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

[Maljunulo]

You know, I was giving a lot of thought to this yesterday after your post and after I got finished laughing. And of course no disrespect, as I do believe you covered the foundation for the discussion of the conundrum of nailing jello to a tree , but I would like to ad a few things I think you left out.

You covered the jello, the tree and the nails, but you left out other needed informatio/data to come to a reasonable conclusion. We need to discuss the weather conditions as to temperature, humidity, where the tree is located and direct sunlight or shaded area. Let’s not forget the altitude from see level (or below, Holland) of the test tree and of course the testers themselves, who are they , who will choose them and how will they be vetted for bias.

I have instructed my office staff this morning to put together a 25 page (rough draft) of procedural guidelines for a preliminary review for the BF community to asses it viability’s. I will disseminate the information shortly in another post 🤭🤪😉.

i know silly and I high jacked my own OP.

You’re absolutely right, and every one of your points is valid.

Input such as yours is essential in this type of undertaking.

 

[Paultricounty]

Being a serious "GEAR HEAD" I just eat up threads like this one..Keep it up you guys..! Happy Friday the 13th from NW Ohio, USA.. Cheers..

You had to remind us, Friday the 13th. 🫣

 

[Paultricounty]

Thank you, MiddleRiver and Paul. I've already been thru. much of that, in terms of backgound info. and trying out models, despite the diffculty in getting my hands on (i.e. putting my eyes to) them. (BTW, lest someone asks, I'd like my location to be Anon., as you see on the left in my personal details!) I was looking for the updated specific info. on which my question focused. But useful, also from the post by Trinovid 8x32b, is the possibility of trying out a used older Leica Ultravid. Right now an annoyance is glare and CA when backlit in my Zeiss Conquest 10x32. I remember how well an Ultravid pocket I had did in that regard.

Referring to your post #193. To be more specific in answering your question, as to what is closest to the so called alpha binos, you already have one in the conquest. In my opinion any optic in the $1000 range fall into that category. You named two yourself, and I’d say the Genesis is real close. But there all about the same here. There’s really none that totally stand out from one another optically . I might ad another plug for the Genesis when it comes to CA, they stand out in that area. Forget my suggestion for the Leica Trinovid HD if your sensitive to CA.

The Leica Trinovid classic line stand out , but I put them in the Alpha class, but no rubber armor or water proofing/nitrogen sealed.

The next step in my opinion might be the previous era alphas in good used condition as suggested before. A used Ultravid is phenomenal glass. But again you may still be getting into more than $1000 for a good example.

Paul

Thank you, MiddleRiver and Paul. I've already been thru. much of that, in terms of backgound info. and trying out models, despite the diffculty in getting my hands on (i.e. putting my eyes to) them. (BTW, lest someone asks, I'd like my location to be Anon., as you see on the left in my personal details!) I was looking for the updated specific info. on which my question focused. But useful, also from the post by Trinovid 8x32b, is the possibility of trying out a used older Leica Ultravid. Right now an annoyance is glare and CA when backlit in my Zeiss Conquest 10x32. I remember how well an Ultravid pocket I had did in that regard.

 

[dries1]

The word alpha to me is geared more toward a dominant animal in a group of animals. Why it is used in the description of binoculars is beyond me.

 

[Paultricounty]

The word alpha to me is geared more toward a dominant animal in a group of animals. Why it is used in the description of binoculars is beyond me.

🤔 you got me Andy, I don’t know why either. I tried high grade, high end, best of best, above a dollar amount and there always somebody that doesn’t like the description word 🤪. I try my best to be congenial but they always step on me 😧.

 

[Ted Y.]

The word alpha to me is geared more toward a dominant animal in a group of animals. Why it is used in the description of binoculars is beyond me.

For a product, being an "alpha" version is being the first version released, not the best version, nor a superior one.

 

[The BulbMogul]

Ok I will get things fuming a bit and say this...usually most of the time the "MOST EXPESIVE" of any type of Optics or Camera Equipment is the best .. USUALLY.... I was at the NW Ohio Birding Seminar here in ohio and all the vendors were there including Zeiss and Leica etc etc but to me Swarovski was the top of the flood chain plus the NL Pure's are the most expensive set of Bins at the moment for birding etc.. So I ended up with two pairs of NL Pure's and a 115MM Swarovski Spotter,, No spotters can hold a candle to this bad boy..

 

[Maljunulo]

The word alpha to me is geared more toward a dominant animal in a group of animals. Why it is used in the description of binoculars is beyond me.

That’s only one out of n definitions, and just happens to be the one you think of first.

 

[The BulbMogul]

That’s only one out of n definitions, and just happens to be the one you think of first.

Top of the food chain and reigns supreme like Swarovski NL Pure's at the moment..

 

[dries1]

You mean flood chain right?

 

[Paultricounty]

For a product, being an "alpha" version is being the first version released, not the best version, nor a superior one.

🤭 that’s the definition as noun. Were using the word as adjective.

Alpha: socially dominant especially in a group of animals. We’re just leaving out socially and the animals and applying just the dominance in a group part, which sounds relatively reasonable to me. A group of binoculars that are optically the best designed with the best materials that give the best image quality, why is this have to be so difficult.

