Elite 4200 vs. Nikon Monarch vs. Ultradot Microdot

esldude · March 20, 2005, 10:28 PM

Well got a little comparitive scope testing done. 3 pm with light overcast skies were the conditions. Scopes were:
Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x 50mm
Nikon Monarch 6.5-20x 44mm
Ultradot Microdot 4-12x 56mm

I used both a USAF 1951 chart and Snellen type eye chart.
Distance was 135 feet (45 yards). All testing done on 12x as all scopes could manage that. Two people beside myself also took part.

I have solid 20/20 near 20/15 vision in my best eye and am 45 years old with a bit of help needed for close up focusing. THe other two people in the test were in their mid 30's and 20's respectively with better eyesight than I. The snellen chart had letters sized for 15 ft., 13 ft., 10 ft., 8 ft., 6 ft., and a couple smaller that didn't enter into this.

So 135 ft. divided by 12x meant the view should have been equivalent to about 11 ft. for someone with 20/20 vision and near 8 ft. for someone with 20/15 vision like my two friends.

Well I could make out the 10 ft. size with the Nikon and Bushnell. Almost seeing the 8 ft one with the Microdot. My friends made out 8 ft. with the Nikon and Bushnell, and almost could make out the 6ft. with the Microdot though they missed enough an optomertrist wouldn't count it.

Using the USAF chart got pretty much the same results. The Microdot was one step better than the Nikon and Bushnell. Each step on that chart is about a 12% difference in resolution.

I did find the Microdot had this resolution in the center half of the view and softened just a bit (though still not bad) at the edges. The other two were pretty much the same to the edge.

In a less than scientific test of coatings, the Elite 4200 appeared to edge out the Nikon for best least reflective coatings. And the Microdot coatings came out last. In this test you look at your reflection from a couple feet away in both the objective and the eyepiece. In the microdot I could comb my hair, see my eyes. In the Nikon I could see my outline and some small amount of detail. Though not my eyes or lips at all. In the Elite 4200 I saw only an outline of my face with no surface detail.

So there you have it. A surprisingly good showing from the Microdot 4-12x56mm and an expected good result from the other two scopes. Showing near the maximum resolution possible for the magnification used.

BTW, a quick test of the Weaver R4 showed a near max resolution for a 4x.

Didn't have other scopes handy for comparison. But have done this before, and plenty of scopes won't show this much resolution. Getting near the theoretical resolution of your eye isn't typical in scopes.

http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf

Snellen chart handy for scope testing.

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/USAF.pdf

High resolution image you can print for your own testing.

March 20, 2005, 10:28 PM	#1
esldude Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2004 Posts: 438	Elite 4200 vs. Nikon Monarch vs. Ultradot Microdot Well got a little comparitive scope testing done. 3 pm with light overcast skies were the conditions. Scopes were: Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x 50mm Nikon Monarch 6.5-20x 44mm Ultradot Microdot 4-12x 56mm I used both a USAF 1951 chart and Snellen type eye chart. Distance was 135 feet (45 yards). All testing done on 12x as all scopes could manage that. Two people beside myself also took part. I have solid 20/20 near 20/15 vision in my best eye and am 45 years old with a bit of help needed for close up focusing. THe other two people in the test were in their mid 30's and 20's respectively with better eyesight than I. The snellen chart had letters sized for 15 ft., 13 ft., 10 ft., 8 ft., 6 ft., and a couple smaller that didn't enter into this. So 135 ft. divided by 12x meant the view should have been equivalent to about 11 ft. for someone with 20/20 vision and near 8 ft. for someone with 20/15 vision like my two friends. Well I could make out the 10 ft. size with the Nikon and Bushnell. Almost seeing the 8 ft one with the Microdot. My friends made out 8 ft. with the Nikon and Bushnell, and almost could make out the 6ft. with the Microdot though they missed enough an optomertrist wouldn't count it. Using the USAF chart got pretty much the same results. The Microdot was one step better than the Nikon and Bushnell. Each step on that chart is about a 12% difference in resolution. I did find the Microdot had this resolution in the center half of the view and softened just a bit (though still not bad) at the edges. The other two were pretty much the same to the edge. In a less than scientific test of coatings, the Elite 4200 appeared to edge out the Nikon for best least reflective coatings. And the Microdot coatings came out last. In this test you look at your reflection from a couple feet away in both the objective and the eyepiece. In the microdot I could comb my hair, see my eyes. In the Nikon I could see my outline and some small amount of detail. Though not my eyes or lips at all. In the Elite 4200 I saw only an outline of my face with no surface detail. So there you have it. A surprisingly good showing from the Microdot 4-12x56mm and an expected good result from the other two scopes. Showing near the maximum resolution possible for the magnification used. BTW, a quick test of the Weaver R4 showed a near max resolution for a 4x. Didn't have other scopes handy for comparison. But have done this before, and plenty of scopes won't show this much resolution. Getting near the theoretical resolution of your eye isn't typical in scopes. http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf Snellen chart handy for scope testing. http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/USAF.pdf High resolution image you can print for your own testing.