New M Series ? (1 Viewer)

Troubador said:

Hi PT

'Elites' seems to cover several Bushnell lines including open hinge, conventional hinge and reverse porro. Which ones should I recommend to my pal?

Lee

Click to expand...

Every elite I have handled has been a very good binocular. The open hinge had an excellent reputation, the reverse porros I handled I would own in a heartbeat. The current Elite's can be had for about the price of a Terra, and to me easily surpass them in quality and ergonomics

perterra said:

Every elite I have handled has been a very good binocular. The open hinge had an excellent reputation, the reverse porros I handled I would own in a heartbeat. The current Elite's can be had for about the price of a Terra, and to me easily surpass them in quality and ergonomics

Click to expand...

Thanks PT I'll be sure to pass this on.

Lee

[email protected] said:

Has anybody with a Bushnell Legend M series 10x42 and a Zeiss 10x42 SF compared them in resolution? I would be curious to know if the Outdoor Life review has any validity where it ranks the Bushnell M above the Zeiss SF in resolution.

Click to expand...

[email protected] said:

.......... I was just curious if there was any validity to Outdoor Life's binocular review. I am looking for somebody that might have both but I guess if you have a Zeiss SF you probably would not have the Bushnell.

Click to expand...

I do not have the Bushnell Legend M but do have the Zeiss SF 10X42 and it is tack sharp. I was using it last weekend looking at a drake Mallard about 20 yards away in the late afternoon winter sun and the view was spectacular. Every bit of detail of the feathers stood out. There was nothing lacking in the view.

I just did a hand held braced print comparison (looking at a printed target) between the SF 10X42, a Nikon EDG-II 10X42, a Zen-Ray ED3 10X43 (possible "M" clone) and a Vanguard Endeavor EDII 10X42. The SF, Nikon and Zen-Ray all appear to resolve past my acuity level which I estimate to be about 20/15. The apparent sharpness of the SF seemed slightly better than the EDG, but that is most likely due to the more neutral color balance of the SF. The Endeavor EDII was not as sharp as the others and that is puzzling considering the several reviews mentioning that the new EDII is very sharp. I am still trying to figure this out but I am suspecting it may need to go back to Vanguard to get checked out.

Now to answer your question if the Outdoor Life comments on resolution have validity. In my opinion, No, Nada, Nein and Zilch. The area of expertise for them is firearms and ammunition. I would give them much more credibility on their opinions of how a firearm operates or the ballistic performance of a round but not so much on optics, especially binoculars.

There is no telling how careful they were in their testing. As you know, if the diopter setting is off just a little bit, it will be noticeable in lack of sharpness. Did the tester take the time to set the diopter multiple times to make sure the setting was consistent? Who knows! Did the same person test each of the binoculars at the same time under the same conditions? Who knows! Where the lenses pristine? Who knows! Without knowing more about the tester and details of the testing process, there is no telling what took place and what can be concluded from the results.

I live in a hunting state and have a bunch of hunters as friends and acquaintances. Many are extremely knowledgeable about hunting, firearms and ballistics, but none are that knowledgeable about optics. They are mainly influenced by advertising, what the pros uses and what hunting buddies have. I would not be surprised if it is similar with the Outdoor Life staff.

My own experience with the SF is completely contrary to their conclusion. I have looked through 8 or more SF binoculars now and have not seen a lack of sharpness in any of them.

I guess they could of obtained a bad sample of the SF but that is unlikely. Most likely, they screwed up the test, probably with an incorrect diopter setting. As mentioned, optics is not their forte.

The Porters did a test of the SF and scored them a max of 10 on resolution. The Porter's test is not perfect but I put much more faith in their conclusions on optics than I would Outdoor Life. Optics is not a sideline with them.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2015_titans/chart_2015.html

The resolution tests I immediately consider valid are those done my some of our members, especially David/Typo, Steve/Moreorless and Steve from KY. For any other comments, I consider the source and the context of the comments.

There are many reasons to question the validity of the Outdoor Life resolution results. I put about as much faith in it as I would most Amazon binocular reviews.

[email protected] said:

............
I have heard the Bushnell M has some build quality problems that make it a deal breaker. I think it was the focus or diopter.

Click to expand...

The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD has multiple comments on this forum of the plastic diopter ring failing and some units having focus issues, mostly right out of the box. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. There is not much out there yet on the new Legend M and I have not seen any reports of these problems. The only focus complaint I have read is one that had some free play. If you come across some reports of the M having these issues, please remember to come back and post a link.

Bruce,

Appreciate the acknowledgement . :t:

I honestly have no idea what those 'resolution' values in Outdoor Life might refer to.

Most, possibly all of those binoculars are going to comply with the DIN ISO standard for 'High Quality' binoculars and have instrument resolution values between 2.8 and 5.8 arcseconds unless they are damaged in some way. I would guess it's unlikely, but I suppose the guys might have done boosted resolution tests or something and scored them accordingly, but unfortunately it would still mean almost nothing to the user experience. In daylight the light from the periphery of the objective is blocked by the iris of the eye resulting in a totally different effective resolution so the numbers would be worthless.

