New bushnell elites (1 Viewer)

Hi,
Just wondering if the elite EDs about at the moment are the same as the E2s?
They appear to have the same body shape as the E2s, but not called E2 anymore.
I'm considering purchasing a pair (of 10x42), but seams like there is a lot of bad press concerning the E2s, where the pre-E2 elites had nothing but praise.

Anyone tried these recently / have a pair?

Thanks

Gareth

gazlang said:

Hi,
Just wondering if the elite EDs about at the moment are the same as the E2s?
They appear to have the same body shape as the E2s, but not called E2 anymore.
I'm considering purchasing a pair (of 10x42), but seams like there is a lot of bad press concerning the E2s, where the pre-E2 elites had nothing but praise.

Anyone tried these recently / have a pair?

Thanks

Gareth

Click to expand...

I don't know whether they're the same, but based on specs and price it's apparent that this latest Elite is so in name only. It appears they've decided to run the Elite name into the ground, exploiting the last wisp of whatever marketing power it might still hold--I doubt much. It's a sorry association to make to the original product which was ground-breaking in being designed with the input of birders, and which was a great binocular, especially once upgraded with phase coatings. The waterproof successor design was daring but not as revolutionary since the euro brands were catering to birders by then, but it was still a fine binocular, especially for butterflying.

--AP

Thanks,
I had a look on the Bushnell website, and when you click to "buy now" the product title is "Elite E2"

Think I'll try test these before I buy!

Since Ocean Partners bought Bushnell, it's been in a downhill slide. It's a metals conglomerate that's expanding its holdings and doesn't seem to grasp the finer points, ramifications & vicissitudes of quality optics design.....sad. The last Elite I had a chance to try before the takeover was a 10x43 Elite, and it was fine indeed. I stated once before that had I not just jumped over the side and bought a 10x FL, that Bushnell woulda left the store with me, posthaste....

I since tried an E2 in 10x and found it to be decidedly midpack, or lower. It appears that the best they have to offer these days is the Ultra HD, which by reviews here and elsewhere, seems to be passable.

All this bad mouthing of Bushnell is unwarranted and mistaken. The e2 is not the same as the ED which is a completely different and newer design, crafted around extra low dispersion glass which focuses different colored light to a point better. It is a fluoride glass like that used in the Zeiss Victory FL series. To tell the ED and e2 apart, the ED version says "ED prime glass" on the port (left facing front) ocular. I have the Bushnell 10x42ED, the Bushnell open bridge 12.5x50 and the B & L 8x42 (all made in Japan) and the Bushnells are better by far than the B & L and mostly meet or in some regards exceed the Swarovski EL 10x42 WB and the Nikon 8x32 HG LX which I also have. I don't have and have not looked through the e2, but do say all this bad mouthing of Bushnell should stop. A few years ago, Bird Watcher's Digest rated the Bushnell open bridge 8x and 10x optically on par with the comparables of Zeiss Victory FL, the Leica Ultravid HD and the Swarovski EL WB's, but for a slightly narrower field of view. I can personally tell you the stunning, three dimensional, and up close view of the Busnell 12.5x50 dwarfs and renders puny, flat and less brilliant the views from my Swarovski EL 10x42 WB and my Nikon 8x32 HG LX. The differences are substantial. Too, the 10x42 ED Bushnell more than holds its own against that Swarovski and Nikon, too.

spyglass said:

Since Ocean Partners bought Bushnell, it's been in a downhill slide. It's a metals conglomerate that's expanding its holdings and doesn't seem to grasp the finer points, ramifications & vicissitudes of quality optics design.....sad. The last Elite I had a chance to try before the takeover was a 10x43 Elite, and it was fine indeed. I stated once before that had I not just jumped over the side and bought a 10x FL, that Bushnell woulda left the store with me, posthaste....

I since tried an E2 in 10x and found it to be decidedly midpack, or lower. It appears that the best they have to offer these days is the Ultra HD, which by reviews here and elsewhere, seems to be passable.

Click to expand...

The Bushnell Elite E2 is priced at $419 at binoculars.com so it's supposed to be "midpack" and was not designed to be competitive with top o' the line Bushnell/B&L Elite. But needles to Bushnell marketing execs for trying to upgrade the bins' status by giving it the "Elite" moniker. They did the same thing to the 7x26 Custom.

