• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Cabelas Outfitter 10x42 HD - What are they REALLY? (1 Viewer)

either get the one for the best price, or the one with the best warranty, or the one with the most recognizable name.....your choice
maybe you can get lucky with best price, warranty,and name all in one.....better yet...the one that makes you a chick magnet....:smoke:
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Almost a dead ringer for the Eagle Optics Platinums, but those are polycarb body and I'm pretty sure these Cabelas Outfitters are magnesium. Also these are made in Japan while the Rangers are made in China...

The search continues.

I think you asked a perfectly reasonable question and well done Bruce for the detective work in coming up with the answer, and thanks to Pete for stepping in to help out too.

It is easy to talk about 're-branding' and 'clones' but by no means all of these binos fall into these categories. Take a look at specs and you can find that some brands have gone for wider fields of view, or increased eye relief, or added ED glass and so on. If this seems to be product development by 'baby steps' and of not much significance this devalues the brand's attempt to align its products with its customers' needs and also ignores that sometimes major brands proceed in that way too. For example Leica's development from BA thru BN to Ultravid and Ultravid HD Plus took this evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) approach and some would say that Zeiss's HT is a souped-up FL.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Thanks Troubador.

One reason I took a chance on these is they are Cabelas brand, with the box. So if anything ever goes wrong with them, I can return them to Cabelas. No, they can't fix them, but they will take them back. That's one nice thing about Cabelas brand anything.

A few months ago, I was flyfishing with some buddies and managed to break a Cabelas Three Forks flyrod that I've had for 20 years now. It was not an expensive flyrod, but it lasted me a long time and I caught a lot of fish with it in those 20 years. I figured I'd have to replace it myself until my buddy said "It's a Cabelas brand, they will replace it for free." I had never considered that, so the next trip I made to Cabelas, I took the broken flyrod with me and sure enough, they offered me the replacement value (that particular rod hadn't been in stock for a dozen years) with no questions asked.

Something to think about when you see a Cabelas brand on another binocular you might be considering. ;)

Using my Cabelas Outfitters yesterday, I feel like I got an absolute steal on these. The Collimation is absolutely perfect - and that is always a major concern for me as I am very sensitive to any amount of misaligned barrels. I watched a Northern Harrier for a good two or three minutes yesterday and when I took the bins away from my eyes, there was NO adjustment period at all. So grateful for that!
 
Just snagged a minty pair of these off feebay for a song. Optically they are outstanding. Very solid construction with great FOV and eye relief.

Now I'm trying to figure out what they really are. Anyone want to hazard a guess?

They look like my 8x42 Vixen Apex Pro. These were also known as the Celestron Regal in the US, the Ace Avian F in the UK, and several other names I forgot. In some markets (South Africa and Scandinavia) Kamakura sold them under their own name.
 
They look like my 8x42 Vixen Apex Pro. These were also known as the Celestron Regal in the US, the Ace Avian F in the UK, and several other names I forgot. In some markets (South Africa and Scandinavia) Kamakura sold them under their own name.

This might be the very point that Bill tried to make.
 
This might be the very point that Bill tried to make.

Bingo. That texture on the prism housings was a dead giveaway. To me, it seemed the original question was trying to narrow things down to ONE other model and I knew that was going to be impossible—50 ... maybe. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
I think you asked a perfectly reasonable question and well done Bruce for the detective work in coming up with the answer, and thanks to Pete for stepping in to help out too.

It is easy to talk about 're-branding' and 'clones' but by no means all of these binos fall into these categories. Take a look at specs and you can find that some brands have gone for wider fields of view, or increased eye relief, or added ED glass and so on. If this seems to be product development by 'baby steps' and of not much significance this devalues the brand's attempt to align its products with its customers' needs and also ignores that sometimes major brands proceed in that way too. For example Leica's development from BA thru BN to Ultravid and Ultravid HD Plus took this evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) approach and some would say that Zeiss's HT is a souped-up FL.

Lee

All well and good but it is rarely the selling ''brand'' doing any of the upgrading or spec. changes - these are just minor variations implemented at the big Kamakura factory where all these clones get made in the 1st place. When the market finally crashes most of these rebranders will blow away like dust in the wind.
 
All well and good but it is rarely the selling ''brand'' doing any of the upgrading or spec. changes - these are just minor variations implemented at the big Kamakura factory where all these clones get made in the 1st place. When the market finally crashes most of these rebranders will blow away like dust in the wind.

I always use the example with cars.
There is one manufacturer and with hot wheels it is brand A. In a certain color it is brand B. Airco included makes it brand C. Hot wheels and Airco makes it brand D etc.
In basic it's the same thing.

Jan
 
All well and good but it is rarely the selling ''brand'' doing any of the upgrading or spec. changes - these are just minor variations implemented at the big Kamakura factory where all these clones get made in the 1st place. When the market finally crashes most of these rebranders will blow away like dust in the wind.

It depends what you mean by 'rarely' James and what experience you have to back that up.

I only have personal experience of two of these brands and one has binos made and upgraded according to their own specification requirements and the other goes as far as specifying materials, surface finishes and manufacturing methods of the mechanical parts of their binos.

From industry sources I am informed that it is very normal for a brand to define a full specification and ask a manufacturer to quote to produce it and then after a time when they need to refresh their product range they might upgrade aspects of the spec such as better ED glass.

And as I pointed out this is not so different from what Leica has done in recent years or what Zeiss did from FL to HT.

And yes I guess some brands just pay for new armour and logos and have them stuck on existing models. I say I 'guess' this because I have no idea what proportion of models begin life like this, and I 'guess' nobody knows the answer to this.

