Whats a good rangefinder for up to 1000m

stubblejumper said:
I have tested the Leica and Nikon side by side,and they were by no means equivalent.The Leica is a superior unit.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.

I tested both side by side on a variety of man-made and soft targets, and the Leica CRF1200 gave me a return at 1839 yards from a reflective building (farm quonset) and off of stubblefield out to 1400 yd whereas the Nikon unit would only return 600 at best off the stubblefield and 850 off a similarly reflective building.

The optics aren't even close to the same - if you can't see the Leica is brighter and clearer, get your cataracts removed.

I now own a CRF1200 and it's the envy of whoever I let test-drive it.

-M
 
Free medical advice from a Doc:

The optics aren't even close to the same - if you can't see the Leica is brighter and clearer, get your cataracts removed.
Click to expand...

h9991300_008.jpg


DocM is NEVER wrong.:rolleyes:
 
Check out the Swarovski don't bother carrying binoculars anymore. The optics on the monocular are excellent. Sharp, clear, with very good color retention. The range finder in them is accurate and reliable out to the 1500yards as advertised.
I picked up mine as demonstrators from a banner advertiser, Cameraland. They were about half the price of the same model here in Canada, delivered to my door. Ask them to ship by regular mail. That way you don't have to pay any extra charges.

I was lucky enough to be able to compare the difference between several different models. With the Swarovski, unlike the others, eye relief is great for people with glasses and the ocular lens is very large, so you don't have to search for the sweet spot in the center. Weight is comparable but the shape is easier to handle.

I did get the chance to check out the Leica binocular/rangefinder combo last week end. I must admit, they are the best of both worlds. Pricey but if I had to do it all over again, I would have a pair of those. Sharp, clear etc. Accurate as well. Absolutely no differece in ranging estimates between them and my Swarovski.
 
Last edited:
http://www.laserrangefinderreview.com/

An important statement to consider,taken from that link.

It is important to note that a $200 rangefinder that scores 95 is not necessarily better than a $600 rangefinder that scores 90. This is because user reviews factor in price (i.e. 'for $200 this is a great rangefinder' and 'for $600 I expected this rangefinder to perform better) So the $600 rangefinder that scored 90 might out perform the $200 rangefinder that scored 95 in every possible category. The important thing to remember is value is accounted for in user reviews.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah stubblejumper I saw that too. The Leica got a rave review and only costs $600 in the USA according to them. Wow for $600 each I'd buy 2! They did mention it didn't have the angle compensation for bowhunters. But I don't see anyone but the rich having a Leica for short range bowhunting. I imagine it's bought for long long range accuracy. That's why I'd pay for one.
 
Just tried a Leica 800 LRF I purchased from another member here & ranged 865 meters on a known reflective target. I far as I can tell right now, it reads true. I own a few Leica scopes & have been very happy with there performance, so I figured their rangefinders would not disappoint me.
 
i have the lieca crf 1200 model .it was a toss up between the lieca or the swarovski rangefinder .farthest i have ranged out in the woods is 1340 yards on trees .ive been told that the swaro model will range farther.it is also a few hundred dollars more too.
 
JasonS said:
I 100% agree with you. But once my Google skills catch up to yours look out!
Click to expand...

So, I Googled myself testing the Nikon and Leica models side by side in the field?

It was epic, really - I sat there, holding a laptop in the middle of a field and Googled how far each rangefinder could return under my conditions. Google Earth was a big help there, as was "Google Field View" (it's in the beta stages, in a limited release - look for it in May 2011).

It was pretty sweet. Way easier and more probable than me actually doing it.

-M
 
Doc M said:
So, I Googled myself testing the Nikon and Leica models side by side in the field?

It was epic, really - I sat there, holding a laptop in the middle of a field and Googled how far each rangefinder could return under my conditions. Google Earth was a big help there, as was "Google Field View" (it's in the beta stages, in a limited release - look for it in May 2011).

It was pretty sweet. Way easier and more probable than me actually doing it.

-M
Click to expand...

Like I said.........:rolleyes:
 
Nikon Travis M. said:
The Nikon 1200s is a great unit that can hit soft targets at that range. We do have a very quick processor as previously posted and I'd recommend head to your local shop and ask to pop your head out the front door and compare it against something else you like. I'd proudly say you will be impressed.

We do have a new model coming out in late August that will be a 1000yd model with an auto-switching reticle that will go from LCD black to LED red on its own depending on the target you sight.

Do your best to handle the product before you buy it though, no matter which brand you choose. But I'd endorse the Nikon of course. :)
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Travis that you need hands on with various models out on the street (unless the store your in has a wall over a 1000 yds away) to make honest comparisons. Size vs performance vs cost are all important considerations. Nikons have always been some of my best selling and performing models and the lock time has to be experienced to understand the difference. My only complaint with the Nikons is I find them a little big compared to a few new competitors models currently out. I still feel that Nikons are one of the better models out there and bang for the buck is excellent. I also find the display reading to be one of the best in the industry. Phil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom