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

[Gray C]

I know I'm late to this party 3 (if that's what it is, here) but I'm going to have to somewhat disagree with (or at least apply a corrective to) the above. Just as in the binocular world where we have Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica as brands which produce unarguably "alpha" binoculars, in the watch world (wild and wacky and HUGELY more expensive than the binocular world) they have the "Holy Trinity": PP, AP, and VC (Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet and Vacheron Constantin). The fact that these brands are largely unfamiliar to the general public is neither here nor there and most likely part of their attraction.

Despite (or perhaps because!) of being the most-recognised "luxury brand" in the world, Rolex is pretty much looked down on in the watch-snob world as "mid-teir" (at best)! Let "them" think a Rolex is impressive - "we" know better!

And, sure, there are pretenders: from Japan you have Grand Seiko (or, even, Credor if you're working further up market), from Germany you have A. Lange & Söhne or even, back in Switzerland, you have Jager LeCoulture (who 'til recently actually made most of the movements in Holy Trinity watches)... Etcetera.

.. but .. well .. no matter the quality or even -- in the US$1,000,000+++ range -- no matter the price :eek!: it just doesn't matter - it's Holy Trinity or nuffin. As far as unassailable prestige goes, to a watch-snob: The end.

If you have a watch from one (or more!) of the Holy Trinity, your position is pretty much unarguable, leading me to agree with you in this sense:


...Mike

[P.S. I've only looked from the outer edges of the "watch world". I own only three watches even vaguely considered "luxury": a JLC (long story), an Omega, and a Tudor .. in descending order of prestige (and I mostly wear the Tudor, 'cause it's the most useful of those watches). Hell, even my JLC is at their lowest end and has a movement which is mostly machine-produced (the horror!) Yet all would be more expensive, new, than an "alpha" bin. None are in the Holy Trinity - which I don't aspire to at all - I find the "watch world" often unappealing, and not just financially.]

I own the following watches,

Omega Seamaster, Omega Planet Ocean, Tag Heuer Carrera Flyback with the Zenith Calibre 36 movement and a limited edition Christopher Ward.

Like you say the watch world can be very financially challenging and I do not intend buying anymore

However, in the binocular world a Swarovski 10x42 NL seems quite appealing as my next purchase, at a cost considerably less than a few of my watches set me back

 

[wdc]

A new metric is emerging for determining the alpha-ness of a binocular:

An alpha binocular is an optical device that costs far more than most other binoculars at its introduction, but still not as much as a collectible watch.

It also starts to speak to the question of functionality. A $15 digital watch might tell time more accurately
than a multi-thousand dollar mechanical one. In the same vein, a pair of Sightron 8x32, or Leupold Yosemite porros will get you on the bird with decent performance for $75-$150. Above $500, the ergos, mechanicals, build quality, and optical performance are going up nicely. In the $500-$1200 bracket, there's a buffet of used high end optics, and very high performing, so called 'mid-tier' products. Above $1800 or so, one has exited mere functionality, and entered the realm of marginally improved, 'state of the art' products. They are all slowly, incrementally, remodeling the house out to the property line, every 3-5 years or so. One pays an enormous premium for the marque, a reputation for good service, and a modest upgrade in performance, from the price range below.

-Bill

 

[A2GG]

I do believe there is an 'alpha' level of performance. Many companies today achieve this magical level only a few years ago was reserved for the classic Swaro, Ziess.

Technology, coatings, and materials are much less expensive today than 10 years ago--

Are a pair of Maven B1 8x42 binos an Alpha? I would say yes it is--there comes a point when the level of performance flattens.

It just so happens that is around $1000 give or take--for me the Maven/Meopta/Nikon HG is the 'alpha' level.

I like your answer because it means I have an "Alpha" again … oops, I mean "high-end" or "Premium" bino. I said I wouldn't use the term 'alpha' anymore. This place has drilled the term into my head for so long … must de-program myself slowly …

 

[Alexis Powell]

A new metric is emerging for determining the alpha-ness of a binocular:

An alpha binocular is an optical device that costs far more than most other binoculars at its introduction, but still not as much as a collectible watch.

It also starts to speak to the question of functionality. A $15 digital watch might tell time more accurately
than a multi-thousand dollar mechanical one...

