Why is Alpha better than high grade. (1 Viewer)

[Richard D]

I suspect most (all?) users would agree that "Alpha" images are 'better' ...... If compared to other non-IS bins.

However, the level of difference (1% or 10% is subjective) and the emotion resulting from this small difference needs to be tempered with logic.

As I note, to me (subjectively) I could argue that IS is 50% 'better'...... because it has been repeatedly "proven" that the best Alpha can't compete with an IS bin image under most circumstances.
Thus, I can't see why I would buy an Alpha?

Not to be provocative (🤔), but I propose that currently non-IS bins made by big names that cost £2000+ are now re-christened 'Betas'' and only IS bins are allowed to be called 'Alphas' ...... because they are better 👍

IS has one advantage over high quality conventional bins - less shake. To my mind In respects of ergonomics they're mostly awful, build quality isn't generally great, life expectancy of electronics is generally poor, you're reliant on batteries (how long do they last in sub-freezing conditions?). Optically those I've tried haven't been good - strange artefacts, distortion and CA - not a pleasant experience. The pair I tried also took a few vital seconds to settle.


I'm sure they are getting better and will continue to get better, but they're not there yet for me.

 

[exup]

I think @yarrellii seems to best capture the situation.......in my terms.

I can buy anything (not trying to be a smart axxx) ...... but if I can buy 'Alpha' glass with the addition of IS thrown in for free in a Canon 10x42L ...... Why would I consider £1000 extra for a bin that performs worse?

I don't have any 'Alphas'' today.

Do any of you chaps have a 10x42L and have you done a back to back comparison with any 'Alphas'?

 

[Paultricounty]

I was comparing optics at Cabela's last year (Conquest, Trinovid, Razor, Meostar, MHG) and the salesman kept asking me to compare them to the Vortex Viper, claiming that it was just as good if not better than any of the binoculars I was looking through.

viper, good glass!! I’ve owned and or a tribe everyone you mentioned and others minus the meostar.

A lot of things to consider an unpack here. Being in sales my whole life and a little background in litigation law , I conjecture quite a bit in between the lines there. First I could ask what is the level of expertise of the sales person, what is the mark up and profit margins for the above mentioned binoculous, do they get percentage profit for moving numbers of Vortex equipment, does the sale person on that specific pair of binoculars and never really spent time with the others other than in the store where it’s very difficult to tell the difference. I own or have tried extensively the binoculars you mentioned and others, other than the meostar. And I can tell you for certain that there is a optical quality edge, substantial in my opinion with at least four of the five that you mentioned.

When I said in my last post, that if we were all rich and went into a store and said to the salesman, give me the best binoculars you got, it was a little bit rhetorical, you didn’t get that😉

Do you think if the salesperson was Lee, grandpa, Dries1, Denco or a dozen other people here would hand you the viper😜🤭.. Maybe if the manager told him push the vipers 🙃

Paul

 

[exup]

I'm sure they are getting better and will continue to get better, but they're not there yet for me.

My purchases are recent and there seem to be reports that newer versions are better than earlier..... Perhaps faster FPGAs or improved firmware??

 

[Paultricounty]

IS has one advantage over high quality conventional bins - less shake. To my mind In respects of ergonomics they're mostly awful, build quality isn't generally great, life expectancy of electronics is generally poor, you're reliant on batteries (how long do they last in sub-freezing conditions?). Optically those I've tried haven't been good - strange artefacts, distortion and CA - not a pleasant experience. The pair I tried also took a few vital seconds to settle.


I'm sure they are getting better and will continue to get better, but they're not there yet for me.

That’s absolutely my point, they’re almost not comparable in anyway to premium non-IS. The only people mostly who are saying there better are all the ones that have I S and likely don’t have the premiums 🤪. They are getting better, they’re getting a lot better over the last 10-15 years, they’ve come a long way electronically and with the L version, optically.

 

[exup]

That’s absolutely my point, they’re almost not comparable in anyway to premium non-IS. The only people mostly who are saying there better are all the ones that have I S and likely don’t have the premiums 🤪. They are getting better, they’re getting a lot better over the last 10-15 years, they’ve come a long way electronically and with the L version, optically.

