison.[/QUOTE]



Then perhaps you could also look at the more premium glass too.

Andy W.
 
Good point, Andy.

I personally think that in the end, premium binoculars are in no way different than other premium products, such as cars, or grand pianos, or expensive wines. They (hopefully) offer a better performance, but demand a much higher price.

I once worked with a very nice Englishman who was absolutely convinced that his Vauxhall was every bit as good a car as the BMW company car which I drove at the time, and of course, if you just look at getting from A to B, it is not unlikely that you will arrive at your destination every bit as fast and well in either car. Is the top speed and the acceleration better in the BMW, or the smoothness of the engine, or is the interior more nicely finished? Yes, they are. But that did not impress my colleague, because he was only interested in the basics of transportation and could not understand how one would pay almost double the price for the BMW compared to the Vauxhall.

If you offer me a very nice glass of Chateau Margaux, I will enjoy that, but if you tell me that you paid an unbelievable price for that bottle, I would have to say that such a fabulous wine is wasted on me, because I will probably not be able to tell the difference between this top wine and other very good French red wines which cost half or less; my taste buds my just not me that refined. However, I am sure many forum members would see it differently.

When it comes to optics, I believe that after almost 45 years of observing, collecting and comparing, I can perceive the difference in optical performance between a good pair of binoculars and a top glass, and I enjoy the quality of the top glass and am willing to pay for that experience. But I fully appreciate that many people looking at my binoculars cannot see the higher contrast or brightness (which can possibly be measured, of course, but that is not what visual observation is about) of an EL SV 10x50 compared to a same size Action EX.

And so while some of may colleagues buy very nice cars (I am driving an Opel=Vauxhall these days) and expensive wines, I am spending money on optics, both on „premium“ instruments and also others because I collect and I like to compare, as long as my aging eyes allow me to see the difference.

To sum up my point: paying a lot of money for premium products seems a waste of money to some, but seems justified to others. This also holds true for optics in general and binoculars in particular. I will not be able to change my Vauxhall driving colleague‘s opinion about cars, and he will not be able to change mine on premium optics.
 
When it comes to optics, I believe that after almost 45 years of observing, collecting and comparing, I can perceive the difference in optical performance between a good pair of binoculars and a top glass, and I enjoy the quality of the top glass and am willing to pay for that experience.
[...]
But I fully appreciate that many people looking at my binoculars cannot see the higher contrast or brightness (which can possibly be measured, of course, but that is not what visual observation is about) of an EL SV 10x50 compared to a same size Action EX.
I think it's unreasonable to assume that those who won't pay the extra money don't see the extra performance. Some probably do, but are not in a position to pay for it. Others may have a different stopping-point when chasing ever-more money for ever-less performance improvement. Your choices in this regard are your own, and I'm fine with that.

I'm sure that many people who can see the optical differences ask themselves "how much am I prepared to pay for that?" I don't think they're wrong if their choices are different from yours.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike,
I was not writing this properly.
Of course there are also many who do see the difference but for some reason cannot or will not spend money for it.
I couldn‘t agree more with you.
Canip
 
And while discussing the finer points of binos and their qualities, don't let us forget what we look at with them.

And just as Brahm's Violin Concerto and Jeff Beck's 'Cause we ended as Lovers' are still stunning pieces of music whether listened to via a Linn system at home or the CD player in your car, so is a good view of a Whinchat or Golden Eagle absolutely thrilling whether seen through a Zeiss Terra or Zeiss SF (insert your own choice of lower-priced and upper-priced models here).

Lee
 
Mike,
I was not writing this properly.
Of course there are also many who do see the difference but for some reason cannot or will not spend money for it.
I couldn‘t agree more with you.
Canip


And then again, there are those that think they can see these differences because the label on the binocular tells them they should.
 
Mike,
I was not writing this properly.
Of course there are also many who do see the difference but for some reason cannot or will not spend money for it.
I couldn‘t agree more with you.
Canip


Or just dont particularly care. I'm usually looking at something other than admiring the view of the binocular. Which is probably the reason I use a oair of Leupold Yosemite 6X30 a lot more often than I do the Conquest.

The views between the most expensive and the middle line is usually negated in my case by dust on my glasses, watering eyes and myriad other issues.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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