Ha! Sorry I made the watch comparison, it's just that status is so much more important than function in that world as compared to binoculars, it's easier to see the role that it plays in that market. High-end watches are equivalent to expensive art pieces; time-keeping function is not what they are about, nor is horological appreciation. Most super expensive watches are purchased as status symbols by rich people who know very little about watches. I'm sure most high-end binoculars are also purchased by rich people who just want "something good" and who don't really know binoculars. Nevertheless, bins like the NL are still tools, and are indeed the best at what they do as optical tools. They cost a lot, but only about 10x or 20x what a decent budget bin costs. That's quite different from the situation in watches, where a no-name $3 quartz watch from Ali Express will out-perform (for time-keeping) mechanical high-end pieces costing 10 000x or 100 000x more. Because the tool function of high-end bins is important to us, it is easier to lose sight of the role that status plays in determining whether a binocular is regarded as an "alpha" by the birding community.

--AP

 

[Alexis Powell]

...It just so happens that is around $1000 give or take--for me the Maven/Meopta/Nikon HG is the 'alpha' level.

You are opening a slippery slope here, trying to extend the alpha concept to considerations within price tiers. I agree that the concept of brand status still applies, but I don't think that the alpha label is appropriate. e.g. For bins under $100, I would say that Nikon is a high-status brand that commands a certain credibility without knowing anything about such a binocular itself, arguably making it an alpha brand in that category, but I'd prefer not to use the label that way. For the watch folks, it would be a usage akin to saying that Casio is the alpha brand among watches under $30. True that Casio is a high status brand in that price category, but do we really want to use the alpha label that way? I think alpha should be reserved for products that have status that is reflected in how they impress, and that envious observers take note of because of their exclusivity (often enforced by price), not simply that they are respected brands.

--AP

 

[mpeace]

It's funny that so much of the forum is occupied with justifying spending so much on optics - if you're honest with yourself, that's what it comes down to for many (not all!). I'm in that boat, I want the best, but don't want to spend the money for it, but end up spending the money and want to be reassured I've got the best.

So the 'alpha' branding goes towards that reassurance that your money is well spent. Like others have said 'alpha' is a niche club that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best optic for your particular use. I find the 8x30 MHG so handy that it's the best tool for the job in many occasions and similarly my the SLC 15x56 or Zeiss Victory pocket 8x25 are the best tool for other occasions, but none get called alpha that readily. My only alpha is the 8.5x42 EL by the standard definition, but I'm not blown away by it (not until I modified it) and I'd get severely chastised for suggesting my Vortex Razor 10x42 (old Japan model) should be included in the 'alpha' club, despite it serving me very well. But the reality for me is that they all have their place and currently are as good as I need in each of their particular uses.

My point being that "Alpha" can actually be unhelpful as a term if not understood. It certainly doesn't mean that it's a do-all binocular and some people without a host of other binoculars might be better served not spending out massive sums of money on 1 'alpha' binocular, but buying a couple of slightly lesser binoculars to cover a wider range of uses.

Sorry if that's digressing from the central theme of defining an 'alpha'. To that I would say it's a proven top performer across most of the important parameters. For me that's optical performance, ergonomics and reliability.

 

[NDhunter]

As I suspected ... owners of Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica would for the most part suggest their brand and only theirs could be of Alpha quality. No doubt these three can not be denied their place in the Alpha market but its time for reality to set in .... Maven , Meopta, Kowa and yes Nikon are now producing Alpha Quality Optics.

I can see your viewpoint. Of the top 3 mentioned Leica is the laggard, as there are many other midrange binoculars that top Leica in many areas.

Nikon makes several Alpha binoculars, they have done that for many years, it is good to see that noted.

Jerry

 

[Patudo]

Ever since binoculars were invented there has been a best binocular, or a select group that represented the best, that one could use for birding. After the end of the war that might have been a Bausch & Lomb porro or maybe a Zeiss Dekarem or Deltrintem, later on maybe a Zeiss Dialyt, then maybe Leica's Trinovid BA/BN and after that any of the "alpha" models mentioned in the thread. At the end of the day the term "alpha" is just a convenient shorthand for top performance and functionality. All the other stuff (respect, prestige etc) stems from that, especially performance and functionality proven over many decades. But one thing's for sure (two things, actually): #1 - top performance and functionality is always pricey, and #2 even the sub-alphas and indeed mid-range binoculars of today are distinctly superior as birding tools to the best of yesteryear, respected as classics though the latter still may be.