It's like Nikon now calling both the Monarch X and the Action EX "ATB" and the Nikon SE "Premier SE". Sometimes companies trip over their own feet by adopting a "class name" and making the nomenclature confusing.

The name of the company that bought Bushnell is MidOcean Partners, "a private equity firm specializing in leveraged buyouts, recapitalizations and growth capital investments in middle-market companies. The firm has historically focused on investments in middle market companies in four core industries including business services; consumer and leisure companies, media and niche industrial services."

Here's more:

"MidOcean was originally formed by the managers of DB Capital Partners to acquire Deutsche Bank's late stage private equity investments in the United States and Europe in one of the largest private equity secondary transactions completed to date."

They are in the business of buying and recapitalizing companies with cash flow problems, including Deutsche Bank, but as far as I can tell, they are not bankers and don't actually manufacture anything themselves, not optics, metal, etc.

Thus, I would imagine they retained Bushnell's optics engineers since these investors don't have that expertise and perhaps they retained some of the management team.

They seem to be indirectly involved in products development since they state on their Website:

"MidOcean Partners adds value to each portfolio company by providing input into long-term strategic direction, operational insight, organic growth opportunities, and strategic acquisitions ideas."

One of those acquisition ideas was for Bushnell to buy Simmons Optics in 2008.

So Bushnell is poised to become a two-tier optics company again, but whether or not they will depends on the direction the execs at MidOcean decide, which my guess will be the best way to grow the company so they can sell it at a profit at some point in the future after the global economy picks up. Whether that means selling plastic wrapped bins at Walmart or a new top drawer Elite or both remains to be seen.

But I wouldn't write them off just yet. The B&L Elites were highly regarded in their time so despite the stigma attached to their new nameplate (Bushnell), the Elite has the capability of competing with high quality binoculars. The premium market segment is small with stiff competition, but the second tier is growing, and as alpha prices move beyond many people's budgets, there will be room for a new, high quality "Elite" to compete in that growing segment.

Here's MidOcean's Website:
http://www.midoceanpartners.com/

Brock

brocknroller said:

But needles to Bushnell marketing execs for trying to upgrade the bins' status by giving it the "Elite" moniker. They did the same thing to the 7x26 Custom.

Click to expand...

Actually the 7x26 Custom deserves the moniker, still probably being the top compact, optically. I have both the Bushnell and 1980's B&L versions, and the optic's charms have not decreased, and the newer has better coatings. It may be the last of the great classic "Bushnells", see below.

The B&L / Bushnell relationship is not what most people seem to think.

In the early 1980's B&L licensed its name to Bushnell. That license ran out in 1997 or there abouts.

The 1980's-90's B&L "Elites", were actually manufactured by Bushnell. Bushnell made the some B&L's i think, before B&L stopped all manufacture of binos. I do not think B&L actually made a bino themselves after the late 1950's.

The apparent decline in quality that appears to have accompanied the loss of the B&L name rights, has to do with something other at Bushnell, than the loss of the talsiman.

Jay
The license for Bushnell to use the B&L name expired in 2004. Thus Bushnell in 2004 came out with the 7x26 Bushnell Custom as the model 12-0726 which was a strange model designation. The 12-xxxx model designation had previously been used for the cheaper Legacy series, whereas the 61-xxxx, 62-xxxx had always been used for the high end Customs & Elites

Bushnell has never manufactured a bino, but instead imported from foreign manufacturers under the Bushnell & B&L name.

Tom

lilcrazy2 said:

Bushnell has never manufactured a bino, but instead imported from foreign manufacturers under the Bushnell & B&L name.

Click to expand...

In the sense that Bushnell (a U.S.) corporation has never manufactured a optical product in the actual territory of the U.S., you are correct.

But when it started, by capitalizing factories in Occupied Japan in 1948 I believe they were "Bushnell" factories, there. I think in the early years they did manufacture in plants they owned Japan. In more modern times they contracted with Japanese OEM's. Now they also contract with Chinese based OEM's.

I think you need to go back and read the history of David Bushnell and Bushnell Optics, and how they came into being. They contracted with Japanese OEM's from the git go to rebrand and import binos under the Busnell name and thats why they became so successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Bushnell

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/30/local/me-bushnell30

But if you think he capatalized or owned plants - hey, thats OK by me

lilcrazy2 said:

I think you need to go back and read the history of David Bushnell and Bushnell Optics, and how they came into being. They contracted with Japanese OEM's from the git go to rebrand and import binos under the Busnell name and thats why they became so successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Bushnell

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/30/local/me-bushnell30

But if you think he capatalized or owned plants - hey, thats OK by me

Click to expand...