Have any of these brands come up with anything new? Well, Opticron was the first to launch a travelscope ie a scope with a bino-sized objective, and that has grown to be a permanent feature of the market now. Kowa has even made one with their famous fluorite crystal lenses. And its a long time since the alphas actually launched something breaking new ground. Leica's Perger porro is the latest I can think of but that seems to be confined to its rangefinder niche. Prior to that would be water repellent coatings but that was launched by Zeiss Vision for spectacles and I believe Bushnell was actually the first bino business to apply it to binoculars.

Lee
 
I always use the example with cars.
There is one manufacturer and with hot wheels it is brand A. In a certain color it is brand B. Airco included makes it brand C. Hot wheels and Airco makes it brand D etc.
In basic it's the same thing.

Jan

Hi, Jan:

Also, it can apply to more than binoculars, in the Binocular Business. To most American dealers, Masaki Kamakura is ... “Mark.” :cat:

Bill
 
This might be the very point that Bill tried to make.

I understood Bill's point just fine. It's all good.

It just didn't help me achieve my goal is all. Others did though, which I appreciate. I find it very interesting and somewhat useful to know what other brands and models are essentially the same product.

I wonder if the "HD" designation on my Cabelas Outfitters means anything?
 
I understood Bill's point just fine. It's all good.

It just didn't help me achieve my goal is all. Others did though, which I appreciate. I find it very interesting and somewhat useful to know what other brands and models are essentially the same product.

I wonder if the "HD" designation on my Cabelas Outfitters means anything?

YOU SAID: I find it very interesting and somewhat useful to know what other brands and models are essentially the same product.

And that, my friend, was all I was trying to do and in a manner that was proven to have the best chance of being remembered. One might think that certain important pieces of information would make it around the internet pretty quickly. Alas, no!

I have made that point as often as occasion would allow since water was in the experimental stages. However, only in the last few years have people started to admit that Bushnell, Leupold, Celestron, TASCO (and a hundred others) don’t make their own binoculars and Kamakura, Katsuma, and a handful of others really do. But, as pointed out in my book, some fallacies have been believed and nurtured so long it requires a “50 megaton approach” to even scratch the surface. Some people are so in love with their own erroneous opinions they are eager to turn a deaf ear to facts that don’t support those opinions.

From the book:

...A Story: I once saw a question on a writer’s forum about how many spaces should be used after a period. The answers included: what “I’ve always used …,” what “I think looks best …,” what “I always heard …,” and what “my 8th-grade teacher said ....” With this having gone on post after post, I took pity and butted in. Please remember, these were people who presented themselves as professional writers.

I offered references from the Chicago Manual of Style, with additional information from the Associated Press Style Guide. Yet when I walked away from the forum for the last time there had been over 50 more responses. There was more of: what “I’ve always used …,” what “I think looks best …,” etc.

It seemed clear to me those people weren’t really looking for the helpful information they claimed; that certainly wouldn’t have taken days of discussion. I’m confident they just wanted to chat and circulate their own opinions. Being right or wrong had little place in the issue. The same can be said about binocular forums. An important question might be answered by someone quoting a renowned authority in the pertinent field only to have the quote ignored so the questioner can get swiftly back to the opinions of well-read, armchair speculators.”

YOU ALSO SAID: I wonder if the "HD" designation on my Cabelas Outfitters means anything?

I have no idea. But, as long as the consumer remains willingly gullible there will always be charlatans to relieve them of the weight of the coinage in their pockets.

There are 8 levels of Japanese Industrial Standards for waterproofing things, including optical instruments (page 42 of the book). Quality binoculars have a JIS rating of level 6 through 8. But, LEGALLY, manufacturers can claim their product is “waterproof” if they have only a rating to level 1. Does the average consumer know that ... HE DOES NOT—even some who want to be revered as an optics guru. And, what about the Chinese? If you have the money, they have the product. It should also be remembered several American dogs died as a result of eating Chinese produced “dog food” and some were found putting Melamine Powder (C3H6N6) into “baby food” as a cheap filler.

That’s where I try to butt in with realities in a way I know has the best chance of being remembered. The vast majority understand—some, however, are quick to NOT understand and criticize. Why do I do it? I have offered several examples of attaboys. The following just came in from a British member of CN, just yesterday: “personally I enjoyed your style of writing, truthful analysis, and willingness to call a spade a spade.”

I frequently find myself in somebody’s crosshairs. Unless they want to be militant to build their own optical guru fiefdom, I usually just consider the source and offer what I did as I did, with no rudeness or flippancy intended.

Can we be friends now? :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
I appreciate good honest answers like that. Thanks.

Thank you. “Good, honest” answers like that are easy to grasp but often do very little to state the whole story. I believe my prior “good, honest” answer, with which you chose to find fault, was considerably more useful for your stated purpose. I didn’t mean to force anything upon you; I welcome you to believe anything you choose. But ...

Page xii

“Bill Cook doesn’t tell you what you want to hear; he tells you what you need to know.”—CN Member

Cheers,

Bill
 
Bill, I can see how writing a book could be easy for you.

So thankful that you welcome my open mind. Whew.

In the navy, open minds were not an issue. During 21 years at Captain’s, and as a freelance tech before the navy, I heard so many notions and “facts” about binoculars that came straight from the Hogwarts School of Advanced Optical Nonsense.

I try to help where I can. But getting to the realities of the matter in a meaningful way has a proclivity for giving some a wrong impression. But, if it strikes home to more, it’s worth it. And, I have found, through years of TRYING to help, that the sledgehammer approach usually works much better than the ball peen. That is why the National Inquirer is the country’s number one selling ... “newspaper.”

Bill
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top