I understand that one is more than double the cost of the other but how do they compare? I cant find them anywhere local to test them with my own eyes. I for sure plan to use the ballistics part of both units. I currently run Swaro SLC 10x42 and a Leica 2400 RF so I don’t want junk glass.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Sig Kilo 3000 vs Leica Geovid 10x42 3000 RF binos
- Thread starter tlsmith22
- Start date
I purchased both,. didn't have a chance to look through the leica or BDX prior to buying them . Although I own a leica 2700B and was very happy with ranging etc .
But figured the BDX would be better prs shooting etc. Kestrel com etc.
So I bought the BDX3000 and had them a few days and tried them like I was hunting or checking targets at a match.
I kept messing with the diopter to get the image clear. This happens almost every time you put them up, Little frustrated to say the least . Since they where what I wanted to.make work with my kestrel etc. And the type of shooting I do.
whenever they were in my badlands bino pouch and they would move out off focus every time in the pouch . Glass was better than Fury 5000 to my eyes. Connection to kestrel was super fast and stable.
But the left glass was dim in the left eye piece. Or blue in color ( I have looked through others at matches and they are about the same in dim color )
After a few more tries and rubber bands arround the ocular diopter. I chose to return the BDX model.
I bought the HDB 3000 and was a huge price difference, but the quality and fit was what I wanted in the end .
The glass is amazing and diopter are solid, no movement in out of pack or pouch, not finicky with focus etc.
Very bright and ranged animals to 2200 yards .
Took it to match and was able to get distance ons targets and have excellent ability to read mirage . And excellent field of view.
The image just pops ,if that makes sense
Doug at camera land took care of me .
And would reccomended his business.
Good luck on your decision.
But figured the BDX would be better prs shooting etc. Kestrel com etc.
So I bought the BDX3000 and had them a few days and tried them like I was hunting or checking targets at a match.
I kept messing with the diopter to get the image clear. This happens almost every time you put them up, Little frustrated to say the least . Since they where what I wanted to.make work with my kestrel etc. And the type of shooting I do.
whenever they were in my badlands bino pouch and they would move out off focus every time in the pouch . Glass was better than Fury 5000 to my eyes. Connection to kestrel was super fast and stable.
But the left glass was dim in the left eye piece. Or blue in color ( I have looked through others at matches and they are about the same in dim color )
After a few more tries and rubber bands arround the ocular diopter. I chose to return the BDX model.
I bought the HDB 3000 and was a huge price difference, but the quality and fit was what I wanted in the end .
The glass is amazing and diopter are solid, no movement in out of pack or pouch, not finicky with focus etc.
Very bright and ranged animals to 2200 yards .
Took it to match and was able to get distance ons targets and have excellent ability to read mirage . And excellent field of view.
The image just pops ,if that makes sense
Doug at camera land took care of me .
And would reccomended his business.
Good luck on your decision.
Attachments
That was exactly the information I needed to hear and I called Doug today abt both units. I am just afraid that the Sig will be a huge disappointment after spending years behind my current Swaros. I do have a sportsman’s warehouse abt 40 miles away, I’m hoping they have both units to test.
I use the balistic feature and got it dialed within a .1 click or tenth at 1k on my kestrel. Just need to work the numbers. BC, vel et.
The diopter issue is frustrating and a little ridiculous. The diopter on my set of BDX actually move on there own. I had been using them in TX just fine (they moved easy but I wasn’t too bothered by it) and went to CO to elk hunt and every time I pulled them out up there they were out of focus, couldn’t understand why, then I was looking and the diopter was actually turning back on it’s own with nothing touching it. Maybe the cold was doing was causing it I’m not sure. I ended up just using electrical tape around them because it was all I had at the time and worked fine but kind of stupid to have to do that. I’m going to use an o-ring underneath, I saw someone post that as fix it so it looks better.
I think the glass is decent and I was on them for several hours a day in CO, switching between them and and Swaro spotting scope. I would put the quality a step below, maybe a step and a half below the razor binos. You can’t compare them to something like swaro binos because they are in completely different leagues glass quality wise.
