I joined this forum to ask one simple question that seems to be being danced around by , you guessed it, brand loyalists.
Nearly the entire thread looks like an advertisement for Sig.
The question has been asked several times, and not one person, answered it.
Danced all around it, moved on to the next subject, and then it was "Oh it will range at 3000 yards and it's better than Leica"
That doesn't make it better than Leica.
What about the optical properties? Can anyone answer this? Or is that asking too much?
You see ,
I , and others, tend to use the rangefinder as a spotting tool as well. So optical clarity, fidelity, contrast, and overall image quality SHOULD be something to consider.
Who here has compared the optical qualities to that of a Leupold, Leica, or dare I say Zeiss?
I can tell you that the image quality of the three above mentioned rangefinders is top notch, tier one . Sharp as a razor.
I hunt with a .30 caliber airgun firing a 44.75 grain projectile and often go out to 150 yards on live targets. So basically, people like me could care less if a rangefinder can range a sky scraper at 2000 yards. I can't eat a sky scraper, or grandpa Joes barn that I ranged at 1700 yards.
The Leica and the Leupold will both range a rabbits head at 150 yards and give you jaw dropping image quality. 3 days ago a ranged a 5 foot alligators head , in water at 122.7 yards with a Leupold rx1200i. I know lots of you guys go out much further on much larger targets. But in my opinion, in my first post here, Image quality, sharpness , optical quality, matters.
So who here has compared the latest greatest rangefinders image quality to some of the known good glass??