-
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.
Vanguard Endeavor EDII vs Bushnell Elite ED (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JasIA
- Start date
I am watching these on Ebay and plan to jump on them. Listing says E2 but they actually appear to be the Elite ED version.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/391224216489?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT
http://www.ebay.com/itm/391224216489?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT
Jas,
I've not tried the 10x42 in either but I have tried the Elite ED several times and own the Endeavour EDII 8x42. I have little hesitation in saying the Vanguard is the better binocular technically but which I'd prefer to use is not so easy.
Neither are particularly light binoculars but the Bushnell has a couple of ounces advantage here and for me, does sit nicely in the hand. The field of view was distinctly cramped in the 8x42 but lookes quite acceptable in the 10x. The colour balance seemed on the warm side of neutral but not particularly vibrant. Although the field wasn't strictly flat the sweet spot was quite large and the edges fairly sharp. At it's regular price in the UK I'd say it was undistinguished amongst it's peers these days but it's a lot of binocular for $350.
If the Bushnell is sort of quite good at most things I'd say the Vanguard excells on some points and could do better on a couple of others. The differences I'm suggesting might be quite small but I'd say the Vanguard had better effective resolution, better CA control, better contrast, sharper edges and if it's important to you, a much flatter view. On these points I feel is punches well above it's price point. However, with it's silver coated prisms, the colour balance is warmer than the Elite, though I'd say the vibrancy was still good for the regular price point. At my interpupillary distance I can't fit my fingers between the barrels and consequently they don't sit easily between the dual hinges and it just feel just a bit awkward and unbalanced for me. Others may fare better.
Both are good binoclars with different strengths but I could't say which would be a better choice for you.
Good luck,
David
I've not tried the 10x42 in either but I have tried the Elite ED several times and own the Endeavour EDII 8x42. I have little hesitation in saying the Vanguard is the better binocular technically but which I'd prefer to use is not so easy.
Neither are particularly light binoculars but the Bushnell has a couple of ounces advantage here and for me, does sit nicely in the hand. The field of view was distinctly cramped in the 8x42 but lookes quite acceptable in the 10x. The colour balance seemed on the warm side of neutral but not particularly vibrant. Although the field wasn't strictly flat the sweet spot was quite large and the edges fairly sharp. At it's regular price in the UK I'd say it was undistinguished amongst it's peers these days but it's a lot of binocular for $350.
If the Bushnell is sort of quite good at most things I'd say the Vanguard excells on some points and could do better on a couple of others. The differences I'm suggesting might be quite small but I'd say the Vanguard had better effective resolution, better CA control, better contrast, sharper edges and if it's important to you, a much flatter view. On these points I feel is punches well above it's price point. However, with it's silver coated prisms, the colour balance is warmer than the Elite, though I'd say the vibrancy was still good for the regular price point. At my interpupillary distance I can't fit my fingers between the barrels and consequently they don't sit easily between the dual hinges and it just feel just a bit awkward and unbalanced for me. Others may fare better.
Both are good binoclars with different strengths but I could't say which would be a better choice for you.
Good luck,
David
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
I've owned two pairs of Bushnell Elite 10x42's and got talked out of both of them by friends who I loaned them to. They are great glass. You will not be disappointed with them.
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
David,
Did you publish a comparative review of the Endeavor and the Swarovski both in 10x42 formats or even a review of the Endeavor on its own? If you did would you provide links please?
Did you publish a comparative review of the Endeavor and the Swarovski both in 10x42 formats or even a review of the Endeavor on its own? If you did would you provide links please?
I've not spent any time with the Vanguard EDII 10x42 I'm afraid but I did post a review of the 8x42:
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/446/cat/9
This was followed up with a discussion here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290229
I've not reviewed the ELSVs. I've tried them many times at stores and at shows but spent less tha 10 minutes comparing the 8.5x42 to the Vanguard. Though the 8.5x42 appears to have changed somewhat over the years it still wouln't be my favourite in the range. The effective resolution of the last three I've tried were not as good as either the SLC or the Vanguard when I did that comparison. In strong lighting conditions the depth of contrast in the finest detail just seemed better. I suspect this is due to the longitudinal CA control of the Vanguard. The Vanguard's field is very flat, seemingly flatter than the Swarovski, but the view is narrower so it's probably rather deceptive.