Yes, so who has objectively (!), compared recent IS with recent £2000+ kit ?

I don't want sales pitch (or fanboy pitch)....

@yarrellii is the only poster that seems to be able to do a back to back.

If I thought alphas were really better than IS, I would probably have a box of them ....

But, Mr Spock needs objective assessments .....

 

[exup]

I believe Roger Vine is a well respected optics aficionado.

His review of the 12x36 iii IS bin is one of the influences that triggered me to buy it.

The magic button .....is magic 😁

Roger has significant experience of IS and many Alphas .....his reviews seems objective and well balanced.

 

[Troubador]

@Truabador

Think I recognize that pointy peak.

That is the island of Rum taken from Portuairk on the tip of Ardnamurchan.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

I see what your saying about you/we can’t see anything more with the premium than the very good (conquest, Genesis). See if this rings a bell or if you experience this. You’re observing some object, whether it’s a bird or maybe some moss on a fallen tree, with the Genesis, and it’s a lovely sharp image. You switch to the SF and you may or may not notice that bump in quality , but then you see something on that birds wing, maybe a shine or A slightly different color to one feather, but you didn’t see with the genesis, or the moss on the bark of the tree seems to have a darker spot. And it’s all very clear, then you switch back to the Genesis and you say to yourself there it is. So you didn’t see it right away in the very good, but it discerned itself in the premium, it allowed you to see something that was always there in the Genesis but popped out for you to notice it in the SF. 😄

Paul

Yes I recognise that and it has happened to me too.

Lee

 

[exup]

That is the island of Rum taken from Portuairk on the tip of Ardnamurchan.

Cheers Lee ...... I tried to use an OS map and triangulate to ID it ..... was harder than I expected ...LOL

 

[Brink]

viper, good glass!! I’ve owned and or a tribe everyone you mentioned and others minus the meostar.

A lot of things to consider an unpack here. Being in sales my whole life and a little background in litigation law , I conjecture quite a bit in between the lines there. First I could ask what is the level of expertise of the sales person, what is the mark up and profit margins for the above mentioned binoculous, do they get percentage profit for moving numbers of Vortex equipment, does the sale person on that specific pair of binoculars and never really spent time with the others other than in the store where it’s very difficult to tell the difference. I own or have tried extensively the binoculars you mentioned and others, other than the meostar. And I can tell you for certain that there is a optical quality edge, substantial in my opinion with at least four of the five that you mentioned.

When I said in my last post, that if we were all rich and went into a store and said to the salesman, give me the best binoculars you got, it was a little bit rhetorical, you didn’t get that😉

Do you think if the salesperson was Lee, grandpa, Dries1, Denco or a dozen other people here would hand you the viper😜🤭.. Maybe if the manager told him push the vipers 🙃

Paul

This is just a silly thing to fixate on. Why do we needs class levels or rankings of binoculars, and why should anybody be in agreement about them? I am quite confident that if most individuals were to compare all of the aforementioned (alpha or otherwise classified) binoculars without being able to tell which device they were looking through, the results would not be nearly as obvious or orderly as you suggest.

And yes, the Vipers were fine, but a step behind most of the others on that list.

I don't think I'd last too long in an optics store with some of the regulars around here behind the desk. No offense intended, but I could only stomach so much prattling on about allbinos.com rankings while trying out binoculars.

 

[Troubador]

If you replace 'Genesis' with 'Alpha' and replace 'SF' with 'IS bin' .... then we are on the same wavelength 👍

I have tried IS binos and I just don't find them a pleasure to use, at all, and they don't cure all bino shake e.g the buffeting or the shakes of a gusting wind.
I don't say they don't have their own strengths and talents but they are not for me.

Lee

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes, so who has objectively (!), compared recent IS with recent £2000+ kit ?

I don't want sales pitch (or fanboy pitch)....

@yarrellii is the only poster that seems to be able to do a back to back.

If I thought alphas were really better than IS, I would probably have a box of them ....

But, Mr Spock needs objective assessments .....