I reckon i stand corrected.

Usually, the entry of a venture capital firm, a turn around specialist or a leveraged buyout or recapitalization firm does not auger well for the continued high quality of the target firm's top product lines. The goal is pointedly to make money and appease bean counters and that is rarely compatible with making high quality products with high costs and thin margins. It may be the case here, however, that they can hang on to the top end product as a flag ship or standard-bearer model and use it to sell more product under it of lesser quality and expense but wider margins. We will just have to see, but I doubt that this is a nefarious conspiracy involving Deutsche Bank and Zeiss to do in a rising competitor about to get its top model together in fine order. However, it would not surprise me at all if one or more members of Deutsche Bank sat on the board of directors of Zeiss. That is common for large companies in Germany.

Kimballcorson said:

Usually, the entry of a venture capital firm, a turn around specialist or a leveraged buyout or recapitalization firm does not auger well for the continued high quality of the target firm's top product lines. The goal is pointedly to make money and appease bean counters and that is rarely compatible with making high quality products with high costs and thin margins. It may be the case here, however, that they can hang on to the top end product as a flag ship or standard-bearer model and use it to sell more product under it of lesser quality and expense but wider margins. We will just have to see, but I doubt that this is a nefarious conspiracy involving Deutsche Bank and Zeiss to do in a rising competitor about to get its top model together in fine order. However, it would not surprise me at all if one or more members of Deutsche Bank sat on the board of directors of Zeiss. That is common for large companies in Germany.

Click to expand...

Good analysis! As I was reading your first paragraph about the bean counters, I started thinking about the "flag ship" idea myself. Almost every optics company uses that strategy and so do automakers.

Besides upping the perceived value of the brand, some of the more advanced technology in the flag ship model eventually trickles down to lower priced model. For example, if the new Elite HD has PC-4 ® Phase Coatings and the lower priced models eventually get them too, it's going to increase the perceived value of the lower priced models even though it may be more of a number/name change than anything else.

I mean what are PC-3 coatings anyway? How are they different from any other company's phase coatings? We don't know, but the fact that they gave them a proprietary name makes them sound special.

If the Bushnell brand wasn't doing well enough for the original owners to keep the company, then MidOcean will not be able to sell Bushnell at a healthy profit (or make healthy profits for themselves while they own it) unless it turns the company around.

Part of this has to do with product development, but I think of lot of it is perception. You've read Dennis' tirades about a Bushnell owner being considered an "oucast" because of the brand name being associated with low end optics, hence why they might have dropped the top of the line Elite model. Perhaps that perception was hurting sales.

If I were among the investors, I'd get the marketing department to come up with an ad campaign to hammer home the fact that B&L binoculars including the Elites were made by Bushnell all along. So there's no doubt in buyers' minds that Bushnell optical engineers can create top quality optics. Then launch a new Elite ED with design features that harkens back to the originals.

Optics makers have been very slow in responding to the nostalgia craze that appeals to baby boomers and even some Gen Xers.

One reason this might not have happened is that boomers grew up using their dad's porros, not roofs. But the original Elites, Trinovids, and Dialyts roofs also have a retro appeal.

If an optics maker has success with a nostalgia bin, others will want to ride on the peace train. It could be that the way ahead for Bushnell is to go "backa" to a classic design and update it with latest coatings rather than making yet another EL clone.

Brock

The PC-3 coatings are Bushnell's designation for its high-end dielectric coatings. Dielectric coatings are used in Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms to cause the prism surfaces to act as a dielectric mirror. Bushnell supposedly uses some 60 coatings on their top PC-3 prisms. I think Bushnell should drop the mumbo jumbo and simply say it uses Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms that are dielectrically coated with up to 60 coatings of material on the Elites.

Why obfuscate a good selling point? The marketing monkeys who think this stuff up should be canned. There is a cost saving right away to titillate the bean counters.

That said, Bushnell does need to explain several other things as well, just as you suggest. That its Elites are made in Japan is important. So is the fact it made the Basch & Lomb binoculars and only licensed the name (because the Bushnell name then lacked any real high-end currency). Candor and straight forwardness with the likes of us would improve their situation I think. They have some very capable and innovative optical engineers whose efforts are not being well presented. There are too many products and confusing product feature designations. Why not be honest and explain, for example, that the Legend Ultra HD presents much of the Elite optics in a cheaper and less substantial Chinese body. (My thinking is $400 bucks of optics in a $100 body for $250 is not a bad deal.)

