Nikon Coolshot Pro Stabilized Rangefinder

[Golfer4Life]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, is kind of lame, but Leupold is 100% quality, which is why I didn’t get rid of it. I’m a competition shooter, and all my long range rifles optics are either Nikon or Leupold, there’s nothing better out there.

 

At the end of the day, I don’t find removing one sunglasses to use a rangefinder as a deal breaker.

[ThinkingPlus]

Yeah, is kind of lame, but Leupold is 100% quality, which is why I didn’t get rid of it. I’m a competition shooter, and all my long range rifles optics are either Nikon or Leupold, there’s nothing better out there.

 

At the end of the day, I don’t find removing one sunglasses to use a rangefinder as a deal breaker.

Agreed. I just find it a bit annoying and unexpected.

[Golfer4Life]

Yeah, is kind of lame, but Leupold is 100% quality, which is why I didn’t get rid of it. I’m a competition shooter, and all my long range rifles optics are either Nikon or Leupold, there’s nothing better out there.

 

At the end of the day, I don’t find removing one sunglasses to use a rangefinder as a deal breaker.

Agreed. I just find it a bit annoying and unexpected.

 

I understand.

[Stuart_G]

Nikon could have changed the design between the two models.

 

I have an older Nikon - the LR550 (Callaway branded) I can see if it has the same issue. I normally never try to use it w/ Sunglasses but now you have me curious.

[ThinkingPlus]

Nikon could have changed the design between the two models.

 

I have an older Nikon - the LR550 (Callaway branded) I can see if it has the same issue. I normally never try to use it w/ Sunglasses but now you have me curious.

My previous Callaway/Nikon (on its last legs prompting the new prchase) does not have this issue, hence why I was so surprised.

[coloradojer]

Nikon could have changed the design between the two models.

 

I have an older Nikon - the LR550 (Callaway branded) I can see if it has the same issue. I normally never try to use it w/ Sunglasses but now you have me curious.

My previous Callaway/Nikon (on its last legs prompting the new prchase) does not have this issue, hence why I was so surprised.

I had the same problem using polarized sunglasses with the Nikon 80i VR. Non-polarized lenses weren't a problem, and if you turned the 80i VR 90 degress with polarized lenses you could see well enough to get a reading. It was enough of a deal breaker for me to return it. Just wanted to say thanks for posting this because you're the first person I've heard that has had the same issue I had. It doesn't help you at all, but I feel better knowing I'm not the only one out there.

[ThinkingPlus]

Nikon could have changed the design between the two models.

 

I have an older Nikon - the LR550 (Callaway branded) I can see if it has the same issue. I normally never try to use it w/ Sunglasses but now you have me curious.

My previous Callaway/Nikon (on its last legs prompting the new prchase) does not have this issue, hence why I was so surprised.

I had the same problem using polarized sunglasses with the Nikon 80i VR. Non-polarized lenses weren't a problem, and if you turned the 80i VR 90 degress with polarized lenses you could see well enough to get a reading. It was enough of a deal breaker for me to return it. Just wanted to say thanks for posting this because you're the first person I've heard that has had the same issue I had. It doesn't help you at all, but I feel better knowing I'm not the only one out there.

I seriously considered returning mine. I decided to live with the annoyance. Or maybe its an excuse to buy a pair of non-polarized sunglasses and see if it helps with reading grain. :yes:

[ChadR7371]

For what it's worth, there are two different families of polarization: linear and circular. You can have a lot of different experiences given the type of polarization you have.

 

For instance, most people know that looking at an LCD screen like an old cell phone, you can't see if you rotate the phone 90 degrees while wearing some polarized sunglasses.

 

The Oakley Prizm Polarized (the few lenses that actually are polarized) I've seen do something different and don't seem to have traditional issues, so they might be circular polarized. Another example of circular polarization is 3d movie theatres now. They actually project the two different pictures with left and right circular polarized light. They can't use linear because tilting your head would cause the screen to dim significantly.

 

I can't answer whether the rangefinder has a polarized coating, but you'd have to have the opposite polarization and the correct family to notice anything other than some dimming.

