7x42 (2 Viewers)

How many here like the 7X42 format, I think it provides a great all around view and will allow you to view under low light conditions. I am new to the Meostar 7X42 B1 and the resolution is great along with edge sharpness, makes me think down the road that I will get a higher mag for my tripod, the optics for the price is I think is the best today. For those thinking about it, I have compared it to the best of Zeiss, Nikon, and Leica and it is right there with them, so it is definitely a Premium glass.

A.W.

Used the 6,5x32 format for quite a while, along with 10x32. Found that my newly-acquired 8x30 E II was just as good at delivering detail as was my 10x32 FL, which marked a sharp departure from the two-binoculars route when I abandoned the 10x format.

The E II was soon followed by a Meopta 8x32. I looked for any good 7x42 for a long time since I wanted a really serious birding instrument, and finally I went with an EDG II 7x42. I figured it would be as quick in use as the 6,5x32, but it wasn't. What I have with it is the huge exit pupil and outstanding image quality, but I tend to think of it as a 8x42 with a 6 mm exit pupil, if you understand the idea. My Meostar 8x32 is my main choice for warblering despite its higher magnification. True FOV is the same, but the Meostar is quicker to raise to the eyes and focus.

Today, I would probably have chosen the EDG II 8x42 instead, or the Monarch HG 8x42, or possibly the EDG II 8x32. I'll never get rid of my EDG II 7x42, it is arguably the finest 7x42 ever made and I stand by that opinion.
But I can't seem to make as much use of the exit pupil as I thought, and the AFOV is a bit on the narrow side, albeit adequate.

I'm a big fan of the Meostars, and only the reports of the yellow colour in the 7x42 have deterred me.
Then again, since you get a wider true FOV with the MHG 8x42 you already own, I cannot see what use you could actually make of any 7x42.

//L

EDIT: Didn't realise you already bought it. They are tough as a tank so you will never wear it out. Saw that there was an EDF 7x40 used for a reasonable price, and it is even more heavy-duty than the Meostar. But faced with the decision, I'd take the Meopta. Enjoy!

EDIT #2: So what do I think of 7x42 in general? They never seem to have bigger actual FsOV than the 8x42 models, but 7x is often a more than adequate magnification. Going with a good 7x42 means that you get a huge exit pupil without sacrificing FOV.
To get the same or bigger exit pupil, you must have a 7x50, 8x50 or 8x56. All are bigger and I found none with a decent FOV.
So I feel the 7x42 format is underrated, but after the modern 8x42s have become smaller, lighter and with better true FsOV, the need for a 7x42 has declined.

I enjoyed many years with my Zeiss 7x42 BGATP. Only gripe was that focus was affected by high and low temperature. I like my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV just as much because it feels just as good in the hand and optically just as intuitive and nimble to get on the bird despite magnification and FOV differences.

--AP

I have the Docter 7X40 essentially the EDF with updated coatings, and the view is much more enhanced through the Meopta. The EDG has 8 degrees FOV sharp edge to edge, and likely has more depth of field than the EDG 8X42 at 7.7 degrees FOV, so there are tradeoffs. I would agree the EDG is up there with the best available, and the 7X42 will be rare as hens teeth down the road. I appreciate the Meopta for the depth of field and overall optics as well as construction. If compared to a 8X42, the additional 0.75 exit pupil in the EDG 7x42 is noticeable, I am sure it is brighter than my 8x42 EDG under lower light conditions.

A.W.

dries1 said:

If compared to a 8X42, the additional 0.75 exit pupil in the EDG 7x42 is noticeable, I am sure it is brighter than my 8x42 EDG under lower light conditions.

Click to expand...

...as long as your exit pupil dilates to >5,25 mm. Not otherwise.
And then there's the twilight number. With my 12x50, I see details at least as good as with the 7x42 in deep dusk.
However I'm not trying to discourage anyone from the 7x42 format!
It's a pity they seem to be losing their market.

