BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kevin Purcell" data-source="post: 1386076" data-attributes="member: 68323">Clones of what? Their original designs they've just done by Chinese engineers. I don't see anything bad in that.I've also mentioned the difference between OEMs and ODMs here before and the range of interactions you can have with them. That interaction goes from just applying branding to a known design through buying exclusive rights to that design, to doing custom armor for it (and all the other bits and pieces that comes with the bin), to tinkering with a current design or even replacing a chunk with your own design (new EP?) to working with the ODM to develop a new exclusive design. It all depends how many optical and mechanical engineers you employ in your company and what the companies goals are.Bushnell are in the middle on this, I think. At the bottom end they have consistent rebranding. From the midrange up (e.g. the Excursions) they do their own design branding with their own armor look but seem to use an existing design (see discussion here previously about Diamondback and Excursion shared optics). For the Legend (which is another step up) they add some more features (like Rainguard) and more upmarket design including better optical design. Above that level I think they have more input into the design process. For example I suspect they had significant input into the optical design of the Elite but that was made in Japan.But I wonder how this is changing with time. The Chinese optical companies (quite a few of which were at SHOT) are moving upmarket and I think they can accommodate whatever needs you have.So I think calling them mere "cloners" is a bit of a slight on the Chinese companies that design and build them.This will be a Legend not an Excursion. That's up one gear: slightly better optics, coatings and in this case glass. How it all pans out we can't yet know!And 420 feet (8 degrees) is pretty much a standard spec for a "wide" FOV. There is nothing unique about that today.BTW, I made up the name and the idea of the Vortex Dragon (though it's a good name, eh? Send email for a licensing deal <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> ) as some hypothetical Vortex Chinese ED that seems to generate a "no comment" + a smilie from their rep on this board <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> But it seems like this Legend is there to compete with say the Vortex Fury range (above the Diamondback but below the Razor). Their two product lines don't quite match up.Tero: The Excursion EX I had was an 8x36 which I returned because of excessive CA (now that's a real optical issue!). I have a Excursion 10x42 which has no problems (it has a view very similar to the Diamondback 8x42 I have). No have had any mechanical isssues (except perhaps for a small diopter offset which seems to be common at this price level)</blockquote>

Verification