• 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.

Eagle Optics 10x Ranger series binocs (1 Viewer)

S

swamp_rattler

Well-known member
I was wondering if anyone could comment on Eagle Optics Platinum Series Ranger 10x binoculars, the 10x42 and the 10x50. Are these good binoculars?
How do they compare to one another? According to the website, the FOV of the 10x42 is 314, but the 10x50 is only 262 feet. But the 10x50 has greater eye relief. I'm curious because I've always used Swift's Kestrel 10x50, which I believe is hard to beat (never used anything better). I recently bought a pair of Audubon Equinox 10x42, and am not impressed. Anyways, if anyone owns a Ranger and would like to comment, it would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
 
swamp_rattler said:
I was wondering if anyone could comment on Eagle Optics Platinum Series Ranger 10x binoculars, the 10x42 and the 10x50. Are these good binoculars?
How do they compare to one another? According to the website, the FOV of the 10x42 is 314, but the 10x50 is only 262 feet. But the 10x50 has greater eye relief. I'm curious because I've always used Swift's Kestrel 10x50, which I believe is hard to beat (never used anything better). I recently bought a pair of Audubon Equinox 10x42, and am not impressed. Anyways, if anyone owns a Ranger and would like to comment, it would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Click to expand...

I own and like very much the 8 x 32 Eagle Optics Platinum Series bin, and have looked through, and was impressed by, the 10 x 42mm version. You might also check out the new Celestron 10 x 42 LS, which seemed a tad crisper, possibly due to its aspheric lens elements. Both bins are phase coated however, both carry a no fault lifetime warranty and both were probably made by Vixen in Japan. I think you would be happy with either.
 
chartwell99 said:
both were probably made by Vixen in Japan. I think you would be happy with either.
Click to expand...

The Ranger Platinum Class binoculars are NOT made by Vixen, they are made by Eagle Optics. We designed them, we warrant them, we made them. The Ranger Platinum Class have often been duplicated since there inception back in 2000, but they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Of course my own biased opinion is that you would love the Rangers, but I work at Eagle Optics (and was intimately involved with the design of the Rangers), so...
 
chartwell99 said:
both were probably made by Vixen in Japan. I think you would be happy with either.
Click to expand...

The Ranger Platinum Class binoculars are NOT made by Vixen, they are made by Eagle Optics. We designed them, we warrant them, we made them. The Ranger Platinum Class have often been duplicated since there inception back in 2000, but they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Of course my own biased opinion is that you would love the Rangers, but I work at Eagle Optics (and was intimately involved with the design of the Rangers), so...

Jason
 
I looked at the Rangers when I was there and I have to say that, while very nice, the E2 that I bought was brighter in 30mm than the Ranger in 42mm. Good if you must have a roof I'm sure, but not in the same league as the E2 or SE.
 
jasonsailing said:
The Ranger Platinum Class binoculars are NOT made by Vixen, they are made by Eagle Optics. We designed them, we warrant them, we made them. The Ranger Platinum Class have often been duplicated since there inception back in 2000, but they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Of course my own biased opinion is that you would love the Rangers, but I work at Eagle Optics (and was intimately involved with the design of the Rangers), so...
Click to expand...

That is about the funniest thing I have heard today, thanks Jason. Eagle Optics does not manufacture their binoculars, no way no how. They are manufactured in Japan in a factory that says Kamakura Koki, not Eagle Optics. Go inside and you will see other names as well, Bushnell, Celestron, Vixen, Orion, Leupold, Alpen, Brunton, etc. the list goes on and on, they all buy from Kamakura. The only design EO did was have their name put on it. Kamakura is one of the largest Japanese optical houses that provide products sold under many brand names, this is a common and old industry practice. Some brands work more closely with them than others to distinguish their models, but I have a hard time believing that EO/Sheltered wings has as much tug on their ear as a longstanding customer company like Bushnell. Please don't try to tell me otherwise. There are three or four factories in China, a couple in Japan that assemble from Chinese parts, and even an attempt to do the same from Malaysia and Taiwan. That, in a nutshell, is the Asian optical business.
 
Robert Ellis said:
That is about the funniest thing I have heard today, thanks Jason. Eagle Optics does not manufacture their binoculars, no way no how. They are manufactured in Japan in a factory that says Kamakura Koki, not Eagle Optics. Go inside and you will see other names as well, Bushnell, Celestron, Vixen, Orion, Leupold, Alpen, Brunton, etc. the list goes on and on, they all buy from Kamakura. The only design EO did was have their name put on it.]

