• 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.

What Really Constitutes a Alpha Grade Pair Of Binoculars ? (1 Viewer)

You know, I agree I was OTT with my racist comment. It was too categorical. I apologize for that.

However, I do think at times there is an underlying tenor about the inherent superiority of European vs Asian fabrication here, and subcategories below those. It is a bit complex, as I think there are valid categorizations based on real experience.
 
gcole said:
Whoa oooo ... You can mess with my dogs pedigree but do not disrespect by Bino’s :-O I guess their will always be strong attitudes with never ending amount of opinions. The reality is that the $800 - $1200 pair of Binoculars now being sold today, no matter who actually makes them or who actually sources and sells them are among some of the finest binoculars available today.
Click to expand...

Gcole, I have to ask.......

Are you Dennis in disguise;)?

Jan
 
b-lilja said:
I would think it's:

  • Absolute top of the line performance
  • Build quality
  • Brand longevity

It is funny to me people would exclude Nikon. Nikon is a venerable, outstanding optics brand, arguably the best in the world. Same goes for Canon, if the IS can be considered of alpha optical quality. Any other opinions about these brands, to me, honestly are purely racist. :smoke:
Click to expand...

Don’t blame the clown for acting like a clown. Blame yourself for going to the circus.

I find discussions of “Alpha” binoculars ridiculous. But failing to adhere to the above admonition, I do get sucked into its vortex. We are told that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a firm sign of insanity. GUILTY!

b-lilja said:

“I would think it's:
• Absolute top of the line performance
• Build quality
• Brand longevity”

Taken at face value, that is totally logical. However, who is the arbiter of what constitutes, “top of the line performance”?

Who is the arbiter of what constitutes, “Built quality”
?
And is an “Alpha” producing company one that has been in business for 20 years, one that has been in business for 120 years, or a company that has been in business for 120 years promoting one of their rebranded products produced by a company that has been in business for 5 or 10 years?

And should those choices be made by observer A, observer B, or observer C through Z?

Today, it’s all subjective. It has been subjective since the first “Alpha” binocular started getting press. And it will forever be subjective until the last observer matures to the level of understanding just how silly it is. As I have watched these posts, I have come away with the notion that some people base their idea of what constitutes an “Alpha” binocular on how much it costs. I say this because I have seen folks—and you have too—turn up their noses at proven scientific data because it didn’t match their own opinion or agenda.

The subtitle of my first bino book is, (the instruments, the industry, and you). If more people really understood the INDUSTRY much of this would fade away. But they don’t ... so, it won’t.

b-lilja also said: “It is funny to me people would exclude Nikon. Nikon is a venerable, outstanding optics brand, arguably the best in the world.”

I couldn’t say Nikon is arguably the best in the world. But I could say my #1 marine glass was a Nikon Sports & Marine or Fujinon FMTR-SX, my #1 glass of astronomy was the Nikon Prostar, and my #1 birding glass is my Nikon 8x32 SE. Furthermore, all those choices were made when I was selling many models of Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski.

While I have saved thousands of dollars on my selections, I would challenge anyone to use hard data to prove that any other binocular, in any of those categories was better enough that Thor, Superman, or God could tell a difference as to be worth hundreds of dollars. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
WJC said:
Don’t blame the clown for acting like a clown. Blame yourself for going to the circus.

I find discussions of “Alpha” binoculars ridiculous. But failing to adhere to the above admonition, I do get sucked into its vortex. We are told that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a firm sign of insanity. GUILTY!

b-lilja said:

“I would think it's:
• Absolute top of the line performance
• Build quality
• Brand longevity”

Taken at face value, that is totally logical. However, who is the arbiter of what constitutes, “top of the line performance”?

Who is the arbiter of what constitutes, “Built quality”
?
And is an “Alpha” producing company one that has been in business for 20 years, one that has been in business for 120 years, or a company that has been in business for 120 years promoting one of their rebranded products produced by a company that has been in business for 5 or 10 years?

And should those choices be made by observer A, observer B, or observer C through Z?