Maybe we need a separate discussion as to what should we refer to the high priced , highest quality glass and coating of a group of binoculars that separates them from lesser or lower quality optics.

Seems like the name is drawing more attention and discussion than the intended purpose of the OP.

 

[adhoc]

Thank you, Paul. You don't really have to put up my quote, however wise and witty, twice in your post!

I should have expanded on this: "Right now an annoyance is glare and CA when backlit in my Zeiss Conquest 10x32." That's not a personal emotional reaction. It really hinders or prevents the making out of detail in the field. Nor is it due to a quirk in my vision, as I have explained in the thread linked here, in several posts.

Variation in vision is another factor relevant to the topic of this thread. I have harangued this forum on the need for reviewers and commentators on binoculars to state their visual acuity, etc.

 

[lilcrazy2]

Being a serious "GEAR HEAD" I just eat up threads like this one..Keep it up you guys..! Happy Friday the 13th from NW Ohio, USA.. Cheers..

These threads always bring a smile to my face as well. When this one dies, rest assured it won't be long and another will spring forth. Not much different from the threads of 12 years ago, just different binos and members names. Some very level headed and astute observers on here, and some of the usual bias from others.

The biggest smile of the thread was the thought of nailing jello to a tree.

In my usage and testing of many different binos thru the years, I never have understood terms such as "the wow factor", or "pop and sparkle" that are often bandied about in discussions and comparisons of Alphas, sometimes even between top models.

In my mind, the only people I think of using these terms are the manufacturers and retailers as they sit around saying, wow, pop the sparkly, we just sold another bobby dazzler.

 

[CharleyBird]

Alpha is high grade? The highest grade of each category of binocular produced by each manufacturer?
Well I guess we know what Alpha is referring to generally, the top tiers of binocular production:

Bespoke
Luxury
Premium

The lowest tier I suppose would be Entry Level.

That's enough quibbling over semantics, time for breakfast with a spoon chosen to fit my hand and mouth almost perfectly.

 

[Paultricounty]

You'd better learn how to star test scopes before you say that. I haven't turned up a really good 115mm Swarovski lens module (by which I mean at least diffraction limited) and I don't know of anyone who

These threads always bring a smile to my face as well. When this one dies, rest assured it won't be long and another will spring forth. Not much different from the threads of 12 years ago, just different binos and members names. Some very level headed and astute observers on here, and some of the usual bias from others.

The biggest smile of the thread was the thought of nailing jello to a tree.

In my usage and testing of many different binos thru the years, I never have understood terms such as "the wow factor", or "pop and sparkle" that are often bandied about in discussions and comparisons of Alphas, sometimes even between top models.

In my mind, the only people I think of using these terms are the manufacturers and retailers as they sit around saying, wow, pop the sparkly, we just sold another bobby dazzler.

As I’m eating my jello, cherry , I’m trying to see if I can better relay what my OP was geared to discuss. I’ve also been into the optics hobby since the 1990’s, and have tried many of the upper end , highest quality , most expensive optics available. When it comes telescopes and eyepieces (oculars) even some of the older optics from the 1980’s seem to have as as good as the best today, Takahashi, teleView, TMB (when he was making them) Zeiss and others. And I have my optical opinions as to why this is. But when it comes to binoculars, it seems that over the last 10-15 years I see a marketable increase in , I dare to use the words sparkle and pop again, but a difference in the latest gear, that was not there in binos from previous generations going back all the way to the 1960‘s.

Whether it’s sparkle and pop or some other descriptive word, I see images that seem to come alive in the current batch of expensive, luxury, premium, highest grade (thank you Charleybird) binoculars that was not there prior to say 2000. I could say an optic made in the 60’s is not as good as an optic made in the 80’s or 90’s but none of the best of those generations brings that eye brain magic.

 

[henry link]

I thought I had deleted the post partially quoted above. Sorry, I had intended to stay far away from this thread. Then a particularly ridiculous statement finally got my goat. Please continue on with the luxury goods worship.

 

[Paultricounty]

I thought I had deleted the post partially quoted above. Sorry, I had intended to stay far away from this thread. Then a particularly ridiculous statement finally got my goat. Please continue on with the luxury goods worship.

It was the cherry jello, right 😄.

 

[The BulbMogul]

I thought I had deleted the post partially quoted above. Sorry, I had intended to stay far away from this thread. Then a particularly ridiculous statement finally got my goat. Please continue on with the luxury goods worship.

So you could not hold back any longer..? Oh my you caved in finally......

 

[Troubador]

The word alpha to me is geared more toward a dominant animal in a group of animals. Why it is used in the description of binoculars is beyond me.

Andy,
Some years ago, as far as I recall, the term alpha was used to categorise certain binocular brands, not models of binoculars. At the time these brands were (predictably) Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss, with a strong feeling in the USA that the term should also include Nikon. This categorisation was based on those brands' past history of innovation and the excellence of (some of) their products, but I have no idea of just when 'alpha' began to be used to categorise individual binocular models.

Lee

 

[dries1]

I still think the term alpha as a term used to describe an inanimate object is ridiculous. Personally I think it is idiotic.