Normally the effective resolution would exceed the magnified acuity of most users so there would be no difference in the limiting detail. Potentially, if the tester had exceptional eyesight he might see small differences in effective resolution with a suitable target. I've only seen some of that list but I'd still rate the chances of them distinguishing a SF from an Ultravid HD+ as zero. The light wasn't great when I tried the Legend M but it it seemed pretty good as well to me.

I suppose there may have been differences in the user sharpness perception which is at it's most sensitive at 5 to 10 arcminutes compared to an acuity limit of 1 to 2 arcminutes. Differences are most evident on fine patterns and textures. In a recent comparison I did a Kite Bonelli appeared to have a clear advantage over a Zeiss FL viewing certain natural targets. It's not resololution, but it's conceivable there might be a difference between the Ultravid and the FL using a similar target.

The Vanguard Endeavour EDII I have has both a good resolution and much more importantly very good effective resolution. It also has a good perceived sharpness when the light is bright and the sky is blue. However in gloomy conditions, particularly when the ambient light is red shifted the contrast can appear much weaker. The silver coated prisms mean the blue transmission is relatively poor and it is evident in some light conditions. Again nothing to do with resolution. It seems likely looking at those results that whatever they were doing they probably didn't account for the light conditions in their testing.

Just ignore their resolution scores it means nothing.

Unfortunately I don't find the Porters results any better. Even though they claim to do some sort of resolution testing, a 2x boost is hopelessly inadequate and I find their scoring quite bizarre. However they seem to think 20/20 is perfect vision. It's actually below average statistically and at level all binoculars are likely to be indistinguishable on effective resolution as the eye would be limiting.

David

BruceH said:

I do not have the Bushnell Legend M but do have the Zeiss SF 10X42 and it is tack sharp. I was using it last weekend looking at a drake Mallard about 20 yards away in the late afternoon winter sun and the view was spectacular. Every bit of detail of the feathers stood out. There was nothing lacking in the view.

I just did a hand held braced print comparison (looking at a printed target) between the SF 10X42, a Nikon EDG-II 10X42, a Zen-Ray ED3 10X43 (possible "M" clone) and a Vanguard Endeavor EDII 10X42. The SF, Nikon and Zen-Ray all appear to resolve past my acuity level which I estimate to be about 20/15. The apparent sharpness of the SF seemed slightly better than the EDG, but that is most likely due to the more neutral color balance of the SF. The Endeavor EDII was not as sharp as the others and that is puzzling considering the several reviews mentioning that the new EDII is very sharp. I am still trying to figure this out but I am suspecting it may need to go back to Vanguard to get checked out.

Now to answer your question if the Outdoor Life comments on resolution have validity. In my opinion, No, Nada, Nein and Zilch. The area of expertise for them is firearms and ammunition. I would give them much more credibility on their opinions of how a firearm operates or the ballistic performance of a round but not so much on optics, especially binoculars.

There is no telling how careful they were in their testing. As you know, if the diopter setting is off just a little bit, it will be noticeable in lack of sharpness. Did the tester take the time to set the diopter multiple times to make sure the setting was consistent? Who knows! Did the same person test each of the binoculars at the same time under the same conditions? Who knows! Where the lenses pristine? Who knows! Without knowing more about the tester and details of the testing process, there is no telling what took place and what can be concluded from the results.

I live in a hunting state and have a bunch of hunters as friends and acquaintances. Many are extremely knowledgeable about hunting, firearms and ballistics, but none are that knowledgeable about optics. They are mainly influenced by advertising, what the pros uses and what hunting buddies have. I would not be surprised if it is similar with the Outdoor Life staff.

My own experience with the SF is completely contrary to their conclusion. I have looked through 8 or more SF binoculars now and have not seen a lack of sharpness in any of them.

I guess they could of obtained a bad sample of the SF but that is unlikely. Most likely, they screwed up the test, probably with an incorrect diopter setting. As mentioned, optics is not their forte.

The Porters did a test of the SF and scored them a max of 10 on resolution. The Porter's test is not perfect but I put much more faith in their conclusions on optics than I would Outdoor Life. Optics is not a sideline with them.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2015_titans/chart_2015.html

The resolution tests I immediately consider valid are those done my some of our members, especially David/Typo, Steve/Moreorless and Steve from KY. For any other comments, I consider the source and the context of the comments.

There are many reasons to question the validity of the Outdoor Life resolution results. I put about as much faith in it as I would most Amazon binocular reviews.




The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD has multiple comments on this forum of the plastic diopter ring failing and some units having focus issues, mostly right out of the box. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. There is not much out there yet on the new Legend M and I have not seen any reports of these problems. The only focus complaint I have read is one that had some free play. If you come across some reports of the M having these issues, please remember to come back and post a link.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the nice explanation of the Outdoor Life results. I too find it hard to believe a $400.00 binocular like the Busnell M could be sharper than a $2500 binocular like the Zeiss SF. It is not logical or reasonable.

typo said:

Bruce,

Appreciate the acknowledgement . :t:

I honestly have no idea what those 'resolution' values in Outdoor Life might refer to.