Today, it’s all subjective. It has been subjective since the first “Alpha” binocular started getting press. And it will forever be subjective until the last observer matures to the level of understanding just how silly it is. As I have watched these posts, I have come away with the notion that some people base their idea of what constitutes an “Alpha” binocular on how much it costs. I say this because I have seen folks—and you have too—turn up their noses at proven scientific data because it didn’t match their own opinion or agenda.

The subtitle of my first bino book is, (the instruments, the industry, and you). If more people really understood the INDUSTRY much of this would fade away. But they don’t ... so, it won’t.

b-lilja also said: “It is funny to me people would exclude Nikon. Nikon is a venerable, outstanding optics brand, arguably the best in the world.”

I couldn’t say Nikon is arguably the best in the world. But I could say my #1 marine glass was a Nikon Sports & Marine or Fujinon FMTR-SX, my #1 glass of astronomy was the Nikon Prostar, and my #1 birding glass is my Nikon 8x32 SE. Furthermore, all those choices were made when I was selling many models of Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski.

While I have saved thousands of dollars on my selections, I would challenge anyone to use hard data to prove that any other binocular, in any of those categories was better enough that Thor, Superman, or God could tell a difference as to be worth hundreds of dollars. :cat:

Cheers,

Bill
Click to expand...

:t:





Chosun :gh:
 
gcole said:
Whoa oooo ... You can mess with my dogs pedigree but do not disrespect by Bino’s :-O I guess their will always be strong attitudes with never ending amount of opinions. The reality is that the $800 - $1200 pair of Binoculars now being sold today, no matter who actually makes them or who actually sources and sells them are among some of the finest binoculars available today.
Click to expand...

It is true that there is some great glass at that mid tier level.
Heck - even my humble bin raises eyebrows with the head honchos at the rolled gold 'Alpha' soirees - it's central third is 99% of what the best can offer. It's ergonomics ..... better !

However, that's the deal with incremental improvement - it's incremental ! There is as much cost, investment, and expertise involved in making each of those last few steps as there are in getting to the first ~95%.

While a mid-tier bin may match the 'Alphas' in one area or another - it is a lot harder to put the whole kit and kaboodle together. A lot of the mid-tier offerings are at the upper end of the weight range for the glass that they offer. Alphas like the Zeiss SF, and Swarovski NL are at another level of sophistication again.

The exception is the mid-tier Nikon MHG - among the lightest bins in it's class, outstanding ergonomics, and beautiful quality construction - all while offering an extra-wide field. To jump to the Alpha level, it just needs that little bit of extra sharpness, that little bit of extra transmission at the extremities of the light spectrum, that little bit extra of distortion and other aberration correction ..... increments ! :eek!: As Bill said, we should walk around with our eyes open, and our brains out of neutral, for like the now discontinued 8x32 SE Porro, these tick many 'Alpha' boxes at a half, third, or quarter of the price :t:

You could enjoy them in rude health - the birds will never know the difference ! o:) They're not quite going to get you past the gold gates and into 'the club' though .......







Chosun :gh:
 
201005

The “discontinued” Nikon 8x32? It’s not discontinued to me; it’s on the top shelf in my closet. In this forum, several have bemoaned letting theirs go while on the search for a BETTER (read: MORE EXPENSIVE) binocular. But although they failed in reaching their first goal, that was more than made up by succeeding greatly in their second! Well, whatever works for you.

Q: How do milk a sheep?
A: Come out with a new binocular, substantially different in cosmetics from others—with 90% of that difference being in advertising—and charge a price high enough to cause nose bleeds. If you do this, you will be satisfied until your money starts burning a hole in your pocket and new marketing verbiage is afoot—that’s about 180 to 365 days.

The difference between maturity and immaturity in this matter can be summed up in understanding the difference between NEED and WANT. I know whereof I speak. I understood this while in my early 30s but didn’t act on it until my late 50s.

Some have wondered why, if the SE was so good, it was discontinued. For the novice observer, that is a logical question. The answer is found finance and not optics.

When corporate leaders find the market for a given binocular has been saturated and orders start to drop, it will be replaced with another product. That product might be better; it might not. It doesn’t matter. Most companies find staying in business a high priority.