I think the glass is decent and I was on them for several hours a day in CO, switching between them and and Swaro spotting scope. I would put the quality a step below, maybe a step and a half below the razor binos. You can’t compare them to something like swaro binos because they are in completely different leagues glass quality wise.
Overall, other than the diopter issue I like the BDX. I do t use the ballistics in the bino so cant comment on that.
Cannot compare glass between the two... apples to oranges. But it you want decent glass in the best (fastest) rangefinder in the price range that connects to the Kestrel, The Kilo is great. I use it for both hunting and match shooting and it really out performs anything I’ve compared it to. As to the diopter issue, its a pain. I tried the o-ring fix... so/so, but I just used a white paint stick to make reference marks. Yes, they move on their own and they are off every time out of the case, but with the reference marks they are easy to fix. Hope the gen 2 version fixes this stupid diopter issue.
Not to a kestrel but will give you an elevation solution. Will also give pressure, temp, and angle.
No, mine literally move on their own, white mark does not help because while I am using them they are turning. I had to actually hold them in place with my finger, if I didn’t they were unusable. That’s why I had to wrap them with electrical tape, now they work great but pretty big design flaw. I will say at least it’s something that’s easy to fix with tape and everything else has seemed to work flawlessly.
This was one of the things that turned me against the Sig. I also had an opportunity to try the Sig out side by side with some Swaro SLCs inside Cabelas. My current glass are the SLCs so I has a base line to judge against. The way the store was laid out, the optics were all the way across from the fishing section and there were signs on the wall in the fishing section I tried to read. It was amazing the difference in the two and as expected the SLC blew them away and I fully expect the Leica glass to be just as good as the SLCs too.
The internal atmospheric conditions were a huge plus to me with the Geovids. It is also my understanding I can basically build a profile for each rifle and keep it on a separate SD card and basically plug and play. It also has some built in solutions that may or may not be close ballistically to mine. I feel like I thought this through thoroughly before such a large purchase and I will try to let everyone know when I get them what I think.
Over black friday I picked up both to play with, $1600 for the HD-b 3000's and $850 for the Sig, haven't taken either out of the box but I used to have an HD-b 2000 so I expect little difference optically from those to the new leica's.
They both likely do different things better. The leica of course is going to have better glass, and the 3000 fixed some of my complaints about the older model such as adding a decimal yardage. One thing I never liked about the Leica was only having one gun per SD card, they are not exactly easy to change in the field or at the range should you want to. Easy to lose a card or get dirt places you don't want it. Unfortunately I think in general the rangefinder advancements have plateaued in everything but max range. The big $ companies have not really added anything significant for at least 5+ years aside distance.
The Sig by all accounts is a great unit for the $, tons of features, and they are pushing the market to more electronics and most importantly fully integrated systems that communicate which has been a long time coming. However, once again we see more proof of Sig's poor QC and their willingness to let a borderline defective product not only out the door, but stay on the market without a fix. The diopter issue is a perfect example, there's no way any sort of even limited testing would not have caught that problem, worse yet they've done nothing to fix it for months. So if they'll let something that obvious slide, you have to wonder about what games they'll play on internal components.
They both likely do different things better. The leica of course is going to have better glass, and the 3000 fixed some of my complaints about the older model such as adding a decimal yardage. One thing I never liked about the Leica was only having one gun per SD card, they are not exactly easy to change in the field or at the range should you want to. Easy to lose a card or get dirt places you don't want it. Unfortunately I think in general the rangefinder advancements have plateaued in everything but max range. The big $ companies have not really added anything significant for at least 5+ years aside distance.
The Sig by all accounts is a great unit for the $, tons of features, and they are pushing the market to more electronics and most importantly fully integrated systems that communicate which has been a long time coming. However, once again we see more proof of Sig's poor QC and their willingness to let a borderline defective product not only out the door, but stay on the market without a fix. The diopter issue is a perfect example, there's no way any sort of even limited testing would not have caught that problem, worse yet they've done nothing to fix it for months. So if they'll let something that obvious slide, you have to wonder about what games they'll play on internal components.