Considering you’re not a fan boy, I think you’d be the best person to go out and get yourself a box, even a small box of them, and you do the assessment objectively. And let us know You’re detailed testing observations and . I wait in anticipation. 🤣

Here's an example that may be relevant, even though it's only comparing today's alpha with yesterday's. After getting the 10x32 HD+ I spent some time comparing it carefully with the trusty BN, precisely to decide how it was really an improvement. Focusing was a bit smoother. Saving a bit of weight was nicer in theory than in practice, as the BN may be more stable. Dielectric coatings and HD glass made it a bit brighter in poor light, but that was barely noticeable. There was something about the image quality though... improved microcontrast or texture, not sure quite what the right term is. And even color: looking at a grey granite rock face, I could see subtle differences between striations that were hardly noticeable in the BN. And this despite the excellence of the BN in the first place. There is always room for improvement, even in respects one might not have imagined, and together, even small ones add up.

Did I like this? Yes. Is everyone I hand the HD+ to for a view so immediately impressed that they comment on them? Yes. Would I want to argue to a skeptic that it's worth the expense of upgrading? No.... but a further benefit was that the BN became my wife's primary bin, replacing the old Dialyt I detest using in a pinch. These decisions are purely a matter of individual choice. If you feel a need to justify them, or mock anyone else's, you have a problem.

And that’s comparing them to the BN , which is some pretty great glass. Good read.

Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

All optics incorporate one or more compromises, which become more numerous and more severe as we move downward in price.

When you shop in a certain price range, you must accept the compromises consistent with that tier.

All else is haggling over marginal differences within a tier, and claims that the next tier up isn’t really “worth” the difference in price.

(see line three below)

 

[exup]

you’re not a fan boy, I think you’d be the best person to go out and get yourself a box, even a small box of them, and you do the assessment objectively. And let us know You’re detailed testing observations and . I wait in anticipation. 🤣

That's what I am trying to avoid.

I am a bit tight and don't like to light the log burner using £50 notes ....LOL

@yarrellii and Roger Vine, together with some others from CN seem to have done the comparison and the conclusion seems to be consistent.

However, I am open minded enough to listen to other objective views.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think @yarrellii seems to best capture the situation.......in my terms.

I can buy anything (not trying to be a smart axxx) ...... but if I can buy 'Alpha' glass with the addition of IS thrown in for free in a Canon 10x42L ...... Why would I consider £1000 extra for a bin that performs worse?

I don't have any 'Alphas'' today.

Do any of you chaps have a 10x42L and have you done a back to back comparison with any 'Alphas'?

I think Richard D summed it up perfectly.

You said that if you thought Alpha was better you would buy a box of them. How can you ask the question why would I consider an extra thousand dollars for binoculars that perform worse when you haven’t done that comparison?

I think this is getting a little redundant, I’m out. 😆✌🏼

 

[Richard D]

That's what I am trying to avoid.

I am a bit tight and don't like to light the log burner using £50 notes ....LOL

@yarrellii and Roger Vine, together with some others from CN seem to have done the comparison and the conclusion seems to be consistent.

However, I am open minded enough to listen to other objective views.

You're not going to get fully objective views - you can't objectively measure ergonomics, or what people find pleasing. Objectively, if you put the IS bins through tests for chromatic aberation, coma, other distortions, base resolution etc. against a top priced conventional binocular then the current IS models will undoubtedly fall short, but I understand that's not why people buy IS.

In terms of spending money - most high end conventional binoculars will be fixed for free for 10 years, with economical repairs available for at least 10-20 further years, and there's not much that can go wrong with them. As far as I'm aware none of the IS manufacturers offer more than 2-5yr warranties and if the electronics fail in 10 yrs you've probably got something obsolete. Re-sale value is very different too.

IS is a perfectly valid choice, but it's not intrinsically better for everyone.

 

[exup]

IS is a perfectly valid choice, but it's not intrinsically better for everyone.

Yes, I understand the arguments.

This thread looked interesting...... it seemed to be the place to see the arguments why "Alpha" 'classed' bins are better than other options.

I, like many, would like to hear these arguments. If they were convincing, then I would place orders. So far they aren't.