Bushnell could do much better. Maybe its new partner will fix these things and straighten Bushnell out without doing damage. We can hope.
____

The fundamental rule of physics is simple: Nature is perverse.

Kimballcorson said:

The PC-3 coatings are Bushnell's designation for its high-end dielectric coatings. Dielectric coatings are used in Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms to cause the prism surfaces to act as a dielectric mirror. Bushnell supposedly uses some 60 coatings on their top PC-3 prisms. I think Bushnell should drop the mumbo jumbo and simply say it uses Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms that are dielectrically coated with up to 60 coatings of material on the Elites.

Why obfuscate a good selling point? The marketing monkeys who think this stuff up should be canned. There is a cost saving right away to titillate the bean counters.

That said, Bushnell does need to explain several other things as well, just as you suggest. That its Elites are made in Japan is important. So is the fact it made the Basch & Lomb binoculars and only licensed the name (because the Bushnell name then lacked any real high-end currency). Candor and straight forwardness with the likes of us would improve their situation I think. They have some very capable and innovative optical engineers whose efforts are not being well presented. There are too many products and confusing product feature designations. Why not be honest and explain, for example, that the Legend Ultra HD presents much of the Elite optics in a cheaper and less substantial Chinese body. (My thinking is $400 bucks of optics in a $100 body for $250 is not a bad deal.)

Bushnell could do much better. Maybe its new partner will fix these things and straighten Bushnell out without doing damage. We can hope.

Click to expand...

Obfuscate they do. Bushnell doesn't explain that PC-3 means "dielectric coatings" on its Website:

http://www.bushnell.com/resources/bushnell-technologies/

Since Zen Ray upgraded its dielectric coatings, maybe there will be a PC-4 to come with Bushnell. I remember some expert saying that not all dielectric coatings are created equally, though since they all claim 99% reflectivity, I don't know the difference is.

I'm not sure about the 60 layers, though. I think I said that once and Kevin or Rick mentioned that optics makers don't use so many layers with dielectric coatings because they are reflective not refractive. The 60+ layers are used in AR coatings on the lenses.

Brock

Obviously, some have had a little too much egg nog this holiday week.8-P

PC-3 = plain old phase coatings. Nothing special here, move along.
XTR = 60 layer REFLECTIVE dielectric PRISM coating, as opposed to silver or aluminum which degrade over time.
Ultra WB Coatings = Multi-layer AR LENS coatings, probably 3 layer, maybe 5.

RJM said:

Obviously from the lack of reading comprehension expressed, some have had a little too much egg nog this holiday week.8-P

PC-3 = plain old phase coatings. Nothing special here, move along.
XTR = 60 layer REFLECTIVE dielectric PRISM coating, as opposed to silver or aluminum which degrade over time.
Ultra WB Coatings = Multi-layer AR LENS coatings, probably 3 layer, maybe 5.

Click to expand...

It must have been the Japanese Sake in the eggnog, which in non-natives causes dyslexia. 8-P

Why does it take 60 layers to make dielectric mirror coatings?

According to Wikipedia:

"The non-metallic dielectric reflective coating is formed from several multilayers of alternating high and low refractive index materials deposited on the roof prism's reflective surfaces. Each single multilayer reflects a narrow band of light frequencies so several multilayers, each tuned to a different color, are required to reflect white light."

Are there 53 other colors in between ROYGBIV?

Also, we know about aluminum and sliver, what are "non-metallic" dielectric coatings made from?

Lastly, when Zen Ray or other companies speak of "new and improved" dielectric coatings, do they mean they added more layers or different materials? IOW, why are not all dielectric coatings created equal even though everyone states that they reflect 99%?

Please "enlighten" us Master.

Grasshopper

I think you are confusing dielectric mirror coating with the XTR lens and prism coating technology. In the latest catalog, Bushnell has referenced only prism coating with the 60 layers, but it is actually part of the fully multi coated lens coating system. Rather than any single lens or prism having 60 layers, I would think it would be the total number of layers applied to every coated surface.
This is how Bushnell desribed the XTR coating system in the 2007 thru 2009 catalogs.

