-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
What Really Constitutes a Alpha Grade Pair Of Binoculars ? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter gcole
- Start date
dries1
Member
Consistent mechanical operation day to day with excellent optics. High quality materials that do not begin to degrade after a year. In the end however it is how one takes of their glass. Additionally, as I get older my eyes will no longer be able to discern between a premium and mid tier glass, I figure I will enjoy the premium glass now.
Life is short
Andy W.
Life is short
Andy W.
Go back several years and on Birdforum you would read about 'alpha brands' rather than 'alpha binos', and these brands were Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss (in alpha-betical order!). Gradually the context of 'alpha' shifted to include individual models perhaps driven by Leica and Zeiss offering lower priced models with lower levels of performance and therefore 'sub-alpha' and possibly also by Nikon whose offerings were mostly lower priced but had also introduced the undoubtedly 'alpha'- quality EDG models. So the term 'alpha' had to become more discriminating.
At least thats how I recall this development. As to what constitutes an 'alpha' model, I would say an alpha bino is an alpha when enough people agree that it is.
Lee
At least thats how I recall this development. As to what constitutes an 'alpha' model, I would say an alpha bino is an alpha when enough people agree that it is.
Lee
To me an alpha is the top tier models from the major elite manufacturers which include Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss and Nikon. So alphas would be the Swarovski NL and EL, Leica Noctivid and Ultravid HD +, Zeiss SF and Nikon EDG. Those are the true alphas. They have to costs at least $2K or more.
Last edited:
Good analysis.
Sadly, price is now a large driving factor as nobody wants to include a $1000 glass on the "Alpha" list when they've paid more than twice that to join the Alpha Club themselves. :t:
For example: It may be splitting hairs to exclude the latest Meostars from the Alpha list when they check nearly every box to most viewers. If Meopta had priced them at $2000, I feel they'd likely carry the Alpha label. Literally zero marketing effort from Meopta as well.
On the other hand, some feel it must be a European glass to earn entry in the Alpha list, regardless of what the actual glass performance is.
Nikon EDG's are also no-doubt an Alpha quality bin, but lack of Nikon marketing, and the fact they don't come from Europe largely kept them from being a really big player in the Alpha game.
It's all become a bit silly, yet anyone who is in the optics hobby is a player in the game. That being said, there has never been so many good choices in optics as right now.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
A good description of some of the properties expected for alpha binoculars, but brand prestige is also required to rank as an alpha. That's why Nikon is not admitted, nor Meopta.
--AP
jan van daalen
Well-known member
For me the A-brands are those mfrs who make their own products which are of outstanding quality.
That leaves from Swarovski all products, from Zeiss the Terra, Conquest and pocketline excluded, from Leica the Trinovid excluded, from Nikon only the WX and EDG, from Kowa the Highlander and XD Prominar Fluorite line and from Meopta the Meostar line.
Having said this, Swarovski is the only brand that does not outsource production. Seen in that light there is one Mother Alpha and five Alpha's.
Jan
That leaves from Swarovski all products, from Zeiss the Terra, Conquest and pocketline excluded, from Leica the Trinovid excluded, from Nikon only the WX and EDG, from Kowa the Highlander and XD Prominar Fluorite line and from Meopta the Meostar line.
Having said this, Swarovski is the only brand that does not outsource production. Seen in that light there is one Mother Alpha and five Alpha's.
Jan
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Agreed. My eyes are mostly the weak point now so that's why I don't comment much.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Mark
It's really a lot of things IMO. It's reputation. It's warranty/service. It's ones best guarantee of a quality product. It's offering the best technology/specifications currently available with constant improvement. Really right now it's just Swarovski and Zeiss. You think there would have been an SF if there were no EL? You think there would be a NL if there were no SF? Leica offers everything but true spec/technology improvement if I'm honest with myself.
Hi Andy, I am glad you responded first. I was having a Senior moment when I first started to type in this topic, having to edit/ restart over. .... you basically summed up my thoughts completely.
I am of the opinion a binocular can be categorized as being an Alpha grade even if it has the name Meopta. I would like to start this discussion with The brand “ Meopta's Meostar ” Meopta 8x32 B1, B1.1 and the not yet released B1.1 Plus as a example of being an Alpha Grade Binocular. I now currently own the 8x32 B1.1. Some members here have the opinion that the Meopta Meostar B1 or B1.1 are not quite Alpha or simply can not be a true Alpha Grade binocular because of what it cost. I can not explain how Meopta can sell this binocular at the price point it does but in my opinion the Meopta 8x32 B1.1 is an Alpha Grade Binocular despite what it cost.
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
An 'Alpha' binocular is a fictitious concept invented here at BirdForum. :eek!: :cat:
If Dennis has had and returned/sold a bin for any reason, then it doesn't qualify as an 'Alpha' ...... :-O
Mechanical performance, precision, durability, and sophistication of materials and design engineering (leading to all those things mentioned, along with light weight, balance, good ergonomics) are also important factors, along with optical design/performance.
Products have to reach market dictated quality benchmarks to successfully deliver on these parameters, and things like warranty and after-sales service (and the 'customer experience') also form part of the 'Alpha' mystique.
Basically a product cannot be weak in any of these areas. 'Alpha' bins would rank in the top decile of market offerings and historical performance.
I would argue that it takes a certain investment, core capability, and cost to do that consistently across individual models. Higher prices come with the territory and are subject to the forces of competition, market and barriers to entry.