The much bluer colour balance of the Swarovski is very obvious and as such will appear brighter in low light, or particularly the red light of sunset. Ergonomically the Swaro has the advantage as well.
Coming back to the original question, I think the ELSV 10x42 is a sharper binocular than the 8.5x42 and may have a flatter FOV, which probably swings the balance more strongly in the Swaro's favour. As I said before, the Vanguard is certainly not perfect, but it does some things remarkably well for the money.
David
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/446/cat/9
This was followed up with a discussion here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290229
I've not reviewed the ELSVs. I've tried them many times at stores and at shows but spent less tha 10 minutes comparing the 8.5x42 to the Vanguard. Though the 8.5x42 appears to have changed somewhat over the years it still wouln't be my favourite in the range. The effective resolution of the last three I've tried were not as good as either the SLC or the Vanguard when I did that comparison. In strong lighting conditions the depth of contrast in the finest detail just seemed better. I suspect this is due to the longitudinal CA control of the Vanguard. The Vanguard's field is very flat, seemingly flatter than the Swarovski, but the view is narrower so it's probably rather deceptive.
The much bluer colour balance of the Swarovski is very obvious and as such will appear brighter in low light, or particularly the red light of sunset. Ergonomically the Swaro has the advantage as well.
Coming back to the original question, I think the ELSV 10x42 is a sharper binocular than the 8.5x42 and may have a flatter FOV, which probably swings the balance more strongly in the Swaro's favour. As I said before, the Vanguard is certainly not perfect, but it does some things remarkably well for the money.
David
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
Thank you Typo,
Yes, I had seen those posts. I bought the Endeavor 10x42 on a whim having seen the allbinos review. I assumed that they knew what they were doing, and could be relied upon.
I am pleased with them, very pleased probably, but I am inexperienced and don't know what I am missing.
Subsequently, I went through their test report but, for all of the apparent scientifically based data, found no factual reference to sharpness, apparent sharpness, or microcontrast.
The summary included the word sharp twice, but no modifiers, adjectives like extremely, very or whatever. Perhaps the scientific data inferred values to these perceptions that interest me.
My main criticism is of the tripod exit at the front brige of the open hinge design. This will not give a stable image but, and possibly worse could overstress the hinge with who knows what result.
Yes, I had seen those posts. I bought the Endeavor 10x42 on a whim having seen the allbinos review. I assumed that they knew what they were doing, and could be relied upon.
I am pleased with them, very pleased probably, but I am inexperienced and don't know what I am missing.
Subsequently, I went through their test report but, for all of the apparent scientifically based data, found no factual reference to sharpness, apparent sharpness, or microcontrast.
The summary included the word sharp twice, but no modifiers, adjectives like extremely, very or whatever. Perhaps the scientific data inferred values to these perceptions that interest me.
My main criticism is of the tripod exit at the front brige of the open hinge design. This will not give a stable image but, and possibly worse could overstress the hinge with who knows what result.
The resolution, effective resolution and sharpness thing is rather complicated. I've had a go at explaining it a few times with little success. I'm not surprised many reviewers dodge the issue.
I normally report the resolution for the centre 20mm of the objective as I feel that is the most relvant to the user experience. A 'perfect' optic should give a value around 5.8 arcseconds, but the DIN ISO standard for binoclars could allow anything better than 12" to be called a high quality binocular. How much difference in performance you are able so see depends on your eyesight. Some may well be content with a binoclar with 12" effective resolution, but I look for 7.5" or better. If I can spot a difference by eye then it's normally worse than that. The Vanduard EDII I estimated at 6.2" which I'd call exceĺlent.
Although I suspect that most of us mean effective resolution when we comment on sharpness, the eye actually is more sensitve to relatively coarse detail. This is regularly exploited in photograpy and may be to some extent in binocular design. Some user comments on sharpness may actually be noting coarse detail contrast instead of effective resolution. Confusing, as I said!
I've used the tripod mount on many occasions while testing and it seems secure enough, but I wouldn't normally use a tripod, even for a 10x in the field so don't really know how practical it would be.