I was provocative by pushing IS bins were 'better'. This was based on the comparisons that were readily available.
A good example is from Roger Vine. He covers advantages and shortcomings against quality optics.

Life and warranty are factors yes, but it is up to the individual to weight these factors against image delivery.

For my primary use case ....... Long range, hand held viewing in dry conditions, I remain to be convinced there is a better solution than IS.

 

[yarrellii]

Not to beat a dead horse with this, but in my opinion it is easy to forget that using a tool to see something closer boils down to this simple, sad an ugly truth. Let me give you a silly example.

Say we make a "binoculars duel" (spaghetti western music here; Sergio Leone, cha-chan).

You choose your weapon among the best "alpha", 8x42 NL, SF, NV, you name it, your 3000 $ alpha that has all the bells and whistles.
I take my lousy, squeaking, plasticky 500 € Canon IS 8x20.

We stand in a line and agree to focus on that far away bird/object and, just like in a western movie, we "draw" our weapons and point to the said bird/object in order to see what it is. Simple as this: with the 8x20 I will be able to see things you can't with a 3000 $ alpha.

Then if we go selecting birds that are further and further way, there will be a moment when you will be unable to tell... but the 8x20 IS will show the detail.

It is a sad and ugly truth (it's "ugly" in part because the image will be ugly compared to the lovely image of the alpha 😁).

And, not only that; continuing with the duel example. Given that IS takes away the shaking/tremor, magnification doesn't count like if comparing non-IS, so that I could actually use a 12x IS, heck, I could even singlehandle a 12x (pretty useless with non-IS) while holding my bourbon on the other hand... and yet see way more detail than with any non IS 8x, 10x, let alone 12x.

Well, that was a bit of a joke (and you know that in every joke there's a grain of joke), but seriously, what I was trying to convey before is just that. Like @Maljunulo said, every optics has a set of compromises (size, weight, price, etc.) and IS binoculars incorporate an ennnnnormous set of compromises (terrible ergonomics, need for batteries, bulk, etc.). I understand they're a pretty big pill to swallow. However, as in the above mentioned duel, if my life depended on identifying a bird at a single glance... I would never, ever, ever take an alpha, instead I'll grab a lousy 500 € plastic appliance made in Taiwan, because it simply fulfills better the ultimate goal of binoculars: it shows me more, it is able to bring closer what is far away in a way no alpha can.

As I said, using IS has made me re-think optics. What do I want when I see something far away on a branch, or hidden in a bush, or among the clouds? I want to look at it closer, and IS do just that better than non-IS, be it alpha, beta, delta, gamma or omega. The ugly truth is that many IS (I've never tried the Canon 10x42 L ) do it in a pretty poor way in terms of image quality, but they do it.

I remember an old debate between effective vs efficient. Top of the range binoculars are refined to an incredible extent, they're efficient in what they do. But IS binoculars are effective: they do "what" needs to be done better than any other binoculars (always talking about handheld, which is how the majority use their "birding" binoculars, say 8x42, 8x32, 10x42, etc.). But then there's the "how". Well, my Canon IS III 12x36 show worrying amounts of CA, the image is soft, they have the ergonomics of a potato... but they will eat an NL for breakfast and an SF for supper when it comes to ID a bird and appreciating detail. And if they're still hungry, they'll have a NV for desert.

That's why I said that IS somehow break the rules of what we've been used to talk about. We could discuss if CA is better controlled in the NL or SF, we could discuss if the FOV of the NL is better corrected, if the image through a Noctivid is crystalline... and in the meantime, like the tortoise of the tale, the IS will show more detail than any of those.

I'm not saying IS is better or worse, just saying that it incorporates something different (with an ennnnormous set of drawbacks), and if we are talking about why the top of the range binoculars are so good as they are, it could be interesting to acknowledge that there are way cheaper binoculars offering superior performance in probably the most important area: showing your more.

(By the way, whenever I've been using my Canon IS 12x36 intensively for a few weeks and I grab my 8x32 EL SV is like my eyes are going to a spa So, not to be taken too seriously, just sparkling conversation).

 

[dries1]

To each their own as it should be.
Very good explanation yarrellii.