 

If you both need this rangefinder and need a specific pair of sunglasses, you might be able to try the polarizer magic trick - put a 3rd polarizer (I think must be linear) on the viewer of the rangefinder and rotate it until you can see an image. This polarizer will shift the light angle far enough that you should be able to see again.

[Stuart_G]

The Oakley Prizm Polarized (the few lenses that actually are polarized) I've seen do something different and don't seem to have traditional issues

 

For instance, most people know that looking at an LCD screen like an old cell phone, you can't see if you rotate the phone 90 degrees while wearing some polarized sunglasses.

 

ATM's seem particularly annoying in this respect. But I've read that, because of this, many polarized sunglasses are now moving to orient the linear polarization at a 45* angle to reduce much of the glare but still allow viewing the LCD output. Don't know if that's the case for the Oakley's or not.

 

And a quick check to determine if a polarizer is linear or circular is to look through in both directions. The linear polarizer will work the same both ways, a circular is only one way.

[Seeking70s]

Bought The Nikon Pro Stabilized Rangefinder and Love it. Easy to use and Fast. Seems ideal to me.

Love the first target lock on and the framing.

Too bright out turn it slightly after reading and you see the yardage against a totally black background.

Easy no shake.

[earleyrc]

Love mine.

[earleyrc]

> @MNDan said:

> My understanding is that while the optics are stabilized, the laser is not. Leads me to believe that there isn't much of an advantage vs a standard range finder.

This is not accurate. The laser aligns with the optics. I can hit pins from 400+ yards with one hand, no joke.

 

 

 

[BraveAnthony]

I wear a polarized Maui Jim sunglasses and I can see everything perfectly fine. I also emailed Nikon and confirmed that the laser remitter and receiver , along with the viewfinder mirror, all align with the VR mechanism. What you see is what laser targets.

[Seeking70s]

> @BraveAnthony said:

> I wear a polarized Maui Jim sunglasses and I can see everything perfectly fine. I also emailed Nikon and confirmed that the laser remitter and receiver , along with the viewfinder mirror, all align with the VR mechanism. What you see is what laser targets.

 

Yes that is correct, and This unit is as accurate as any on the Market. I bought one and Love it. So Easy to use and Fast.

They say it locks on in .3 of a second. Seems right. The Stabilization is a HUGE plus.

 

 

[osubuckeyes691]

Does anyone else find that it's sometimes difficult to hit the pin with this rangefinder because of the stabilization? When I go to shoot and push the button, the stabilization kicks in with a pretty violent "jump" so to speak and it throws off where the optics are aimed. I then I have to readjust. I almost feel that it takes longer to hit the pin sometimes

[North Butte]

The "trick" is after you press the button, give it the second or so it needs for the image to stabilize. Then aim at the flag and it will stay where you aimed.

 

In fact, I go ahead and press the button as I'm bringing it up to my eye so it's already stable as soon as I start looking through it. I think a lot of people's default expectation is they should point at the flag and then press the button to lock it in, as you've noticed that doesn't work. It has to already be stabilizing when you take your aim.

 

 

[osubuckeyes691]

> @"North Butte" said:

> The "trick" is after you press the button, give it the second or so it needs for the image to stabilize. Then aim at the flag and it will stay where you aimed.

>

> In fact, I go ahead and press the button as I'm bringing it up to my eye so it's already stable as soon as I start looking through it. I think a lot of people's default expectation is they should point at the flag and then press the button to lock it in, as you've noticed that doesn't work. It has to already be stabilizing when you take your aim.

>

>

 

Thanks for this. Trying to figure out if I want to continue giving it a go or if I will just stick with my Bushnell Tour V3. I've only used it one round so it may be worth it to try what you explained to see if that changes my thoughts on it

[North Butte]

Of guys I've showed mine to it is just about exactly 50/50 between the ones who (like me) think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and the ones who (like yourself) say they can't get it to stop jumping around and stay on the flag. Since it's the exact same unit I figure they've got to be doing something different and the explanation I posted above is my best attempt (guess) at translating.

[dasams]

I bought the Nikon stabilized range finder last week and love it. As mentioned above, I hit and release the power button as soon as I grab it and then I hit the power button again when I get it up to my eye. Best rangefinder ever.

[osubuckeyes691]

I just can't get used to this rangefinder. Used it two rounds and the stabilization just is not my thing. BST here I come lol