I suspect Robert is entirely correct about the existence of one source for the many look alike Japanese binoculars (which I mistakenly thought to be Vixen), although it would be interesting to know the extent of the actual input made by the various marketers like Eagle Optics and Leupold; more than the design of the logo, I'm sure, but how much more remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Ellis said:
The only design EO did was have their name put on it. Kamakura is one of the largest Japanese optical houses that provide products sold under many brand names, this is a common and old industry practice. Some brands work more closely with them than others to distinguish their models, but I have a hard time believing that EO/Sheltered wings has as much tug on their ear as a longstanding customer company like Bushnell. Please don't try to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Mr. Ellis,

You are correct in naming the Japanese factory that we contract with, congratulations to you on that score. You are wrong however in stating that all we did was "put our name on it" and I again am left scratching my head as to why I have to defend our work. Look back in 2000, was there a model that looked like the Ranger Platinum Class? With its specifications, features, warranty, and price? The answer on all counts is NO! It is of course impossible to deny that our popular design did get copied ad nauseum, but we were the originators of the design, not another copy.

It is your choice not to believe that we work as closer or closer with factories we contract with than other large manufacturers, but you cannot deny our success in creating and designing (in short, manufacturing) very good binoculars for birding, as well as hunting, general use, etc.

Jason

PS I'm always glad when I can make someone laugh, even if I didn't intend to.
 
The verb manufacture implies Eagle Optics assembles them from parts or raw materials, which is false, Komakura manufactures them. You may call it your design, but you do not make them, nor were you the first. Your sleek armor was all your own in the beginning, sure, you can have that point.

Please don't get me wrong, I think of all the versions the EO and Pentax provide the better values. Were I in need of a $350 8x32 I would consider the EO.

I take issue when you tell customers that EO or Sheltered Wings makes them, this is misleading. Komakura makes them, as they do for myriad brands. Kamakura Koki was around long before EO was a twinkle in Mr. Hamilton's eye.
 
Robert Ellis said:
The verb manufacture implies Eagle Optics assembles them from parts or raw materials, which is false, Komakura manufactures them. You may call it your design, but you do not make them, nor were you the first.

I wonder, Robert, whether you know if Komakura simply has a menu of options (coatings, optical fomulae, eyecups, etc.) to enable the marketer to choose from basic to high end (like the Opticron DBA, for example) or whether Komakura custom manufactures to supplied specifications, as Tamron evidently did for Swift in the manufacture of the first version of the 8.5 x 44 Audubon.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, chatwell99, the setup is very close to that. The buynig brand decides a price point then decides which features they want for that price. Proprietary coatings (PC3, etc) are exclusive to whatever company uses them whether they or Kamakura came up with it.
 
Robert Ellis said:
I take issue when you tell customers that EO or Sheltered Wings makes them, this is misleading. Komakura makes them, as they do for myriad brands.
Click to expand...

So then, following your logic, the following "Manufacturers" are misleading the public the same way we are:

Alpen
Brunton
Bushnell
Celestron
Kahles
Leupold
Minolta
Minox
Nikon
Pentax
Steiner
Swift
And there are many more, this is just off the top of my head.

To me, your definition makes the word "manufacture" meaningless. I think most would agree with me, otherwise why are there so many different manufacturers putting out product today?

Jason
 
Even when one of the unnamed manufactures assembles its product in its own plant, there is no way of knowing how much is subcontracted parts or service. Globalisation may mean that there are fewer coating facilities on a continent than brands who "make" their own.
Besides look alikes may differ a lot, internally: quality of coatings, baffling, unseen mechanical parts. This is all part of the new world order. If EO or Nikon designs, sells and backs the product then it is an EO or Nikon binocular, even if one other or six other companies had a hand in its manufacture.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
 
Yes, the use of 'manufacturer' bothers me. Get a dictionary, and not a Marketing 101 version you seem to have.

EO and the others are sellers who contract their products from another manufacturer. I have a whole list of things about the world that bother me, which is why I spend much of my time far away from it.
 
Robert Ellis said:
Yes, the use of 'manufacturer' bothers me. Get a dictionary, and not a Marketing 101 version you seem to have.