Luxury, or Velben goods are another thing again, and there have been a few attempts to play in that space - though they are mainly styling and fashion exercises. These are distinct from the engineering 'halo' or flagship models - such as the Nikon WX, and even the Swarovski NL somewhat, which fall into the 'because we can' territory.
Chosun :gh:
WJC
Well-known member
201002
The “Alpha” binocular is not quantifiable and only exists between the ears of those in need of something to brag about or lust after.
“A wise man speaks when he has something to say.
A fool speaks when he has to say something.” —Plato
“ALPHA,” in the REAL world, ranks right up there with the “VINTAGE,” Zion Power-View, plastic-based, “20-280 power,” “day/night,” “auto-focus,” “military ZOOM” binoculars ... with ruby coatings, which seem to dominate Eagle Bait. Could someone point me to a country with a GNP of more than $4.18 that would provide a ZOOM binocular, a plastic binocular, an auto-focus binocular, a 280-power binocular with 60mm objectives to their military?! Yet, if you go to Eagle Bait, you can see this fraud being perpetrated on the terminally unwary from stem to stern.
Binocular forums exist on opinions. And that is as it should be. However, many people have offered their opinion on what constitutes an “Alpha” binocular but, just like currency, “Alpha” needs something universal and tangible to define the term. I think most of us could buy into the original concept, as Lee pointed out, that “Alpha” might refer to instruments from the BIG THREE and Nikon. But, all of those companies rebrand some units that don’t originate in the plants that for years were known for making the best.
Frankly, I am bewildered by so many folks, who already own some of the best binoculars on this—or any other—planet. [There was that one company on Neptune. But losing so many key personnel, they had to close.] This is especially true since so many of the “upgrades” touted by marketing people can’t be realized by the human eye/brain combination, anyway. From my perspective, some folks are just looking for a way to justify their wastefulness. But then, the little corporal took over a large part of the civilized world with only the power of his rhetoric!
Example: My Nikon 8x32 SE is now an “Alpha” binocular. When I bought it, it was just a great—my OPINION—binocular that I bought for a very good—also my OPINION—price.
So, what changed this more-than-adequate binocular into an “Alpha” binocular? ‘God, a bucket of pixie dust, or the stroke of Harry Potter’s wand? Nope! It was unfounded talk on BirdForum. But some people have tests to back up their opinions. Mine is as follows:
— Different tests performed at different times with different subjects having different ranges of accommodation for different visual acuities under different conditions will produce different results.
Yeah, yeah, I know ... back in my hole, now! :cat:
Bill
Last edited:
Why not Kowa or Meopta ?
Don’t tell that to the Meopta :C or Nikon fans :C I am sure their eyes think their seeing the same view that the Swarovski/Leica people are.
I recently picked up this same bino^^ in EuroHD trim and I agree. It compares favorably to any other 8x32 glass made today. Had it initially been priced higher by Meopta, perhaps the 'powers that be' would have bestowed an Alpha designation on it??
When you start to research, Kowa and Meopta are really in the optics game just as deep as the big 3 and Nikon. It seems they just have never spent the same marketing money on sport optics.
As far as spotting scopes for hunting go, Kowa is considered near the top of the game. Meopta scopes rate right up there with Swaro as well. It seems binoculars were almost a by-product for both of them and were stumbled upon by accident by the buying public.
Kowa suffers the same fate as Nikon in that they are located in the wrong country to be able produce Alpha products.
It's interesting that people only seem to class Alphas in the 8x42/32 and 10x42/32 formats. Ok, the 10x50 and 12x50 slip in with the ELS, but mostly it's the previous formats. But I've never heard the Zeiss Victory 8x25 or the SLC 15x56 being called Alphas, but they're arguably the best in their format. Also image stabalised binoculars, even the Canon 10x42, don't seem to carry the labell 'alpha'. So Alpha seems to be a very elite club with special rules, but they're by no means the best binoculars for what your own particular needs are.
Another factor that has likely held back several brands in their alpha quest is 'brand name recognition'. What do you think of when you say a brand's name? A brand like "Nikon" sells an entire price range, from department store, bubble pack $20 cheap-o's, all the way to alpha quality glass for $2000. The fact that 90% of their catalog is budget optics probably doesn't fare well in the eyes of Alpha judges.
Meanwhile, Swaro just doesn't sell any cheap optics. That thought embeds itself in reviews.
Meanwhile, Swaro just doesn't sell any cheap optics. That thought embeds itself in reviews.
Last edited:
Reputation.....name. Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss to the layman are Alpha products. Nikon, Kowa, Meopta, are not. The rest are not going to be in the running either by the layman's who only know the brand name and buy with that in mind, or....those of us who know better and can sift beyond the name brand recognition for the true alpha gems and sub-alpha prices..... Meostar, ....Kowa, some Nikons... This goes for bins and scopes.
Of course even for those who truly go beyond just the name brand, most likely will admit that the NL's now.... SF's are tops, followed by others. Cost has made that divide along with some pretty good products.
Of course even for those who truly go beyond just the name brand, most likely will admit that the NL's now.... SF's are tops, followed by others. Cost has made that divide along with some pretty good products.
Also depends on time... an “alpha” of a decade or two ago is likely not an alpha any longer though it’s not changed... Use the experience of the forum to help rank different models by criteria you care about and then buy the model where your ranking and your wallet intersect. For the majority of us there will always be “more better” out there, who cares, get out and enjoy the views you get with the bins you’ve got!
Peter
Peter
Similar threads
