Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Sig 3000BDX Review
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="catorres1" data-source="post: 1798664" data-attributes="member: 80699"><p><strong>Sig 3000 BDX Review continued</strong></p><p></p><div style="text-align: center"><a href="https://postimages.org/" target="_blank"><img src="https://i.postimg.cc/zvt429JB/IMG-20200105-171012861.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></div> <div style="text-align: center"></div> <div style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 12px">The 3000's are a little shorter than the FL's, but are quite a bit thicker. In terms of weight, the 3000's weigh about 6 ozs more than the FL's, probably due to the addition of the rangefinding hardware</span></div><p></p><p>The other thing I noticed is during long periods of glassing, the FL's were easier on my eyes. I did not get eyestrain from the Sigs, but the FL's were just easier to look through, the image was more 'right there', like looking through a window, where the Sig's felt like it was not quite as 'real' somehow. It's hard for me to describe, but during long periods of glassing, the difference in the image quality becomes apparent between the two. This is not to say the Sigs are poor, they worked through to the end of shooting light very well, the image is crisp and colorful, the contrast is good, I really have no complaints at all. But yes, higher end glass does have some real benefits that come with that price tag, and my time actually hunting with both sets of binos was useful in demonstrating, at least for me, where the Sigs lie in terms of glass performance. I'd say, considering the price point of the package, they are impressive and very capable, but as one should expect, they lack the special something that is found in high end glass.</p><p></p><p>In terms of coatings, I have not experienced any flare problems like I did with the 2400. From early morning through end of shooting light, I have not had a situation where the bino's flared out. Likewise, where as the 2400's exhibited a distinct blue color cast, I find that the 3k is fairly neutral. Sort of. They achieved this, it seems, through a clever combination of casts to trick your brain into seeing a neutral view. At least in my unit, the right barrel, where the RF is, has a distinct cool cast when viewed individually. Conversely, the left barrel has a somewhat warm cast. However, when you through the binos with both eyes, the combination of both inputs gives you a balanced color cast in the 'binocular' image. Overall, to my eyes, it is quite neutral.</p><p></p><p>All that is to say, yes, the alpha glass is better, as it should be. There are quantifiable differences, along with a quality that is hard to describe exactly. But that said, I personally find the glass on the Sig's to be a lot better than I was told to expect, frankly, I was impressed. They are sharp, flare is very well controlled, unlike on the 2400 I had, and their low light performance is easily sufficient for identifying game to the end of shooting light. In my review of the 2400, I described the glass as sufficient to get the job done. In the case of the 3k, at least for my eyes, it well exceeds that benchmark, and I was in no way disappointed nor have found myself feeling handicapped by the glass or coatings on the 3k. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying these are Leica level in terms of glass, but at least in my experience using them in the field, I found them to be every bit up to every hunting task I put them to up to the end of shooting light.</p><p></p><div style="text-align: center"><a href="https://postimages.org/" target="_blank"><img src="https://i.postimg.cc/d0CBzg91/IMG-20191016-180212819-HDR.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></div> <div style="text-align: center"></div> <div style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 12px">From alpine country in Colorado to far South Texas on the border, the 3000BDX binos performed well for us under all conditions, suffering some abuse along the way, but never failing nonetheless</span></div><p></p><p><strong>Workflow</strong></p><p></p><p>Overall, the things that especially stood out about the 3k vs the 2400 BDX really apply to any RF bino vs the CRF. One thing I found myself liking about a CRF with really nice glass, like my Leicas, is that it is quicker and more convenient for me to pull out the CRF and use it as sort of 'pre-glassing' device to quickly scan an area for game, and then pull my binos from my chest rig when I am settled in to glass for a bit. In that sense, I personally like that workflow a little better. However, when you consider what you need to do to evaluate game, get the range and get on the shot, the binos are faster. Add in that no matter how good the glass, the (relative to the CRF) huge objectives of the bino and binocular vision are simply better for seeing than a CRF. Especially as the light goes down, the binos have a huge advantage. Add in the workflow speed of the BDX, and you have a strong argument for the bino solution over a CRF, despite the slight inconvenience of having to deploy a bino vs a CRF when you just want to take a quick look. Still, it's a personal thing, it can go both ways, but having never hunted with an RF bino, I found it an interesting consideration.</p><p></p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p></p><p>Overall, I am really impressed with the 3k. The glass was surprisingly good, much better than I expected, and was 100% capable of whatever tasks we put it to in hunting conditions. The RF is outstanding, and of course, the BDX tech is impressive, especially considering how fast and stable it is. In terms of tech, it takes everything good about the 2400, but ups the game with better divergence and more powerful ranging. Like everything else, it does have its negatives that I would like to see Sig address, but overall, if you like the workflow of a bino RF, the 3k is an impressive performer and definitely worth a look, especially at its price point.</p><p></p><p><strong>Positives</strong></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Outstanding ranging performance in terms of power and speed</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The smaller divergence makes ranging small targets more accurate</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Optics punch above their weight when overall pricing is considered</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Like the 2400 BDX, the connectivity capabilities are innovative, well executed, reliable, and fast</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">All of the strong points of the BDX system have been maintained, making this an incredibly fast hunting solution when used with a BDX scope</li> </ul><p><strong>Negatives</strong></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Diopters do not lock and move too easily</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sensor to reticle alignment should be improved</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">No covers. Sig should be including eye piece and objective covers for these rather than the bino harness</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="catorres1, post: 1798664, member: 80699"] [B]Sig 3000 BDX Review continued[/B] [CENTER][URL='https://postimages.org/'][IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/zvt429JB/IMG-20200105-171012861.