to be or not to be an alpha (1 Viewer)

[jan van daalen]

It's been done /asked earlier, but let us try to get an consensus.

What makes an optic manufacturer the alpha?

Is it Zeiss, who makes Zeiss quality available for less money by outsourcing the labour costs for a product that can stand voor their quality status?
Is it Swarovski, trying to improve the best?
Nikon? Offering every quality in the complete optic range!
Kamakura, as an example of an optic manufacturer/supplier for almost every optic brand?
Closer to the European home, Meopta which makes about 1 million optic parts a year as a supplier for Leica/Zeiss and several other brands and their own product range.
Companies like Zen Ray, who opened their own facility in China, trying to improve their own products to their standards?

To be or not to be, that's my question.

Jan

 

[oetzi]

It's been done /asked earlier, but let us try to get an consensus.

What makes an optic manufacturer the alpha?


Jan

Partly, the marketing.

 

[james holdsworth]

Just personal opinion, that's it.

The current Elite is alpha class but no one would call Bushnell ''Alpha''. If it was still a Bausch and Lomb model, almost no doubt we would consider it as alpha.

Same goes for several others - Meopta, Leopold, Kowa etc. All alpha views but never given the moniker for whatever reason.

The whole idea of what's an alpha is a bit silly. In most cases, it will be what we own. In some folks cases, it will be what they sell.......

 

[Leif]

Am I alone in thinking the wording of the question is skewed? As in massively.

There are two aspects here, reality and perception. First reality.

Nikon has the number two position in the photographic market, and they produce some superb lenses. They are one of the top four microscope makers. They make some first rates bins. So, they must be an alpha optics manufacturer.

Zeiss is one of the big four microscope manufacturers, they make high end scientific optics, they make premium bins, and they innovate, so they must be an alpha manufacturer.

Swarovski, as far as I know, do not innovate in optics, do not do scientific optics, and just do birding and hunting optics. So for me this company is the least worthy of the term alpha. But I think most people would give them alpha status.

As to Leica, well, they do innovate (first internal focusing binocular, and a new roof prism come to mind), they are one of the top four microscope makers, they make some of the best photographic optics, so obviously an alpha.

Now for perception. A company risks contaminating the brand by going downmarket, no matter how fantastic the top range models. Hence Toyota and Lexus, same company, two brands. But that should not bother us, because we are intelligent enough to see behind that. But it means that the likes of Nikon and Zeiss might lose some cachet, in some people's eyes. Many people in the target market might not associate luxury with Nikon because they also make cheap gear, but they would associate luxury with Swarovski because you have to be well off to own their products.

Swarovski IMO are the best at the brand packaging, creating a product that looks like a luxury item, incredible attention to detail in the external cosmetics, and packaging. Not too shoddy optics either. (That last sentence is tongue in cheek.)

Leica seem to have lost their way. They were the number 1 premium brand in the UK in the past, but I do not see them so much these days. Several well known chains have stopped selling them.

Which matters in the market place for premium instruments? For us lot, performance i.e. reality. For most people, well, as the eloquent and learned Sarah Palin once said, "I'll get back to you on that one".

 

[FrankD]

IMO there isn't an Alpha but there are Alphas (plural).

I think the general consensus is that to be an Alpha you have to have the following:

1. The highest level of optical performance. This is derived from the best quality consumer grade glass and coatings plus a cutting edge design in at least one optical area.

2. A high level of quality control packed into an extremely durable package.

3. A generous warranty tied in with excellent customer service on at least one continent.

4. A company name that is rich with optics history.

5. A price tag to make all of the above possible.

Personally, I tend to think of a bin as an Alpha provided it meets criteria number 1 above....but that is just me being practical.

 

[Leif]

If we assume the question refers to binoculars only, then Frank has written a good post. Quicker to read than mine, which is an advantage.

 

[[email protected]]

It's been done /asked earlier, but let us try to get an consensus.

What makes an optic manufacturer the alpha?

Is it Zeiss, who makes Zeiss quality available for less money by outsourcing the labour costs for a product that can stand voor their quality status?
Is it Swarovski, trying to improve the best?
Nikon? Offering every quality in the complete optic range!
Kamakura, as an example of an optic manufacturer/supplier for almost every optic brand?
Closer to the European home, Meopta which makes about 1 million optic parts a year as a supplier for Leica/Zeiss and several other brands and their own product range.
Companies like Zen Ray, who opened their own facility in China, trying to improve their own products to their standards?

To be or not to be, that's my question.

Jan

Zeiss,Leica,Swarovski and Nikon(SE,EDG,EII). The rest are not.

 

[pompadour]

Even quicker to read than Frank's. The alpha male has spoken. You tell 'em, Dennis!

Personally I would confine myself to Frank's point 1 only, depite implications.

Would add: hope we avoid going the Patek Philippe route (e.g. as in the other thread), valuing a thing only for investment and emotional reasons, above others that work as well or better.

 

[Steve C]

I think Frank is right, unfortunately Dennis exposes a line of thought that will be all too prevalent. It gets to Leif's distinction of perception vs reality.

The reality, IMO, is that there are more places now than there were a few short years ago that are capable of building high quality optics. That's the reality. The perception is that that is only the province of Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss. Push the point and some will begrudgingly admit Nikon to the club (after all they do produce cheap stuff too...yuck!). Other Nikon supporters will be more enthusiastic about alpha status. As far as I'm concerned they are there. Anybody with much experience with a Steiner Peregrine XP will need little convincing as to their alpha status. Arguments will ensue as to the status of Brunton's expensive glass as well. But admittance to the party will be denied because they are not part of the Leizeinikovski club.

That perception has roots not so long ago actually when Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss were the undisputed roof prism champions. They were the only ones with the know how to do good glass, had the wits to get the phase correction thing done and were kings in a time where there were no lesser challengers. Pentax began to change that in 1995 or thereabouts with the mid price, and phase corrected DCF WP line. The reality is that halved the alpha difference, and the difference is being cut in half again every five years or less.

So what has evolved is the ever present question of where is this made? Not so much here, but it is a major really big deal, deal breaker sort of a deal in many forums. So when an alpha dog feels the need to assert itself over a larger spread of the market, it has no choice but to look for some means to decrease prices. These days almost every optical company has roots, even major roots in China, which is a really big no deal maker in lots of circles. The alpha dogs know this phenomena exists, so they use the perception they have built in brand recognition and they sure as the devil will not say anything but "Made in Germany". If Zeiss can sprinkle some of the magic pixie dust of public perception on the Conquest HD and the Terra ED, they will do so until they perceive it is in their best interests to put their hand on the bible and fess up. Get a Steiner or a Minox, they are good German companies and you will get good German glass (not alpha surely, but still good German stuff) for your sub $500 purchase, this is advice prevalent in many forums. The alpha dogs do sniff their territories, and they do know what is out there. They know they have a built in perception of superiority and they will gnaw that bone for all they can get.

So I think that with the current perception of alphas being confined to the Germans/Austrians, and somewhat grudgingly so to the Japanese high end segment of Nikon, consensus on alphas will be only those built in country by the Leizeinikovski's of the world will be regarded as alpha. Very good Zeiss Conquest HD's known to come from the capable facilities of Kamakura will be shunned if the source is known. The Terra? Forget it it smells. Leupold? Surely you can't be serious! Brunton! What a fools notion that is!

 

[normjackson]

Clearly the OP has received advanced notice of a competition to produce the most mind-numbing thread on BF || My inside information suggests that the following (or equivalent) will be offered as a prize :
http://www.allbinos.com/17.1-binoculars_review-summary-Steel_ladle_50x50.html
The judges decision will be final. No cash alternatives offered.

 

[Brigadier]

I think the general consensus is that to be an Alpha you have to have the following:
1. The highest level of optical performance. This is derived from the best quality consumer grade glass and coatings plus a cutting edge design in at least one optical area.
2. A high level of quality control packed into an extremely durable package.
3. A generous warranty tied in with excellent customer service on at least one continent.
4. A company name that is rich with optics history.
5. A price tag to make all of the above possible.

I agree; especially (1), (2) and (3).

 

[Chosun Juan]

Ayyyy .....

Jan,

I've just given you a rollicking good defense on another thread, but I must agree with Leif's opening statement here (the rest of his post makes good sense too, as does Frank's, and Steve's).

Similar questions have been done to near death on another thread(s).

With your 'nous' you would know for certain that Zen-Ray is a different kettle of fish. They are not research leaders, and will always be that step behind the very cutting edge. What they do offer is fine specification, optimised hi-level componentry, and quality at a leading value price point. Zen has a completely different low overhead /lean marketing spend business model, that's diametrically (or is that dielectrically =) opposed to the research and image (detail perfection) oriented (overhead recovery) Zeiss, Swarovski etc. Even though they all, ultimately, live and die on the actual performance of their products in the customers hands in the field (forget all the hoopla).