The Nikon SE not only had this to contend with, but the world was in the midst of convincing itself that roof prism binoculars were ... BETTER in ways other than convenience. And we all know that PERCEPTION is REALITY. Right?

The following is from that book I’m not allowed to mention by name:

The Reps Get Frustrated, Too

In a conversation with the representative of one of the largest and most respected binocular manufacturers, I heard:

“You’re right, it’s all manufacturer driven; I can’t deny that. The guys at the top want more and more of the market share, and that means pushing boxes out of the plant. That’s all it comes down to—boxes, not optics.”

And in speaking about quality with a long-time representative from another binocular giant, I heard:

“Believe me when I say I have plenty of frustration in trying to deal fairly with consumers and dealers. Although I have been with the company more than 20 years, I’m still treated like an outsider.”

Other representatives share similar stories.

It is easy to perpetuate the idea that Bill is “arrogant,” “condescending,” etc. But that’s because I have been the poster boy for money wasting stupidity.:cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
b-lilja said:
You know, I agree I was OTT with my racist comment. It was too categorical. I apologize for that.

However, I do think at times there is an underlying tenor about the inherent superiority of European vs Asian fabrication here, and subcategories below those. It is a bit complex, as I think there are valid categorizations based on real experience.
Click to expand...

To call opinions that exclude Nikon from the alpha club "purely" racist was OTT, as you say, but I totally agree that it is a factor. I am not sure that it is about a perception of the inherent superiority of European vs Asian manufacture, but simply that such engineering (e.g. "German" engineering) or country of product origin has more prestige for a myriad of historical reasons, including racism.

For anyone interested in some past BirdForum threads on the "alpha" label, here are the ones that I think are worthwhile reading:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=235008
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=265755
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=356744
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3774095

--AP
 
Last edited:
In my view, an "alpha" binocular has to be backed by "alpha" customer service and written warranty. Obviously the build quality, Optical quality, etc would be required as well. If a purchaser spends "alpha" $$$ on glass, he deserves the best quality, performance, service, and peace of mind.
 
I apologize for my words to Chosun Juan in a previous posting, I was out of line, it is perfectly OK to have debate, however to get personal was out of line.
Chosun, your opinions do matter, additionally your wit and humor does get us through the foggy and drab days, please accept my apology.

Andy W.
 
jgraider said:
In my view, an "alpha" binocular has to be backed by "alpha" customer service and written warranty. Obviously the build quality, Optical quality, etc would be required as well. If a purchaser spends "alpha" $$$ on glass, he deserves the best quality, performance, service, and peace of mind.
Click to expand...

John says: “In my view, an ‘alpha’ binocular has to be backed by ‘alpha’ customer service and written warranty.”

Although a “written warranty,” from a company that bit off more than it could chew and is now on the way out of business, can be as useful as a steering wheel on a stone, customer service should never be discounted. The majority of birders can’t afford—or don’t want to afford—instruments from the big three. And since almost all the others come from Asian manufacturers, who might be the OEM for a dozen “brands,” customer service—barring cosmetics and minor alterations—is possibly the most important aspect of the industry.

Also, I think one might find the warranty of the importer to be on par with the warranty of the OEM. They are the people who should be most concerned with your happiness. Some are gems, some are polished stones, and some are stones that haven’t even been polished. Most members of BirdForum will never have to worry about the latter. But the last two should be extremely important to the binocular shopper whose toes have never been dipped into BirdForum. :cat:

Bill
 
Chosun Juan said:
It is true that there is some great glass at that mid tier level.
Heck - even my humble bin raises eyebrows with the head honchos at the rolled gold 'Alpha' soirees - it's central third is 99% of what the best can offer. It's ergonomics ..... better !

However, that's the deal with incremental improvement - it's incremental ! There is as much cost, investment, and expertise involved in making each of those last few steps as there are in getting to the first ~95%.

While a mid-tier bin may match the 'Alphas' in one area or another - it is a lot harder to put the whole kit and kaboodle together. A lot of the mid-tier offerings are at the upper end of the weight range for the glass that they offer. Alphas like the Zeiss SF, and Swarovski NL are at another level of sophistication again.