Now as for which specific models deserve alpha status - everyone's got (and is entitled to) their opinion, but greatly though it pains me to admit this, my own opinion is (with the utmost reluctance) in accord with denco's. Excellent binoculars though the Meostar HD, Monarch HG and Conquest HD undoubtedly are in their own right, I have to say the EL (at least the recent Fieldpro), Noctivid, SF, Ultravid HD+, and EDG are, optically and in refinement of build, still a step ahead yet - but given their prices they bloody well ought to be. I've noted my thoughts on the Monarch HG vs the EDG in more detail here and the Meostars here and again (should anyone be interested o). The view that I got through the Meostar HD models in particular seemed really alpha-like, just less of it in terms of field of view, and build quality, though really solid and reassuring, lacked that extra finesse. They are probably more comparable with SLCs and FLs than the current alpha models. Monarch HGs give you an excellent field of view, but an image that I've proven to my own satisfaction is outperformed - narrowly but noticeably (to me) - by the same company's EDG. But that gap is narrow, and for most folks, including myself, it's more important to have some extra cash in the wallet than the absolute best in optical performance. That category of binocular that offers 90% or more of the performance of an alpha at 50% the price has itself improved tremendously over the years, although of course at a corresponding increase in price. Where once the nearest thing you could get to an alpha might have been a Swift Audubon (optically still very good but large, bulky, lacking in weather resistance and can't be used with glasses by many users), now there are the Meostars, Monarch HGs, the best of Kamakura (Conquest, Maven etc), not to mention any number of secondhand alphas from all the different eras. Lucky us.

Nikon is an optics manufacturer of great stature to me, with the history to go with it, and their current or most recent (are the EDGs actually still in production?) top birding model is definitely a competitor in the EL, SF, Noctivid class. It might not be my personal pick from that group, but it's in that ballpark. But time doesn't stand still - look where Swarovski were in the 60s or even the 70s, and perhaps more pertinently, how great optics brands such as Bausch & Lomb, Emil Busch, and Zeiss Jena have come and gone.

 

[Troubador]

Excellent summary Pat.

Lee

 

[cottonbase]

What Really Constitutes a Alpha Grade Pair Of Binoculars?
Perception. And possibly bias (unconscious or otherwise) about where products are manufactured.

Without a definitive set of metrics to define a standard, it is a near meaningless time based and subjective term. Which is why the term is often used within quotes.
Unless people are just taking it to mean the top X percentile of today's models. Where X is an arbitrary low number.

For instance, what made the alphas of yesteryear, alphas? Different criteria than those of today.
Who changed the criteria?
When did yesteryear's alphas stop being alphas?

 

[Roadbike]

What Really Constitutes a Alpha Grade Pair Of Binoculars?
Perception. And possibly bias (unconscious or otherwise) about where products are manufactured.

Without a definitive set of metrics to define a standard, it is a near meaningless time based and subjective term. Which is why the term is often used within quotes.
Unless people are just taking it to mean the top X percentile of today's models. Where X is an arbitrary low number.

For instance, what made the alphas of yesteryear, alphas? Different criteria than those of today.
Who changed the criteria?
When did yesteryear's alphas stop being alphas?

The criteria I've noticed in this and many prior threads are price paid and status that comes from owning, and carrying binoculars from just three legacy European brands. The Alpha designation summarizes those criteria. I find the term to be distracting and useless when it comes to picking binoculars. And it can be a lightning rod. It's fine and fun to brag in a more subtle manner about one's high-end purchases. It may be time to consider a less divisive term or dispense with it entirely.

 

[pppppvvvv]

The criteria I've noticed in this and many prior threads are price paid and status that comes from owning, and carrying binoculars from just three legacy European brands. The Alpha designation summarizes those criteria. I find the term to be distracting and useless when it comes to picking binoculars. And it can be a lightning rod. It's fine and fun to brag in a more subtle manner about one's high-end purchases. It may be time to consider a less divisive term or dispense with it entirely.

It's true, I've gone many years, and seen and found many great birds and wildlife, without ever really acknowledging the term.

 

[Iceberg slim]

I think the 'Alpha bin' syndrome is interpreted differently across the world, but without a doubt in western Europe?, the big 3 reign supreme, not just because you'll not get much Beer money change out of 6K for the 3, but because of their ability to produce what Birders require, Crystal sharp image, and clarity of image, over 25-30 yrs going to take something equally brilliant to usurp them.
In The late 90's you'd be hard pressed to see anything but the Red dot adorning Bins, then Swaro upped their game with Els, and now Leica are arguably the best (imho), with Swarovski and Zeiss everywhere, and equally optically brilliant.
Their are a lot of optical tarts around, but no one wants to stand out from the crowd now do they....

 

[dries1]

There can only be one alpha, but there are quite a few premiums out there.

Andy W.