Nikon an Alpha? (1 Viewer)

[newfie ghost]

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

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.

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

--AP

Dennis strikes again, I tell you he is the most famous BF member. He even answers my PM's. I love the post above when he praises the lxl saying they are about as good as the fl and old el. I must say I do love my lxl.

I swear I will meet Dennis one day. Has anyone met Dennis? I almost met Frank D once.

 

[FrankD]

Sorry about that Newfie. I am going for a big year and needed some species that day. My apologies. Next time you head to Hawk Mtn I will certainly be there.

 

[David Swain]

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

"Alpha" as a term denoting excellence, status, or highest standing has been used at least since 1902 according to the many usages cited in the Oxford English Dictionary. I suspect, though, that it grows out of hardware/software testing in the 1990s: "alpha tester" or "alpha geek" (think Sheldon on Big Bang Theory).

David

 

[Roadbike]

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

In the discussions I have read dealing with alpha bins the brand has been referred to as being alpha. Will Meopta ever be thought of as equivalent to Zeiss and the other alphas, etc. Because that small group of binocular makers constitutes a very small proportion of the binoculars made I don't see how those brands could be considered in any way dominating the market for binoculars. I would say that companies like Nikon are probably better off thought of as dominating and as leaders. A single descriptive like alpha strikes me as being all but impossible to define and more importantly it really tells you nothing about a pair of binoculars in hand. It would be as informative to call them super duper as it is to call them alpha binoculars. Calling those brands alpha does ease the financial pain of consuming conspicuously however.

 

[James Bean]

A company whose binocular focus action is so smooth that it leads ALL other makers, even the so-called 'top 3', as well as at least equalling optically those top 3, has to be admitted to the Alpha level, thereby creating the 'top 4'. These are the ones against whom all other aspirants are to be measured, until membership of that elite changes, such as when Bausch & Lomb ceased to market elite models (literally) and Nikon joined Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski in the penthouse suite. Oh, and one more reason. Dennis says Nikon is the best. Q.E.D.

 

[vkalia]

The fact that we still say "Nikon is as good as Zeiss, Leica or Swaro" means that it hasn't joined the Alpha Club, even if the glass IS as good.

Insert Groucho here...

 

[looksharp65]

"Alpha" is an obsolete expression. "Premier" is what it should be

 

[Alexis Powell]

The fact that we still say "Nikon is as good as Zeiss, Leica or Swaro" means that it hasn't joined the Alpha Club, even if the glass IS as good.

Exactly. For those who are disturbed by that reality, I think the even more disturbing realization is that the status of Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski isn't based on optical quality alone. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition. What we are calling alpha status is also about history and consumer bias/prejudice. I remember when Swarovski's optics (roofs in particular) were a big step down in functionality from Z and L. But once they sorted it out, and became a leader in quality and customer service, they were able to leverage their status as a western European maker of luxury goods to win quick and easy entry into the same category as Zeiss and Leica in the minds of consumers. As I tried to convey in a past post, Nikon hasn't and can't follow that model. Another good example is the place of Kowa in the scope market. Kowa scopes are widely recognized as being the best optically, but they still haven't gained the status/prestige as Z/L/S even though many products from the alpha brands have been no better (or sometimes not as good) as those from Kowa (and Nikon).

--AP

 

[James Bean]

looksharp65 - "Premier" is what it should be. Of course, that's Nikon Premier SE, so Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss need to demonstrate they're good enough to join Nikon in the Premier League. Dennis will be pleased!

 

[jaymoynihan]

In light of this discussion, the following site is worthy of attention.
http://www.conceptofluxurybrands.com/concept-of-luxury-brands#Download
and in parricular, this paper
http://www.conceptofluxurybrands.com/content/20110907_Heine_TheConceptofLuxuryBrands.pdf

"Luxury is anything that is desirable and which exceeds necessity and
ordinariness. As a general rule, this is dened from a global perspective,
for the present and for normal conditions. While the exclusivity of
resources is evaluated by the entire society, the desirability of resources
and the appearance of luxury are determined by the upper class."