Nikon Monarch 800 or Bushnell 1500 tournament?

I searched here. I googled. I read for hours. Seems that functionally they are equivalent for ranging and modes.

Nikon is lighter but uses a camera lithium battery instead of a 9 volt?

Nikon is 6x and Bushnell 7x.

I'm leaning towards the Nikon, anything I'd be missing in the Bushnell?

I haven't tried the Nikon, but I believe it is similar to the Callaway which was one I did try. I liked the case for the Callaway, but I felt the feel in my hand of the Bushnell was better for me. It's oriented like a binocular, and I liked that. The eye relief is VERY good as well. I wear glasses and can even get good results using the Bushnell with them.

I owned them both, then sold the Pinseeker. I prefer the smaller size of the Nikon. Some may find the Pinseeker easier to hold steady because of its size. Battery is a non-issue for me (I've used my Nikon a ton this year and it still shows full battery).

I used a Bushnell YP Tour XL for about 4 years. Great unit. Started looking around this year because I was tired of the size of the Bush. Found the Nikon/Callaway. Compared to the old Bushnell, the Nik/Cal is much quicker, locates the target (flagstick) more effectively, and is significantly smaller.

I messed around a bit w/ the new Bushnell 1500's, but the size of those units wasn't much different (in their case) than my old unit, which ended up being the deciding factor for me.

I ended up w/ the Callaway LR 1200, and I absolutely love it!

I messed around a bit w/ the new Bushnell 1500's, but the size of those units wasn't much different (in their case) than my old unit, which ended up being the deciding factor for me.

 

I ended up w/ the Callaway LR 1200, and I absolutely love it!

Yes, that's the main reason I was leaning towards the Nikon. Weight and size. Now... you've introduced the 1200 vs. the 800... I wasn't considering the 1200 as none of the sites called out that it was waterproof. They ALWAYS list the 800 specifically as being waterproof. I looked, they're the same in that respect (duh -- makes sense). I don't need the additional range but I would pay for better optics or "armor" cladding if one has it and the other doesn't. I guess I would expect the 1200 to have better optics to achieve the additional range and it appears that both have the armor cladding.

So... noticeable difference in the eye optics?

800 - 7.4oz, 1200 - 9.8oz

The 1200 is 7x magnification where the 800 is 6x (is 7x too much for inside 200yds?)

decisions, decisions... I guess I'd want to be sure to buy from an authorized dealer for the Nikon warranty too.

I have found the Bushnell Pinseeker 1500 TE to work better than both Nikon/Callaway units. Just so you don't think I am biased against the Nikon prokducts, I am a huge Nikon fan from my Photography days. I just found the Pinseeker to fit better in my hand and function better and quicker. As far as I am concerned, the size of the Pinseeker is a non-issue. The optics on all three units are great.

You can't go wrong with any of these units. I much prefer 7x magnification to 6x though so I would prefer the Nikon 1200 over the 800.

Scott

I messed around a bit w/ the new Bushnell 1500's, but the size of those units wasn't much different (in their case) than my old unit, which ended up being the deciding factor for me.

 

I ended up w/ the Callaway LR 1200, and I absolutely love it!

 

Yes, that's the main reason I was leaning towards the Nikon. Weight and size. Now... you've introduced the 1200 vs. the 800... I wasn't considering the 1200 as none of the sites called out that it was waterproof. They ALWAYS list the 800 specifically as being waterproof. I looked, they're the same in that respect (duh -- makes sense). I don't need the additional range but I would pay for better optics or "armor" cladding if one has it and the other doesn't. I guess I would expect the 1200 to have better optics to achieve the additional range and it appears that both have the armor cladding.

 

So... noticeable difference in the eye optics?

800 - 7.4oz, 1200 - 9.8oz

The 1200 is 7x magnification where the 800 is 6x (is 7x too much for inside 200yds?)

 

decisions, decisions... I guess I'd want to be sure to buy from an authorized dealer for the Nikon warranty too.

