Unfortunately they really need to be tried side by side on the hill to really make a decision.Damm - I'd have to agree with that, bout the first thing ever you've posted I can say that about eh Proudkiwi Haha. I’ve changed between Leica and Swarovski a couple of times in the last decade because of changes to my vision more than any lens coating they may have rolled out.Īnd trying them both in store proves nothing. Need the kestrel for that which can be used in the sig bino.Īt that end of the market they are all pretty much the same in terms of function.įar more important is how they look to YOUR eyes.
#Leica rangefinder binoculars software#
Zeiss can work to 3300m with the 2265m furthest I had data but wouldn’t be accurate because of the bc in software would not have been degraded. Most others including the new vortex are effective to 1500m then target surface selective after that. The Kahles probably has the poorest range finder 1000m reliable.
The sig is better at longer ranges with the scan as it gets lost of hit attempts so it usually doesn’t fail to get a reading. One difference with the Zeiss is it ranges on release of the button not press so is a bit steadier.
Definetly used zeiss RF 10x42 and the sig bdx 3000. We did test some range finders against some survey equipment at 1 mile. The angle compensation is not entirely correct past a certain distance either, maybe 700m we have tested it and it seemed out. The swaro doesn’t give you angle compensation past 1000m if that happens to be of concern.
0 kommentar(er)