David
I normally report the resolution for the centre 20mm of the objective as I feel that is the most relvant to the user experience. A 'perfect' optic should give a value around 5.8 arcseconds, but the DIN ISO standard for binoclars could allow anything better than 12" to be called a high quality binocular. How much difference in performance you are able so see depends on your eyesight. Some may well be content with a binoclar with 12" effective resolution, but I look for 7.5" or better. If I can spot a difference by eye then it's normally worse than that. The Vanduard EDII I estimated at 6.2" which I'd call exceĺlent.
Although I suspect that most of us mean effective resolution when we comment on sharpness, the eye actually is more sensitve to relatively coarse detail. This is regularly exploited in photograpy and may be to some extent in binocular design. Some user comments on sharpness may actually be noting coarse detail contrast instead of effective resolution. Confusing, as I said!
I've used the tripod mount on many occasions while testing and it seems secure enough, but I wouldn't normally use a tripod, even for a 10x in the field so don't really know how practical it would be.
David
The-Wanderer
Well-known member
That, David, is very useful and sets my mind at rest with my purchase.
I am not a scientist but my career, before I retired was as a professional engineer, and i do like to see, wherever possible, factual information.
To the extent that it is not available, opinions from experienced, unbiased people, professional or amateur, in reasonably controlled circumstances helps and the more the merrier. I am always wary of opinion without factual basis.
I am now somewhat wary of allbinos: I am not sure I questioned their results and methods suffiiently, but am more satisfied than I was that I purchased good value for money with the Endeavor edII.
thank you.
I am not a scientist but my career, before I retired was as a professional engineer, and i do like to see, wherever possible, factual information.
To the extent that it is not available, opinions from experienced, unbiased people, professional or amateur, in reasonably controlled circumstances helps and the more the merrier. I am always wary of opinion without factual basis.
I am now somewhat wary of allbinos: I am not sure I questioned their results and methods suffiiently, but am more satisfied than I was that I purchased good value for money with the Endeavor edII.
thank you.
I used to have both Vanguard Endeavor ED (not ED II) and Elite ED, and I feel that optically Vanguard is slightly better than Elite, but build quality wise, because it is made in Japan, I feel like Elite is slightly better than Vanguard (made in china). But for ED II, it used Japanese ED glasses, so my guess is that optically, it should be considerably better than Elite, so if price is similar, I will vote for Vanguard. In fact, I feel that Endeavor ED (not ED II), with $50 rebate, is one of the highest valued binoculars in the current market.
Just my 2 cents,
Just my 2 cents,
I picked up a pair of Endeavor ED's first generation and optically they are indeed pretty sweet but they just did not work at all ergonomically. I have a very average sized head and adjusting them to my pupil width caused major double vision. Decreasing the interpupillary distance cleared up the double vision but put uncomfortable pressure on my nose. Kept playing with them for the day and decided it was a no go. Gotta send them back.
Jas,
Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately the quest for longer eye relief and wider views has meant that the eypieces and therefore eye cups have got wider over the years. The 40mm of the Vanguard seems fairly typical these days and but I have a couple which are much wider still. Unfortunately it's not something I normally make a note of wearing glasses most of the time but recall finding a couple at 38mm which would give another 2mm between them.
It may be that you features aren't compatible with the popular models with the eyecups extended. It's not at all unusual and many here resort to what became known here as the MOLCET technique. Instead of extending the eyecups fully, set at an intermediate position , or fully down, you rest the top rim of the eyecup against your eyebrow instead. It might need a bit of a frown for fine tuning. My IPD isn't particularly large either and I need do this with models like the ZenRay Prime with 44mm eyecups when I use them without glasses.
Hopefully others can pipe in with suggestions for models with narrower eyecups.
David
Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately the quest for longer eye relief and wider views has meant that the eypieces and therefore eye cups have got wider over the years. The 40mm of the Vanguard seems fairly typical these days and but I have a couple which are much wider still. Unfortunately it's not something I normally make a note of wearing glasses most of the time but recall finding a couple at 38mm which would give another 2mm between them.
It may be that you features aren't compatible with the popular models with the eyecups extended. It's not at all unusual and many here resort to what became known here as the MOLCET technique. Instead of extending the eyecups fully, set at an intermediate position , or fully down, you rest the top rim of the eyecup against your eyebrow instead. It might need a bit of a frown for fine tuning. My IPD isn't particularly large either and I need do this with models like the ZenRay Prime with 44mm eyecups when I use them without glasses.
Hopefully others can pipe in with suggestions for models with narrower eyecups.
David