Most, possibly all of those binoculars are going to comply with the DIN ISO standard for 'High Quality' binoculars and have instrument resolution values between 2.8 and 5.8 arcseconds unless they are damaged in some way. I would guess it's unlikely, but I suppose the guys might have done boosted resolution tests or something and scored them accordingly, but unfortunately it would still mean almost nothing to the user experience. In daylight the light from the periphery of the objective is blocked by the iris of the eye resulting in a totally different effective resolution so the numbers would be worthless.

Normally the effective resolution would exceed the magnified acuity of most users so there would be no difference in the limiting detail. Potentially, if the tester had exceptional eyesight he might see small differences in effective resolution with a suitable target. I've only seen some of that list but I'd still rate the chances of them distinguishing a SF from an Ultravid HD+ as zero. The light wasn't great when I tried the Legend M but it it seemed pretty good as well to me.

I suppose there may have been differences in the user sharpness perception which is at it's most sensitive at 5 to 10 arcminutes compared to an acuity limit of 1 to 2 arcminutes. Differences are most evident on fine patterns and textures. In a recent comparison I did a Kite Bonelli appeared to have a clear advantage over a Zeiss FL viewing certain natural targets. It's not resololution, but it's conceivable there might be a difference between the Ultravid and the FL using a similar target.

The Vanguard Endeavour EDII I have has both a good resolution and much more importantly very good effective resolution. It also has a good perceived sharpness when the light is bright and the sky is blue. However in gloomy conditions, particularly when the ambient light is red shifted the contrast can appear much weaker. The silver coated prisms mean the blue transmission is relatively poor and it is evident in some light conditions. Again nothing to do with resolution. It seems likely looking at those results that whatever they were doing they probably didn't account for the light conditions in their testing.

Just ignore their resolution scores it means nothing.

Unfortunately I don't find the Porters results any better. Even though they claim to do some sort of resolution testing, a 2x boost is hopelessly inadequate and I find their scoring quite bizarre. However they seem to think 20/20 is perfect vision. It's actually below average statistically and at level all binoculars are likely to be indistinguishable on effective resolution as the eye would be limiting.

David

Click to expand...

Interesting explanation of sharpness and resolution testing. There is more to it than is readily apparent.

This is a very interesting thread. Has anyone had an opportunity to compare the Bushnell Legend M's with a pair of Vortex Viper HD's?

mrmister2000 said:

This is a very interesting thread. Has anyone had an opportunity to compare the Bushnell Legend M's with a pair of Vortex Viper HD's?

Click to expand...

No, but I tried them the same morning on different stands at the UK BirdFair.

The Viper HD I've tried many times. It is a well established, relatively small and light, Japanese binocular with an average FOV and modest field curvature. The colour rendition is good but sometime referred to a creamy. Very likable.

The Legend M is a comparatively big and heavy Chinese made model, I believe, with a field flattener and a better FoV. The colour appeared to have a more bluish tinge but the light wasn't good enough to be sure.

The M had plenty of bells and whistles and performed well enough but I wasn't partularly keen on the handling, I preferred the Legend L, which might be closer to the Vortex on specification if not build quality.

David

mrmister2000 said:

This is a very interesting thread. Has anyone had an opportunity to compare the Bushnell Legend M's with a pair of Vortex Viper HD's?

Click to expand...

I have looked through both in a 10X at the stores but have never done a side by side.

Someone posted that the Bushnell M may be a derivative of the Zen-Ray ED3, which I have in a 10X. That motivated me to take a quick look at the M about a month ago. I did not have the ED3 to compare directly but they did seem similar. I was left with a favorable optical impression during the brief time viewing with them in the store. Amazon is currently showing a price of $269, which is a very good price for that optical quality.

However I did have one big disappointment that was mentioned previously by another member, and that is the diopter ring. It looks to be an extremely flimsy thin plastic ring. I have doubts that it will hold up over the long haul. The heat in my part of the world is extremely hard on plastic, to the point where over time, it gets very brittle and cracks. Also, the ring on the sample I used was not quite parallel with the top of the barrel.

It is strange that Bushnell went with such a design for the diopter ring. They received a number of bad reviews for the flimsy ring on the previous Legend model so one would think they would have made this one out of a high quality material.

I have looked through the Vortex Viper HD 10X in the store several times and always enjoyed the view. However I think it is overpriced for what it offers. The field of view in both the 8X42 and 10X42 is small compared to what else is out there today. The design has been around for a while and is due for an upgrade.

There are some good choices in the $300 to $400 price range. A couple to consider are the Zeiss Terra and Vanguard Endeavor ED I & II. All of these have their strengths and weaknesses. The trick is to match the strengths to attributes important to you and the weaknesses to areas that are not that significant on your personal list of priorities.

It takes a few days to get to really know how a binocular performs under different circumstances. So, be sure and buy from a vendor that has a good return policy in case your choice does not work out.