That's a different game to the 'alpha' dawgs ...... sure, they will give those 'alpha' dawgs a lickin' in some of that market space ..... but, they'll never be 'alpha' dawgs, just as hyundai will never be ferrari. Close in some instances, but no cigar ......
You know that. I won't call it coming the raw prawn - but jeez, I'm gunna fire up the bar-bie just in case! B So if someone was to suggest, that this thread is "rougish" (no Palin reference intended!), or indeed being slightly scurrilous - I'm afraid the defence wouldn't have a leg to stand on. :cat:

Shall we also, go into in-depth discussions of exactly what bits and bobs are outsourced in putting together a Swarovski for example? Are Austrian laws any tighter than German ones? What about privately owned companies? - are they any more forthcoming than public behemoths? Why make Zeiss the whipping boy?

Speaking of "image" - is this really the best way to alleviate the 'perceptions' surrounding yours? Did you note that friendly winking smilie gently fired across your bows?

I still value your contribution, :t: but maybe just more than a little something is being lost in translation? I don't think we want it to get to the stage where you have to trot out GP% margins, cost stuctures, and turn-over volumes of all the brands you sell just to demonstrate your un-biased fairness (now that would be some revelation!) :scribe:

For an 'alpha', Frank's pt #4, was I think, first coined by "The Fonz" ...... "I forgot one very important part - you got ta have reputation ........"


Chosun :gh:

 

[bh46118]

Best I can tell, it's an arbitrary term that means whatever you want it to mean. Google the term "Alpha Optics", or questions about the origins of "Alpha Optics" and you will find nothing definitive.
Look through it, and if you like what you see keep it, if you don't , get rid of it. Makes no difference who made it or how much it cost.

 

[james holdsworth]

I.yuck!).

That perception has roots not so long ago actually when Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss were the undisputed roof prism champions. They were the only ones with the know how to do good glass, had the wits to get the phase correction thing done and were kings in a time where there were no lesser challengers. Pentax began to change that in 1995 or thereabouts with the mid price, and phase corrected DCF WP line. The reality is that halved the alpha difference, and the difference is being cut in half again every five years or less.

That's not really true - the best roofs during that era were Bausch and Lomb Elite's.

 

[Steve C]

That's not really true - the best roofs during that era were Bausch and Lomb Elite's.

Now there is a subjective statement if ever there was one . I would not put the B&L Elite quite with a Leica Trinovid, either BA or BN, but they were certainly good. So we differ a little.

 

[james holdsworth]

Now there is a subjective statement if ever there was one .

You are right there. I was basing that statement on reviews of the day - which mostly gave the nod to the Elite's. That said, I wouldn't make a Federal Case out of it but would suggest we add B & L to your list.

 

[Steve C]

You are right there. I was basing that statement on reviews of the day - which mostly gave the nod to the Elite's. That said, I wouldn't make a Federal Case out of it but would suggest we add B & L to your list.

Duly added, I did once see an Elite in 7x36 which was very nice, to say the least. However B&L and binoculars are no longer linked. The line switched to Bushnell, and didn't do as well as the quality of the optic deserved. This I think goes right back into the gist of the point of public perception as it is linked to alpha, or not, binoculars. B&L would maybe be there, Bushnell not so much.

Another alpha quality instrument is Kowa, which never seems to come up in alpha discussions either.

 

[ronh]

Alpha sounds like a salesman's boast, to try to sell an expensive binocular to a dubious customer. I don't think the term adds anything but something to argue about .It is better to try to appreciate each brand for what it is, rather than try to fit/exclude brands into/from such a category.

What bands have played real alpha level rock and roll? The answer tells more about the sayer, than about the thing.
Ron

 

[eitanaltman]

Do salesmen even use the term? I've never seen it used in actual marketing or product literature. I feel like it only exists on forums like this as a shorthand for the Teutonic trio.

 

[james holdsworth]

Do salesmen even use the term? I've never seen it used in actual marketing or product literature. I feel like it only exists on forums like this as a shorthand for the Teutonic trio.

I've never heard it away from these parts, but [then again] I almost never talk binocs with regular people, even regular birder-type people - it just doesn't come up much.