Maginfication is rule number one for range finders. The higher your magnification, the more accurate and easier it will be to home in on the target and eliminate back ground interference.

7X is always better than 6X, from 10 yards to 250.

I think you can't really go wrong. I was a longtime Bushnell user, and my YP Tour XL gave me many years of great service (and a pretty solid residual value). My preference was for the monocular style vs. binocular. It was just that, personal preference. The new Bush's may be quicker than the Cally/Nikon 1200. I don't know. What I do know is that it probably doesn't matter because the 1200 is so fast it's a non-issue. The 800 is slightly smaller than the 1200. Both appeared to work equally well to me in a very brief side-by-side comparison.

I have found the Bushnell Pinseeker 1500 TE to work better than both Nikon/Callaway units. ... I just found the Pinseeker to fit better in my hand and function better and quicker.

Scott

Hi Scott - in comparing the 1500 to the Nikon 1200, in what specific way did you find the Bushnell to work better? Was it easier to fix a target with the Bushnell? Given my 21 handicap, my concern isn't getting a distance to the pin as much as it is figuring out the distance from my punch-out beneath the tree to the hazard up and across the other side of the fairway!

Thanks

Hey Dog,

There is some mis-info here that I thought I might clear up.

Magnification has nothing to do with the accuracy of the rangefinder. In fact, it has nothing to do with the rangefinder at all.

The rangefinder emits a pulsed laser out to a reflective surface (like a flag, pin, tree, grassy slope, etc). the pulses in the beam enable a microcomputer to measure the amount of time from transmission to reception of the reflection, and calculate the distance.

The beam does not originate from nor picked up by the optics you look through... they are there simply to help you aim the thing on the right target.

Magnification is not a "some's good, more is better" scenario... as I could give you a 120x telescope to aim your rangefinder, and while on a steady tripod you would be able to aim it at a fly on the flagstick, handheld you would not be able to keep the flagstick in the viewfinder as the field of view is so small the slightest movement would be sufficient to totally change it.

Most binoculars run 7x to 10x for a reason. Any more mag than that and you can't hold them steady enough to see the target without it being flooded with jitter. A monocular has even more problems with jitter as there are fewer than the four points of support (two eyebrows - two hands) than with binoculars, and that the stereoscopy of both eyes tends to minimize jitter with binoculars.

What does this all mean... well if you can't hold a rangefinder steady enough to get an accurate reading on the target, it won't matter what magnification your viewfinder is. Bigger and heavier ones are easier to hold steady (just like with cameras), but smaller, lighter ones are easier to carry. It is simply a trade-off as to what you prefer. If you have steady hands and good camera holding technique it won't matter. Also if the device has closest object priority and a continuous scan mode, even if you can't hold it steady on the pin, scanning slowly back and forth across the pin or flag will give you the right distance.

Hope this helps.

-ss

I have used both extensively (Bushnell 1500 and Nikon 800) and IMO, the tradeoffs are this:

Bushnell

Pro: Easier to target distances to the flag from over 175 yards due to the 1x greater magnification

Con: Bulky

Nikon:

Pro: Small and lightweight

Con: Much harder to target the flag from outside of 175 yards. Sometimes takes 3 or 4 times to get a reading.

I walk all the time, so I chose the Nikon. If you ride all the time or use a pullcart and size/weight is not a deciding factor, go with the Bushnell. It is so easy to hit targets from any realistic distance.

Thanks for responses. Sorry, but I'm still confused. The key to me is ease of hitting target. Is it harder to hit target with nikon 1200 compared to bushnell 1500?

Is hitting target solely related to magnification - if so, the nikon 1200 should equal the bushnell because both are 7X (nikon 800 is 6x).

If ease of hitting target is related to size, that shouldn't make a difference as both are roughly same size.

The difference appears to be orientation and control - Nikon is vertical and held with one hand. Bushnell is horizontal and maybe held with two hands.