Where did you pick them up for $1600? I missed the boat on that, I got them at $2k shipped but certainly not $1600.
So far I like them, I have made several trips to range tweaking on the cards and abt have them pretty well dialed in for a few rifles.
I don't personally have experience with the Leicas. However, I currently run SLCs 10x42s and have heard the glass is similar. I have however looked through the Sigs and to me the glass seemed ok, but there was a blue color that I kept getting and it drove me nuts. I am sure the Sigs are great binos, my eyes just didn't prefer them.
There is a blue hue in the right side and the left side is more orange/yellowish. I cannot see the blue or yellow color at all when using both eyes, the colors mix and give a neutral hue between the blue and yellow. That’s is how my eyes perceive it anyways but I could see where some people’s eyes may not work very well between the two different hue’s and may pick one up more than the other and cause issues.
That is interesting. I wish my eyes did that cause for the price they felt like well built binoculars! With my eyes I felt like I was looking through water (tint wise, not clarity wise).
You had to play some games to get them that cheap. Bass Pro/Cabelas had them for 1999.99, but you could get 12% back using a Cabelas card, and 12% back at Active Junky for a total of $480 cash back. Granted it takes a few weeks to get paid with Active Junky and the other $240 has to be spent at cabelas/bass pro.
It's a hard thing. Optically and just overall construction, attention to detail etc there's no comparison the Leica's destroy them. That said, Kudos to Sig for bringing bluetooth integration to rangefinding items, it's something Leica/Swarovski/Zeiss should have done 5+ years ago but have been happy to sit and do nothing but make trivial max yardage improvements. Plus let's face it the Sig at normal street prices is 1/3 of the price of the Leica. With $500/$1000 rebates this year on the Leica I'd almost bet we see a new model, probably with bluetooth integration like the Leica 2800 next year. It however won't be cheap, I bet $3500+ and won't be on sale anywhere for 6-12 months.
The things I like about the Sig are of course the integration, and as a competitive archer as well I appreciate it will range actually down to 0.9 yards and has a decimal yardage value. Many have complained of the ocular adjustments being very loose, but it appears they may have fixed it as mine are very tight, almost too tight to make fine adjustments. The Sig also felt like it responded faster and made measurements faster.
Also the "auto" brightness on the Leica is terrible, and it's been so ever since it's been released. *IF* you are outside and in the same light conditions your target is in, it's not bad, however it's ambient light sensor is not based on the target. So if you are in a dark treeline, blind etc. and your target is in brighter conditions the leica display is so dim it's useless unless you put your hand over the lens or quickly pan somewhere dark. The Sig does a much better job of it's auto brightness being based on the target brightness. If you are a in a dark blind ranging bright targets it's display brightness is fine.
The things I don't like about the Sig
1) No lens caps, ridiculous for an optic where the objective lenses have almost no protection from the housing because they are only recessed a couple mm's. Especially when their case design is basically a giant mount to gobble up all kinds of crap in the field.
2) The manual range of display brightness is great, but the "Auto" setting is too dim in medium light settings.
3) As someone else mentioned the two sides are each VERY color tinted, the right side is a very blue/green and feels like looking through an RMR and the other side is a yellow/orange. My guess is the blue/green is for the display, and they are doing yellow/red on the other side to balance it out because you don't notice it looking through it with both eyes. The downside I'd bet is that to hurt low light performance.
Also one interesting thing I noticed, perhaps wavelength related. The Leica will range easily through a glass window, the Sig will range the window itself.
The things I like about the Sig are of course the integration, and as a competitive archer as well I appreciate it will range actually down to 0.9 yards and has a decimal yardage value. Many have complained of the ocular adjustments being very loose, but it appears they may have fixed it as mine are very tight, almost too tight to make fine adjustments. The Sig also felt like it responded faster and made measurements faster.