The exception is the mid-tier Nikon MHG - among the lightest bins in it's class, outstanding ergonomics, and beautiful quality construction - all while offering an extra-wide field. To jump to the Alpha level, it just needs that little bit of extra sharpness, that little bit of extra transmission at the extremities of the light spectrum, that little bit extra of distortion and other aberration correction ..... increments ! :eek!: As Bill said, we should walk around with our eyes open, and our brains out of neutral, for like the now discontinued 8x32 SE Porro, these tick many 'Alpha' boxes at a half, third, or quarter of the price :t:

You could enjoy them in rude health - the birds will never know the difference ! o:) They're not quite going to get you past the gold gates and into 'the club' though .......







Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...


Chosen....are you sitting down?

I AGREE!!! B :)

If one wants the most boxes checked, it will have to be a Zeiss or a Swarovski as their alpha binocular. Others COULD do it they just chose not to.
 
dries1 said:
I apologize for my words to Chosun Juan in a previous posting, I was out of line, it is perfectly OK to have debate, however to get personal was out of line.
Chosun, your opinions do matter, additionally your wit and humor does get us through the foggy and drab days, please accept my apology.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

Respect.

Lee
Moderator
 
Hello,

As the OP asked what constitutes an alpha binocular, not an alpha brand, I think that the best of Meopta and Kowa and of course of Nikon, are alpha or nearly alpha. Just as the Terra, Conquest and that Austrian compact may not be alpha quality. Nikon is diminishing the brand by the ninety day warranty of refurbished binoculars while also passing off some used items among the refurbished clearance. My two Zeiss demos enjoyed the same guarantee as new binoculars, while my one refurbished Leica had a ten year warranty.

Stay safe,
Arthur
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pinewood said:
...the OP asked what constitutes an alpha binocular, not an alpha brand...
Click to expand...

Since being an alpha is about status, a prerequisite for being an alpha binocular is for it to be from an alpha brand. No matter how good a binocular is, if it doesn't have the brand status, it will never command alpha status. Non-alphas reveal themselves as such by (a) not being recognized as alphas, and consequently (b) their owners' constant need to claim that they are "as good as" the recognized alphas (Alphas rarely if ever denigrate themselves by wasting time and energy on such public comparisons). It's like an unpopular kid pointing out that they are just as attractive, smart, athletic, funny, rich, or whatever as the popular kids. Could be true, but popularity is a status that comes from social dynamics that do not flow directly from those variables.

I'm reporting what I think alpha means, not what constitutes a great binocular from a performance perspective.

--AP
 
Alexis Powell said:
Since being an alpha is about status, a prerequisite for being an alpha binocular is for it to be from an alpha brand. No matter how good a binocular is, if it doesn't have the brand status, it will never command alpha status. Non-alphas reveal themselves as such by (a) not being recognized as alphas, and consequently (b) their owners' constant need to claim that they are "as good as" the recognized alphas (Alphas rarely if ever denigrate themselves by wasting time and energy on such public comparisons). It's like an unpopular kid pointing out that they are just as attractive, smart, athletic, funny, rich, or whatever as the popular kids. Could be true, but popularity is a status that comes from social dynamics that do not flow directly from those variables.

I'm reporting what I think alpha means, not what constitutes a great binocular from a performance perspective.

--AP
Click to expand...


So who exactly "recognizes" these brands as alphas or not? Who are these people?
 
B.F. has many prior threads on this popular topic. Price paid seems to be an important and measurable characteristic of alpha binoculars.
 
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.

Similar threads

J
Japanese High grade Binoculars
Replies
14
Views
1K
jackjack
J
J
Which ~$1000 8x roof binoculars have the least chromatic aberration?
Replies
16
Views
1K
JayW
J
S
Copyright of optical system? Why no replicas of high grade binos?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Elkhornsun
E
A
How many lens elements do sub-alphas bins have? less than alphas?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Maljunulo
M
V
Best marine binoculars?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Foss
Foss

Users who are viewing this thread

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