Bottom line - for those who have used both Nikon 1200 and Bushnell 1500 - which is easier to hit target?

Thanks

I have used both extensively (Bushnell 1500 and Nikon 800) and IMO, the tradeoffs are this:

 

Bushnell

Pro: Easier to target distances to the flag from over 175 yards due to the 1x greater magnification

This makes no sense as the Nikon is the one with the greater magnification.

Like I said. The bigger and heavier it is, the easier it is to hold steady. Magnification has NOTHING to do with it.

I have used both extensively (Bushnell 1500 and Nikon 800) and IMO, the tradeoffs are this:

 

Bushnell

Pro: Easier to target distances to the flag from over 175 yards due to the 1x greater magnification

 

This makes no sense as the Nikon is the one with the greater magnification.

 

Like I said. The bigger and heavier it is, the easier it is to hold steady. Magnification has NOTHING to do with it.

Incorrect, the Nikon 800 is 6x magnification the Bushnell is 7x, and that 1x does make a difference when aiming at a target. That, combined with the greater mass of the Bushnell makes it much easier to "point and shoot" at a target at distances over 200 yards.

Now, the Nikon 1200 has 7x magnification which puts it on par with the Bushnell, but I was not commenting on that model.

Higher mag in Bushnell makes it easier to get targets from further away.

I happen to also prefer the added size of the bushnell as it also makes it easier for me to steady.

Lighter weight/compact size is nice, but in actual use I found the Bushnell to be easier to use.

Magnification has NOTHING to do with it.

That is just plain incorrect. The larger a target is in the viewfinder, the easier it is to acquire and stay on the target.

Scott

Bushnell. It's ridiculous how fast it gives you the yardage. It may be bulky but it works fast.

Magnification has NOTHING to do with it.

That is just plain incorrect. The larger a target is in the viewfinder, the easier it is to acquire and stay on the target.

 

Scott

The higher the mag, the smaller the field of view. The smaller the field of view, the more any angular deflection will cause the subject to move. The extra mag may make it easier to "see" what you're trying to target, but it will not improve accuracy or steadiness.

And the extra 1x (over 6x) gives you a 16% fatter pin... negligible IMHO.

This is simple high school physics folks.

If price and size are no object you might consider a rangefinding binocular. They will give you not only more magnification, but also a much steadier handheld platform.

The higher the mag, the smaller the field of view. The smaller the field of view, the more any angular deflection will cause the subject to move. The extra mag may make it easier to "see" what you're trying to target, but it will not improve accuracy or steadiness.

You obviously have never hunted game from long distance. Not only does the higher magnification makes it easier to see the target, it makes it easier to verify your are on the right target. In other words, accuracy is improved. The higher magnification makes any lack of steadiness more apparent which, in fact, helps improve steadiness.

The bottom line is that the bigger the target is in the viewfinder, the easier it is to range it.

Scott

You obviously have never hunted game from long distance.

No... I have never killed an animal for sport... but I have punched paper from over two hundred yards, usually with a scope in the 9x-18x. And I still stand by my observation that the difference between 6x and 7x is negligible.

And I still stand by my observation that the difference between 6x and 7x is negligible.

Then you obviously have not used the Nikon 800 and Bushnell 1500 TE side-by-side from 250 yards out. I have, and the 1x magnification makes a big difference.

And I still stand by my observation that the difference between 6x and 7x is negligible.

That not all we were talking about. You said:

"The extra mag may make it easier to "see" what you're trying to target, but it will not improve accuracy or steadiness."

That statement is just plain wrong. Also, there is a noticeable difference when looking through the Bushnell 1500 7x26 viewfinder and the Nikon 800 6x20 viewfinder. I don't know about you, but to me, 16.7 percent larger is not negligible!

By the way, that second number is the size of the lens. The bigger the lens the more light that is let in. So, not only does the Bushnell have higher magnification, it lets in more light.