Also the "auto" brightness on the Leica is terrible, and it's been so ever since it's been released. *IF* you are outside and in the same light conditions your target is in, it's not bad, however it's ambient light sensor is not based on the target. So if you are in a dark treeline, blind etc. and your target is in brighter conditions the leica display is so dim it's useless unless you put your hand over the lens or quickly pan somewhere dark. The Sig does a much better job of it's auto brightness being based on the target brightness. If you are a in a dark blind ranging bright targets it's display brightness is fine.
The things I don't like about the Sig
1) No lens caps, ridiculous for an optic where the objective lenses have almost no protection from the housing because they are only recessed a couple mm's. Especially when their case design is basically a giant mount to gobble up all kinds of crap in the field.
2) The manual range of display brightness is great, but the "Auto" setting is too dim in medium light settings.
3) As someone else mentioned the two sides are each VERY color tinted, the right side is a very blue/green and feels like looking through an RMR and the other side is a yellow/orange. My guess is the blue/green is for the display, and they are doing yellow/red on the other side to balance it out because you don't notice it looking through it with both eyes. The downside I'd bet is that to hurt low light performance.
Also one interesting thing I noticed, perhaps wavelength related. The Leica will range easily through a glass window, the Sig will range the window itself.
Last edited:
I was impressed with the Sig 3000 I fiddled with for a long weekend hunting whitetails, but given it's made in China, Sig could surely bring better optics into this package for a minimal cost increase. Optics were very average to me, and that's being generous. Great otherwise though.
I have the Leica 10x42 hd-b 3000 and have to say if you want good glass the Leica is it. Good glass lets you spot your target, as well as gives you mirage for a wind call. And the Leica has amazing quality glass - I compared it with my Swaro SLC 10x42's and it was a bit sharper in the center than the Swaros, though the Swaros have a slight advantage in low light. The Sig glass is not even close.
The range finder on the Leica is also first class - very accurate and very fast. From a tripod or stable hold you can range very small targets.
The Leica will give you pressure/temperature you can feed into a free phone app up front as well as range and angle adjusted range. It just does not take that long to dial in the range or just refer to a dope chart.
The range finder on the Leica is also first class - very accurate and very fast. From a tripod or stable hold you can range very small targets.
The Leica will give you pressure/temperature you can feed into a free phone app up front as well as range and angle adjusted range. It just does not take that long to dial in the range or just refer to a dope chart.
I am assuming that the Leica has-r 2700 have the same glass and similar capabilities as the 3000 other than just not ranging quite as far. I had a chance to use my father in laws Leicas this weekend with my sigs.
Clearly the glass is better in the leicas but to me it’s not an astonishing difference nor do I think the difference is enough that it makes them more functional. I would say the biggest difference is there is better edge to edge clarity in the leicas but they are not perfect. I’ve spent several hours behind the sigs spotting for elk and I would say the leicas would probably help a little with eye fatigue but the improvement in glass quality is just above minimal compared to the sigs.
Ranging capability is definitely way better with the sigs, like I said I was using the 2700 so there is probably some improvement on distance with the 3000. The ranging distance is not really the issue but the furthest I could pick up trees, rocks with the leicas was around 1300-1400 yds at mid day. The sigs can easily pick up those objects at 2000 and further in same conditions. The biggest issue I have with leicas is how you access the scan function. You cannot turn the scan function on and leave it on, you have to press the button let off then hold down for a couple of seconds every time you turn them on. Doesn’t seem like a big deal but it got pretty annoying to me. At least that is the only way I understood to use the scan function.
For me without a tripod I want to be on scan mode because it’s hard to tell if you hit the object you are aiming at if it is over a 600-700 yard or if it is really small. In scan mode you can scan around the object and make sure you are hitting it. At least that is how I use mine.
I do like having the atmospherics in the rangefinders but not a big deal for me because I would still be using kestrel for wind speeds. I would still need wind hold from kestrel or other ballistic program, so the atmospherics in the binos do not really eliminate another piece of equipment for me but for some it might.