EO and the others are sellers who contract their products from another manufacturer. I have a whole list of things about the world that bother me, which is why I spend much of my time far away from it.
Click to expand...

Robert,
Let us just write that it is an EO or Nikon product made by others.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
 
Exactly. To say that Eagle Optics makes them sounds like there is a factory somehwere, be it Madison or Malaysia, that has an Eagle Optics sign on the door.
 
Robert Ellis said:
Exactly. To say that Eagle Optics makes them sounds like there is a factory somehwere, be it Madison or Malaysia, that has an Eagle Optics sign on the door.
Click to expand...

There are, however, factories owned by, and run by, the likes of Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski, and perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that these companies are the true innovators and dominate the industry.
 
I fail to see how knowing the name of the factory where an Asian optic is built is useful information in the discourse of comparing binoculars.

If I were to start throwing out names like “Kamakura Koki”, “Kokisha”, “Mutsu Koki”, “Katsuma Kogaku Kikai”, “Otake Kogaku Kogyo”, "Sewia Seiki Seisakujo” or “Josei Koi”, I doubt anyone on this forum will have been served with any meaningful insight relative to the comparative quality of the optics being discussed.

If on the other hand I use popular names like Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Swift, Eagle Optics, etc., then I strongly suspect forum users will be able to mentally recall a product chronology, service and company track record that they can draw inferences from in a way that's useful in making a choice.

Binoculars and spotting scopes are labeled with the country of origin right on them, and we all know there are no factories that build binoculars or spotting scopes in the United States. So it seems to me to be a “no-brainer” that there are Asian companies behind the brand names we are all familiar with.

At various birding festivals I've attended, there are invariably those coy optics geeks that toss out Japanese and Chinese names as if they've stumbled upon some clandestine industrial plot or secret, “I know where you get that optic from!” Using the Chinese or Japanese factory name is a semantic point only and informs the consumer of virtually nothing regarding quality, features and specifications when comparing various binoculars and spotting scopes.

The Asian names are not a secret. But the names are not useful when comparing Asian-built optics. And many times people who are talking out of their derriere do indeed guess the wrong name, which is all the more proof to me (when I hear it) that it is not meaningful information to the consumer.

Mike McDowell
www.birddigiscoping.com
 
Well said, we do have a few of those so called "coy optics geeks" that hang around here. Makes you wonder if anything they say bears listening to.

Jaeger near Chicago

mcdomik said:
I fail to see how knowing the name of the factory where an Asian optic is built is useful information in the discourse of comparing binoculars.

If I were to start throwing out names like “Kamakura Koki”, “Kokisha”, “Mutsu Koki”, “Katsuma Kogaku Kikai”, “Otake Kogaku Kogyo”, "Sewia Seiki Seisakujo” or “Josei Koi”, I doubt anyone on this forum will have been served with any meaningful insight relative to the comparative quality of the optics being discussed.

If on the other hand I use popular names like Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Swift, Eagle Optics, etc., then I strongly suspect forum users will be able to mentally recall a product chronology, service and company track record that they can draw inferences from in a way that's useful in making a choice.

Binoculars and spotting scopes are labeled with the country of origin right on them, and we all know there are no factories that build binoculars or spotting scopes in the United States. So it seems to me to be a “no-brainer” that there are Asian companies behind the brand names we are all familiar with.

At various birding festivals I've attended, there are invariably those coy optics geeks that toss out Japanese and Chinese names as if they've stumbled upon some clandestine industrial plot or secret, “I know where you get that optic from!” Using the Chinese or Japanese factory name is a semantic point only and informs the consumer of virtually nothing regarding quality, features and specifications when comparing various binoculars and spotting scopes.

The Asian names are not a secret. But the names are not useful when comparing Asian-built optics. And many times people who are talking out of their derriere do indeed guess the wrong name, which is all the more proof to me (when I hear it) that it is not meaningful information to the consumer.

Mike McDowell
www.birddigiscoping.com
Click to expand...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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.

Similar threads

J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
695
Patudo
P
laurencejackson
Trying out Swarovski 12x42 NL vs 10x...and the 12x are brighter?
Replies
6
Views
2K
laurencejackson
laurencejackson
G
New March Drawing for Kowa Optics
Replies
12
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G
I
Analysis Paralysis- Please help me choose!
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
Patudo
P
A
Entry - Midrange Binocular Recommendation ($500)
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Binovehje
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top