Scott

Guys - I appreciate all your input and I'm learning a lot - but to go back to my original question:

Bottom line - for those who have used both Nikon 1200 and Bushnell 1500 - which is easier to hit target?

I think the "Pinseeker" technology in the Pinseeker 1500 works a little bit better than the Nikon's "First Target Priority Mode". Both are 7x viewfinders so they are equal in regards to target size and ease of hitting the target. I also prefer the horizontal orientation of the Bushnell unit versus the vertical orientation of the Nikon.

You can't go wrong with either unit.

Scott

Also, there is a noticeable difference when looking through the Bushnell 1500 7x26 viewfinder and the Nikon 800 6x20 viewfinder. I don't know about you, but to me, 16.7 percent larger is not negligible!

 

By the way, that second number is the size of the lens. The bigger the lens the more light that is let in. So, not only does the Bushnell have higher magnification, it lets in more light.

I am really glad you like your bushnell... but your arguments would hve one believe there is significant difference with its viewfinder.

As a photographer, amateur astronomer, and retired competitive shooter, I am familiar with magnifiation, objectives, and other optical proerties and principles.

Unless you're playing golf at night why would you care about the difference in light. You're not exposing film... why do you continue to bring up arguments in favor of the bushnell that for all intents and purposes are meaningless? Any light that would even come close to allowing you to track your golf ball would be more than sufficient for even the smallest, darkest scopes.

And regarding magnification once more... as I write this I am looking out my window to the forest and range to the east with both a pair of bushnell 7x35 binos and a 6x20 rangefinder... and the ONLY major differences I see are that the 7x35 is noticeably brighter and the 6x20 fits in my shirt pocket. It is simply inconceivable to me that anyone could consider this difference in magnification significant.

To the OP... There is very little real world difference here. The Bushnell 7x is heavier, bigger and easier to hold steady. The 6x's are smaller, more convenient to carry on your person, and harder to hold steady. They both work exceptionally well and I thnk you should decide what is most important to you.

To the OP: There is a real world difference between 7x and 6x. Look at a flag from 200+ yards with a 7x and a 6x and you will see a noticeable difference. This difference is even more noticeable when you are targeting bunkers and other objects that may or may not be easy to see. If you consider the Nikon 1200 with the 7x viewfinder, it pretty much comes down to your preference in ergonomics. I am steadier with the horizontal orientation of the Bushnell unit versus the vertical orientation of the Nikon.

Scott

To answer your question: BUSHNELL 1500 TE.

My reasoning is that it picks up the target faster due to a couple of reasons:

- 7x magnification (nikon 800 is 6x)

- it's size and weight helps keep it steady (it's only heavier by OUNCES. Just take a few tees out of your bag :) . Once its in your bag you don't really notice the size difference.)

- the pinseeker targeting system just seems to pick up the pin faster. This is really important to me since I want to get my yardage FAST and throw the scope back in my bag, so I can start visualizing my next shot.

My friend has a Nikon 1200 and I have a Bushnell.

Bushnell picks up the correct yardage faster and easier with the Pinseeker mode. Nikon, may be because of it's lack of weight, it moves up and down, left and right. I couldn't pick up the yardage without several tries.

For the OP...

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... here's two for your comparison:

If a 6x scope showed you this magnification and field of view...

This is what it would look like at 7x (17% more magniifcation - actually this is just under 18%). Pretty significant difference, eh? Note I did not use a tripod so perspective is a tiny nit off between shots. Simply use the crown of the tree in the middle, or the big out of focus trunk on the right for how much "larger" things will look. lol

Solutions Etcetera,

A landscape on a computer screen with a bunch of irregularly shaped objects is a ridiculous example.

Here is a better one with 7x on the left and 6x on the right:

Use a 6x versus a 7x rangefinder side by side on the golf course and you will see that the difference is quite noticeable. Even more than these pictures would indicate.

Scott