[FowlFan]

Was just poking around and noticed that all these three binoculars look very similar. The EO and Vortex are obviously the same binocular, but the ED3 looks very similar. These come from the same factory?
Anyone have any experience with either the EO or Vortex bin in reference to the ED3?

[FrankD]

Fowlfan,

Yes, I do believe that SteveC has owned or does own at least two of the three models you referenced. They are all very similar. My interpretation of the situation is that there was probably an independent "base" design of that particular model. Several companies decided to utilize it for obvious optical performance reasons.

I can say that the Zen Ray in particular is a refinement of that earlier design and is built in the Zen Ray factory in China. I cannot speak for the other two as I honestly do not know.

[Nixterdemus]

Atlas Optics Intrepid ED 8X42

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular...8x42-binocular

Talk about a dead ringer for the Zen Ray ED2 models. It's deja vu all over again.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by FowlFan

Was just poking around and noticed that all these three binoculars look very similar. The EO and Vortex are obviously the same binocular, but the ED3 looks very similar. These come from the same factory?
Anyone have any experience with either the EO or Vortex bin in reference to the ED3?

The EO Ranger and the Vortex Talon are thge same basic design as the ZEN ED 2. The Atlas Intrepid is the same basic glass as the ZEN ED 1, the Hawke Frontier, and the Promaster Infinity Elite ELX. The last bunch differ from the ED 2 class in that they have silver prism mirror coatings, and the ED, EO, and Vortex are dielectric.

The ZEN ED 3 is now coming from a different manufacturing facility, but the basic design remains the same. How that was done, I don't know. The ED 3 has a newer technology of dielectric coatings and there are some other differences in coatings as well. The QC on the ED 33 should be better and there should be less sample to sample variation in the ED 3. The ED 3 seems brighter and has better edge sharpness than the rest.

[jaymoynihan]

So essentially, the zr version 3 is similar to the eagle optics ranger ed it appears.

[FrankD]

I don't have one of the ED3 units on hand at the moment so I cannot do a side by side comparison with the pics of the Ranger ED online. However, based on memory, the focusing knob and lack of exposed central hinge would be two similarities. The eyecups look entirely different and I believe the eye relief numbers are different as well. Maybe similar bodies but different eyepieces?

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by jaymoynihan

So essentially, the zr version 3 is similar to the eagle optics ranger ed it appears.

Similar, but the ED 3 is likely to be brighter, probably due to to improved coatings. The ED 3 is brighter and seems to have better edges than the Talon, which is the only one I have compared. I've not seen a Ranger, but the assumption here is that it is a black Talon. The ED 3 is also brighter than the ED 2, which is far as I can tell, identical to the Talon. About the only way to tell a Talon from an ED 2 is to look at the label.

[jaymoynihan]

The newest Ranger and the newest Talon do look very similar. I would imagine the inards are similar to the ZR-ED 3, with some tweaks here and there, like Eagle Optics doing different eyepieces for instance. But i do not have any of these myself and it certainly could be otherwise. EO (which includes Vortex and Atlas) are probably the biggest customers of the Chinese factories in question, at this price level, given their market share. I am myself interested in the latest Ranger, or a ZR ED3 but cannot get one until i find independent reviews to aid in my decision. The only independent reviews i ever see re these brands, other than one of a prior ZR by that German fellow (and that centered around the flair problem), are hunter's reviews of Vortexs. Sigh.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Steve C

The EO Ranger and the Vortex Talon are thge same basic design as the ZEN ED 2. The Atlas Intrepid is the same basic glass as the ZEN ED 1, the Hawke Frontier, and the Promaster Infinity Elite ELX. The last bunch differ from the ED 2 class in that they have silver prism mirror coatings, and the ED, EO, and Vortex are dielectric.

The ZEN ED 3 is now coming from a different manufacturing facility, but the basic design remains the same. How that was done, I don't know. The ED 3 has a newer technology of dielectric coatings and there are some other differences in coatings as well. The QC on the ED 33 should be better and there should be less sample to sample variation in the ED 3. The ED 3 seems brighter and has better edge sharpness than the rest.

Steve,

Glad to hear about better QC. This was an issue with both ED2 samples I tried. These variations included:

Eyecups: One sample had a "floppy" eyecup.

Focusers: One sample's focuser was very stiff and had some backlash, the other was smooth and w/out backlash.

Diopter rings: My first sample's diopter ring came loose, and I couldn't get both EPs to focus at the same distance.

EPs: In both samples, there was significantly more field curvature in the left EP (tested this with both eyes). If both EPs in my second sample had as good edge performance as the right EPs (sharp to about 70%, vs 55% for the left ones, and then gradual fall off until about 10-15% from the edge), I probably would have kept it despite the excessive pincushion.

Focus past infinity: In my first sample, there was barely any focus past infinity. I often hit the end of the focus range when I quickly moved from close range to distance. The second sample didn't have this problem.

Of course, there was also difference in the flare control btwn samples, but that was a issue that was corrected in the second sample.

I'd like to see an ED4 with less pincushion. Enough to make panning smooth w/out inducing the "Funhouse Effect" of geometric distortions.