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [SIZE=3]The 3000's are a little shorter than the FL's, but are quite a bit thicker. In terms of weight, the 3000's weigh about 6 ozs more than the FL's, probably due to the addition of the rangefinding hardware[/SIZE][/CENTER] The other thing I noticed is during long periods of glassing, the FL’s were easier on my eyes. I did not get eyestrain from the Sigs, but the FL’s were just easier to look through, the image was more ‘right there’, like looking through a window, where the Sig’s felt like it was not quite as ‘real’ somehow. It’s hard for me to describe, but during long periods of glassing, the difference in the image quality becomes apparent between the two. This is not to say the Sigs are poor, they worked through to the end of shooting light very well, the image is crisp and colorful, the contrast is good, I really have no complaints at all. But yes, higher end glass does have some real benefits that come with that price tag, and my time actually hunting with both sets of binos was useful in demonstrating, at least for me, where the Sigs lie in terms of glass performance. I’d say, considering the price point of the package, they are impressive and very capable, but as one should expect, they lack the special something that is found in high end glass. In terms of coatings, I have not experienced any flare problems like I did with the 2400. From early morning through end of shooting light, I have not had a situation where the bino’s flared out. Likewise, where as the 2400’s exhibited a distinct blue color cast, I find that the 3k is fairly neutral. Sort of. They achieved this, it seems, through a clever combination of casts to trick your brain into seeing a neutral view. At least in my unit, the right barrel, where the RF is, has a distinct cool cast when viewed individually. Conversely, the left barrel has a somewhat warm cast. However, when you through the binos with both eyes, the combination of both inputs gives you a balanced color cast in the ‘binocular’ image. Overall, to my eyes, it is quite neutral. All that is to say, yes, the alpha glass is better, as it should be. There are quantifiable differences, along with a quality that is hard to describe exactly. But that said, I personally find the glass on the Sig’s to be a lot better than I was told to expect, frankly, I was impressed. They are sharp, flare is very well controlled, unlike on the 2400 I had, and their low light performance is easily sufficient for identifying game to the end of shooting light. In my review of the 2400, I described the glass as sufficient to get the job done. In the case of the 3k, at least for my eyes, it well exceeds that benchmark, and I was in no way disappointed nor have found myself feeling handicapped by the glass or coatings on the 3k. Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying these are Leica level in terms of glass, but at least in my experience using them in the field, I found them to be every bit up to every hunting task I put them to up to the end of shooting light. [CENTER][URL='https://postimages.org/'][IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/d0CBzg91/IMG-20191016-180212819-HDR.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [SIZE=3]From alpine country in Colorado to far South Texas on the border, the 3000BDX binos performed well for us under all conditions, suffering some abuse along the way, but never failing nonetheless[/SIZE][/CENTER] [B]Workflow[/B] Overall, the things that especially stood out about the 3k vs the 2400 BDX really apply to any RF bino vs the CRF. One thing I found myself liking about a CRF with really nice glass, like my Leicas, is that it is quicker and more convenient for me to pull out the CRF and use it as sort of ‘pre-glassing’ device to quickly scan an area for game, and then pull my binos from my chest rig when I am settled in to glass for a bit. In that sense, I personally like that workflow a little better. However, when you consider what you need to do to evaluate game, get the range and get on the shot, the binos are faster. Add in that no matter how good the glass, the (relative to the CRF) huge objectives of the bino and binocular vision are simply better for seeing than a CRF. Especially as the light goes down, the binos have a huge advantage. Add in the workflow speed of the BDX, and you have a strong argument for the bino solution over a CRF, despite the slight inconvenience of having to deploy a bino vs a CRF when you just want to take a quick look. Still, it’s a personal thing, it can go both ways, but having never hunted with an RF bino, I found it an interesting consideration. [B]Summary[/B] Overall, I am really impressed with the 3k. The glass was surprisingly good, much better than I expected, and was 100% capable of whatever tasks we put it to in hunting conditions. The RF is outstanding, and of course, the BDX tech is impressive, especially considering how fast and stable it is. In terms of tech, it takes everything good about the 2400, but ups the game with better divergence and more powerful ranging. Like everything else, it does have its negatives that I would like to see Sig address, but overall, if you like the workflow of a bino RF, the 3k is an impressive performer and definitely worth a look, especially at its price point. [B]Positives[/B] [LIST] [*]Outstanding ranging performance in terms of power and speed [*]The smaller divergence makes ranging small targets more accurate [*]Optics punch above their weight when overall pricing is considered [*]Like the 2400 BDX, the connectivity capabilities are innovative, well executed, reliable, and fast [*]All of the strong points of the BDX system have been maintained, making this an incredibly fast hunting solution when used with a BDX scope [/LIST] [B]Negatives[/B] [LIST] [*]Diopters do not lock and move too easily [*]Sensor to reticle alignment should be improved [*]No covers. Sig should be including eye piece and objective covers for these rather than the bino harness [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Sig 3000BDX Review
Top