Are Rangefinders now completely commoditized?

[Mike_C]

On 6/5/2024 at 10:09 AM, J13 said:

agree.  They are tanks and just keep going.  Despite the high price tag I feel like I'm getting a great value.

I have had two Bushnells.    I got my first one in 2007 or 08.   Technically, it was the "hunting" model not the one designed for golf, but they were virtually identical, and it was $50 cheaper for some reason at the time.   The only difference was the manual and the "Target" mode vs "Pinseeker" mode or something.    I abused that thing, it dropped at least a few times out of moving carts onto the cartpath, got wet, but kept on going.   Eventually it started to struggle getting pins over 200 yards, which wasn't really a huge problem, but also seemed to start going through batteries faster.  About 3 years ago had some pro shop credit at the end of the year and got a new one, the Tour V5, this one has slope.  

 

The new one is better, its faster and gets targets at longer distances, but the old one still works, I keep it as a backup......

Edited June 6 by Mike_C

[2Down]

I've tried several inexpensive ones before and I prefer/need features that raise the cost a bit.  stabilization is something I won't be without nowadays and that adds a significant bump to the cost.  

 

my old Nikon is going down slow  (I hope slow enough that the new one shows up before its gone).  the new version (proshot 11 stabilized) is over 400 now so I shopped around and found a new offering from Canon.

It's a camera based system with stabilization and the ability to shoot pic and video.  

rechargeable system is going to take a while to get used too (it was nice to have a spare battery in the bag ). now Ill have to remember to charge it up every once in a while.  any ways Canon seems to have added a new way to do things to the mix that I think will be copied pretty quickly.  

 

will be sure to post a glowing unbiased review when I've had it for a while. 

[Triple Lindy]

I primarily just use my GPS watch, but have a cheap range finder that I use at the range. Paid around $75. I pull it out on the course from time to time to compare it to my buddy’s Bushnell. It’s always spot on. Never had a problem in low light, but have never tested it shooting directly into the sun.

 

Now that no-name options are available at a fraction of the price of recognizable brands, it’s the same as any other market. Some people are fine with Timex. Others prefer a Rolex. Both tell time.

[ShortGolfer]

I'm one of those who are just fine with a Timex.  I can't see flaunting wealth around with a Rolex.

The hour hand on my new Timex is a little off; I'm sure that would bother a Rolex owner!  It is a little to the left when the clock strikes Noon.

Timex watches are cheap enough to be disposable, and I've never had one that failed in thirty years of wearing them. 

Ten watches that all kept good time!  Easy to read faces.  Both digital and analog.  The Indiglo light is a nice feature.

I shattered the plastic face of one, but that was a nasty impact with a hard object.  My new Timex has a mineral glass face and cost me $50.

 

I have an $85 Redtiger rangefinder that works great for me as long as I can see a pin.  I can use it to measure distances to trees or similar markers.

I  have an $80 Garmin G10 that works as long as I remember to charge the battery.  Good to carry both!

 

 

Edited June 17 by ShortGolfer

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Triple Lindy said:

Some people are fine with Timex. Others prefer a Rolex. Both tell time

 

Yeah, and the Timex does it MUCH better, and without breaking every 3 or 4 weeks (or so I understand). 

 

(Guess which one *I* have  )

[King_Slender]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:25 PM, 0iron said:

So what really separates the "cheap" ($~150 and less) and "expensive" ($350+) rangefinders? Sounds like...

 

-Durability? How long the product will last?

-Maximum yardage (i mean unless your hunting or shooting stuff this seems irrelevant) I don't need to get a distance 1300 yards on a golf course or even anything over 330 max, realistically.

-I've read the higher end ones might give you a reading on your target faster? Maybe a half to a second faster? Seems irrelevant for large majority of golfers.

-Sleeker display/interface?

 

For the large majority of distances youll encounter or need to know on a golf course, it sounds like the "Cheap" ones will be as accurate and reliable with the number as the "Expensive" ones? Does that sound about right? 

 

Durability seems like the big thing here. Bushnells seem to last several years based on comments here and other forms. I bought a Callaway 200s 3-4 years ago and it just died. I did like it and am considering buying it again since it's only $127 on Amazon, it did it's job well before it died.

 

Considering the 200S again or the Shot Scope PRO L2 Rangefinder which is $129 on Amazon. If anyone has any input or experience with the latter i'd like to know

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find the "accuracy" arguments (assuming within a couple yards) kind of hilarious unless you're a plus handicap and completely dialed in on your yardages. 

 

I'm a 7 handicap - which many think is good - but realistically I know my stock yardages, but I'm likely to by +/- 3-4 yards every time because I don't have the ball striking of a real high level players.  

 

Even when I'm shooting yardages, I generally know what it will be first - check where the yardage marker is, see if pin is front/center/back and then the rangefinder is more of a sanity check on a final number.  Also useful if I'm out of position, but the idea that a rangefinder being +/- 2 yards for any golfer not playing at a highly competitive level is hilarious.  

 

 

[mshills]

Are they commoditized? Yes. 
 

I have a Tour V5 that’s been through everything….dropped, kicked, sand, wet, mud, you name it, and still works fine. Where I play has lots of elevation change, so I wish I’d gotten slope capability, but I can’t see spending $300+ on one just for giggles when my non-slope works just fine. 
 

If I get one it’ll be one of the word salad Amazon el cheapos.