Even if this required reducing the FOV of the 7x36 from 9* to 8*, that would be fine with me.

Brock

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Steve,

I'd like to see an ED4 with less pincushion. Enough to make panning smooth w/out inducing the "Funhouse Effect" of geometric distortions.

Even if this required reducing the FOV of the 7x36 from 9* to 8*, that would be fine with me.

Brock

There won't be an ED 4. The ED 3 will remain in the lineup at its price point. The next item from ZR is the upcoming Prime HD, and it will occupy a higher price point, say $650ish. It is a different design and an attempt by ZR to significantly flatten the field and improve the edge performance. It will have considerably less pincushion than the ED 3. I think they decided to up their initial pincushion a little as there was evidently some rolling ball effect in the first production sample, so they increased the next trial a bit. They don't want any of the "funhouse effect" either. Maybe by the first of the year. Looks like the x36 will fade away with the change in production arrangements.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by Steve C

There won't be an ED 4. The ED 3 will remain in the lineup at its price point. The next item from ZR is the upcoming Prime HD, and it will occupy a higher price point, say $650ish. It is a different design and an attempt by ZR to significantly flatten the field and improve the edge performance. It will have considerably less pincushion than the ED 3. I think they decided to up their initial pincushion a little as there was evidently some rolling ball effect in the first production sample, so they increased the next trial a bit. They don't want any of the "funhouse effect" either. Maybe by the first of the year. Looks like the x36 will fade away with the change in production arrangements.

Steve:

Good to see ZR with some new offerings, and especially with the new Prime
series, I do hope they do well. This one may be one I would be happy with.

I am wondering how you would know there won't be an ED4, and that would be the midrange, as it seems there has been a new model or improvement
every year ?

Jerry

[Steve C]

I specifically asked Charles and that is what he told me. The QC issues that changed the manufacturing site necessitated a new design so they decided on a new name rather than a number. I think Frank touched this in his Zen Prime. HD thread.

[jaymoynihan]

I have been reading a fair number of posts regarding the mid-range in cost to low cost roofs of Chinese manufacturer. It seems every binocular company other than the Trinity (Z&L&S) are sourcing some or all models from there, or getting parts and assembling them elsewhere.
I am wondering about the following.
If you pay a somewhat higher price from a "name" brand (Eagle Optics, Vortex, Bushnell, Nikon...) You are, it appears to me, getting a higher level of mechanical fit/finish/reliability, in trade for a somewhat narrower FOV and a tad dimmer view than in the the ZR and others.
Is my perception of posts and "reviews" correct or not?

[FrankD]

You are, it appears to me, getting a higher level of mechanical fit/finish/reliability....

I take it that you are basing this part of the comment on Henry's post about the Zen ED3's?

[jaymoynihan]

Originally Posted by FrankD

I take it that you are basing this part of the comment on Henry's post about the Zen ED3's?

That prompted me to pose the question. But I have noticed a fair amount of focusing discussions and the like. It is not meant as a criticism.

Back a number of years ago Orion Telescope marketed the first Chinese sourced APO refractor (the Orion 80 ED, I own one ), that optically competed with the "alphas" in that niche. It's glass even got a very positive review in the Bible (i.e. Sky & Telescope Magazine). But the mechanical end left things to desire. In fact it spawned a cottage industry in 3rd party replacement focusers.
After it was introduced, a number of name refractor makers rolled out their own versions for a few hundred dollars more, with good mechanicals and higher fit and finish, but pretty much the same Chinese glass.

[FrankD]

I think I understand where you are coming from but wanted to clarify before commenting further.

Generally speaking, I have not found a difference in quality control/fit and finish between the brands you mentioned and lesser known companies. I have owned a variety of instruments from all of the manufacturers you mentioned. Out of that group I would not say that I have run into more mechanical or fit and finish issues with any particular brand (except for maybe something like Vanguard). I have seen quality control issues with all of the brands on your list.

The question, in my mind, then is whether or not this is an issue with their being of Chinese origin. I cannot say one way or the other. I have also purchased/used several instruments of Japanese origin during this same time period. I would not rate the quality control level any higher for these instruments. In other words, they have quality control issues as well.

I have also owned several European optics. Quality control issues are there with them as well though maybe not to the same degree. Keep in mind though that the European instruments costs were significantly higher.

My speculation on your observations is pretty straightforward. Some companies are more "in the spotlight" on these forums at the moment. Zen Ray is a perfect example. They have received a great deal of discussion because of their unique combination of price versus performance. Because of this any issues that may occur with their products are brought more to the attention to those of us that frequent these forums.

Just to illustrate this general issue further, other than the thread I posted earlier this week/last week on the Vixen Foresta porro, when have you seen the Vixen name mentioned with any type of regularity on these forums? That is rhetorical of course but I can answer that for you. I did a forum search for anything "Vixen binocular" related. The discussions actually do go back to 2005-2006 about one particular model or another but there aren't really any lengthy or frequent discussions not to mention reviews of any of their binoculars.

Any idea what the quality control or fit and finish level is on their products?

You get my point?

On a related note, I did purchase three of their bins lately and will be posting something shortly. Some good, some bad and some of it is actually quite exciting.

Just my thoughts on the issue. :-)