'A lens coating can reduce reflection to as little as 4%, and
sophisticated multi-layered coating to as little as 2%. So, if properly
applied, the more anti-reflection coatings applied to more exposed lens
surfaces the better and brighter the final image will be. All Elite® binoculars
are fully multi-coated with XTR,® which means every lens surface is treated
with multiple layers of special anti-reflection coating for the brightest
image possible, allowing 99.73% of the light to pass through."

Basically all coatings are dielectric.

Swift had a 64 layer CFT(Cold Fusion Technology) lens coating on the Swift Eaglets

Brock & Kimball
You guys seem focused on the latest private equity firm to own Bushnell, and bemoaning the fact they they seem to be driving it in the ground, but they have been owned by 2 other private equity firms dating back to 1994.
1972 - Bushnell is sold to Baush & Lomb
1994 - Baush & Lomb sells Bushnell and the 10 year licensing rights to the Baush & Lomb optics name to a Malaysian private equity group.
1999 - Bushnell is sold to Wind Point Partners, a private equity group
2007 - Bushnell is sold to Mid Ocean Partners - a private equity group

Here is a list of companies owned by Bushnell:
Simmons Optics, Millett, Blackwater Gear, Bollé Performance Eyewear, Browning Sports Optics, Bushnell, Bushnell Golf, Butler Creek, Hoppe’s, Serengeti, Simmons Outdoor Corporation, Stoney Point, Tasco, Uncle Mike’s, Uncle Mikes Law Enforcement.

I seriously doubt if Bushnell is too worried about an Elite bino model or high end binos, as they sell Elite riflescopes by the truckload, and lower end binos by the boatload. David Bushnell stated that in 1971 they sold 10 million units - half binos and half riflescopes, mostly to hunters. Wonder how many Elite binos were sold each year from 2007 to 2011?

The only bino designed and patented by Bushnell is the little 7x26 & 6x25 Custom - which has always been made in Japan. Probably why no clones showed up.

The Legends were made in Japan up till about 2003 when they moved production to a factory in China. I have had both a Japanese and Chinese made 8x32 Legend in a side by side, and preferred the China bin optically and the build quality was the same.

Companies go where the money is.

Just some ramblings.

Tom

Lilcrazy2, thanks for the useful ownership history. It helps put things in perspective. Too, I want to correct my comments on PC-3, as suggested is needed by Brock and RJM. Here is the gospel from the horse's mouth with additional horse's mouth and other information, too:

"XTR® Technology. Using 60 layers of coatings on each prism, this revolutionary system harnesses and optimizes light, boosting Elite binoculars to their world-leading 99.73% light transmission per lens. It’s exclusive to Bushnell and hands-down the most efficient means for transporting light through an optical system. [This sounds similar to the Fujinon EBC coatings -- electron beam coatings, that is coatings applied by means of an electron beam. Is this new, at least as to lenses?]

"PC-3® Phase Coating. A chemical coating applied to the prisms to enhance resolution and contrast for the brightest and clearest images possible. (from Bushnell's Tech Talk definitions: 'PC-3® Phase Coating. Found on the best roof prism binoculars, this chemical coating is applied to the prisms to enhance resolution and contrast. Would not provide an advantage on porro prism models.)'

"ED Prime Glass. ED Prime Extra-Low Dispersion fluorite glass delivers amazing color resolution and contrast, and virtually eliminates chromatic aberration and color-fringing to bring out the most distinct details possible in low-light conditions."

And this from the Astronomics website: "Dielectric roof prism coatings: The Elite ED’s roof prisms are precisely fabricated from premium-quality high transmission BaK-4 glass. Instead or aluminum or silver coatings on the prism faces, they use 60-layer XTR dielectric mirror coatings for an astonishing 99.73% reflectivity across the entire visible spectrum, the highest reflectivity in the industry."

All could be better written or crafted, but I think the messages get through, sort of. But geeze . . .

Too, all this technical talk doesn't necessarily tell us too much about the binocular view afforded from its application. What translates into the "Wow" factor that we recognize remains unclear. From my Bushnell Elite 12.5x50, "Wow" seems to translate in part into a view that is -- up close, has much sharp internal depth of field, is quite brilliant, is sharp overall, is contrasty and has great, well saturated color, without intrusive or bothersome aberrations. But what technically accounts for this view? Who knows, except in a general way? Some designers, perhaps, but . . .