For me there is really only two main differences, glass quality and price. The other stuff to me is negligible because honestly the 1400 yards is usually enough ranging for me and I would expect the lecia 3000 would reach out to 2000 or so. I do like being able to range out to like 4500 yds at time with the sigs but honestly I do not need that much ranging, 2000 yds is probably more than enough. I do not think the glass quality for the extra cost offer enough improvement that it actually improves functionality, I could use the sigs in all the same conditions I think and be able to spot and see the same stuff as the leicas.
Overall I wouldn’t say one is better, I would still go with the sigs but would be happy with the leicas if that is what I had.
Clearly the glass is better in the leicas but to me it’s not an astonishing difference nor do I think the difference is enough that it makes them more functional. I would say the biggest difference is there is better edge to edge clarity in the leicas but they are not perfect. I’ve spent several hours behind the sigs spotting for elk and I would say the leicas would probably help a little with eye fatigue but the improvement in glass quality is just above minimal compared to the sigs.
Ranging capability is definitely way better with the sigs, like I said I was using the 2700 so there is probably some improvement on distance with the 3000. The ranging distance is not really the issue but the furthest I could pick up trees, rocks with the leicas was around 1300-1400 yds at mid day. The sigs can easily pick up those objects at 2000 and further in same conditions. The biggest issue I have with leicas is how you access the scan function. You cannot turn the scan function on and leave it on, you have to press the button let off then hold down for a couple of seconds every time you turn them on. Doesn’t seem like a big deal but it got pretty annoying to me. At least that is the only way I understood to use the scan function.
For me without a tripod I want to be on scan mode because it’s hard to tell if you hit the object you are aiming at if it is over a 600-700 yard or if it is really small. In scan mode you can scan around the object and make sure you are hitting it. At least that is how I use mine.
I do like having the atmospherics in the rangefinders but not a big deal for me because I would still be using kestrel for wind speeds. I would still need wind hold from kestrel or other ballistic program, so the atmospherics in the binos do not really eliminate another piece of equipment for me but for some it might.
For me there is really only two main differences, glass quality and price. The other stuff to me is negligible because honestly the 1400 yards is usually enough ranging for me and I would expect the lecia 3000 would reach out to 2000 or so. I do like being able to range out to like 4500 yds at time with the sigs but honestly I do not need that much ranging, 2000 yds is probably more than enough. I do not think the glass quality for the extra cost offer enough improvement that it actually improves functionality, I could use the sigs in all the same conditions I think and be able to spot and see the same stuff as the leicas.
Overall I wouldn’t say one is better, I would still go with the sigs but would be happy with the leicas if that is what I had.
I have both the Swaro SLC and the Leica 3000 now. It’s kinda a toss up on glass for me between the two, sometimes I think the Leica is better and at other times I think its my SLCs. I had plans to sell my SLCs and my Leica 2400 RF when I got the 3000 but honestly I just couldn’t part with the SLCs. One area where I give them a clear win is in ergonomics, they just fit your hand perfect and thats simply because of the electronics in the Leica 3000. I have played around a lot with the Leica ballistics and it took a couple of range trips to get a couple of calibers dialed in but after that, they have been spot on! To me i love the fact that i can range with it and it read the atmospherics and provide a firing solution all in one click. I can read the mirage for the wind with them and I’m good to shoot.
A couple buddies of mine have the Fury’s and also the Sigs and to be honest I would take the Fury over the Sig. I WANTED to buy the Sig and just was not impressed with the glass. In their defense, I have spent many years behind the SLCs, which to me are fantastic.
This is just my observation, obviously everyone’s eyes are different.
If you are just going to a range and shooting easily visible targets or glassing short range then the glass does not matter and go with the Sig. If you are spotting game at long range or trying to find camouflaged targets then the glass will matter and I would recommend the Leica's if the price is affordable to you.
Anyone who has tried hunting with high end Swaro or Leica glass out West knows why they get top dollar for the glass.
Anyone who has tried hunting with high end Swaro or Leica glass out West knows why they get top dollar for the glass.
Similar threads