//L

I am going to get one more this year, since like you said they are losing their market and eventually if someone down the road wants one, they will only be available on the used market, same with the 10X32. I have the Nikon HG 10X32.

A.W.

dries1 said:

I am going to get one more this year, since like you said they are losing their market and eventually if someone down the road wants one, they will only be available on the used market, same with the 10X32. I have the Nikon HG 10X32.

A.W.

Click to expand...

Personally, I have no problems going with used things. On the contrary - by choosing 2nd hand, I don't encourage excessive resource exploitation.
I mean, it's better I buy and use them than they lie idle in someone's cupboard while I demand a factory-new sample.

All five binoculars that I regularly use were bought used, near mint. My wallet may stay thicker, or I will have the means to buy another used thing.
It's clearly a win-win situation.

//L

When I was a bit younger I had three 7x42s. Bausch and Lomb Discoverers (not too good) and two pair, at different times, of Leica Ultravids.

I liked the idea of 7x42s a little better than the reality. Turns out I'm not too big a fan of 42mm bins as compared to something smaller.

Now that my eyes don't dilate enough to avail myself of the large exit pupil, what I really want is a high quality 7x32, though I'd settle for a 7x35.

Truth is however, that wide field 8x32s are probably most ideal for how I use birding bins.

The majority of my glass is used also, and I agree with you regarding having some more in the wallet. What I meant is there will not be many (7X42s) out there in a few years on the used market since like the 10X32s, not many are sold so likely end up as recycled material.

A.W.

Kevin Conville said:

When I was a bit younger I had three 7x42s. Bausch and Lomb Discoverers (not too good) and two pair, at different times, of Leica Ultravids.

I liked the idea of 7x42s a little better than the reality. Turns out I'm not too big a fan of 42mm bins as compared to something smaller.

Now that my eyes don't dilate enough to avail myself of the large exit pupil, what I really want is a high quality 7x32, though I'd settle for a 7x35.

Truth is however, that wide field 8x32s are probably most ideal for how I use birding bins.

Click to expand...

The idea of 7x28/7x30/7x32 is very attractive as long as they have a correspondingly larger FOV. The best 6x32 (Viper HD) doesn't.
Tried the Z-R 7x36 but disliked it.
Seems the best we can get is wide field 8x30s (Kite, M7).

BTW, I'm awake in the middle of the night - slept during the day because I caught the flu. When I looked out I realised a lot of snow had fallen during the evening, which makes the night surprisingly bright.

The EDG and the ZR 7x43 were both brighter than the 12x50, so I guess my pupils dilate enough to make use of their bigger exit pupils.
I have no 8x42 so I can't tell whether or not the 5 mm EP is enough.
In this situation, a 10x50's exit pupil and twilight number might be ideal although the 12x50 wasn't exactly dim.

dries1 said:

The majority of my glass is used also, and I agree with you regarding having some more in the wallet. What I meant is there will not be many (7X42s) out there in a few years on the used market since like the 10X32s, not many are sold so likely end up as recycled material.

A.W.

Click to expand...

The 7x42 is YUUUGELY more useful than the 10x32 IMO. Do you really think they'll scrap quality binoculars? Feels counter-intuitive, would probably be better to dump the prices even more?

//L

looksharp65 said:

The idea of 7x28/7x30/7x32 is very attractive as long as they have a correspondingly larger FOV. The best 6x32 (Viper HD) doesn't.

//L

Click to expand...

Of course. I assumed that was a given. There are no 7x28-32mm bins I would buy currently. If Leica ever came out with their new (old) 7x35 Trinovid I might be interested.

Kevin Conville said:

When I was a bit younger I had three 7x42s. Bausch and Lomb Discoverers (not too good) and two pair, at different times, of Leica Ultravids.

I liked the idea of 7x42s a little better than the reality. Turns out I'm not too big a fan of 42mm bins as compared to something smaller.

Now that my eyes don't dilate enough to avail myself of the large exit pupil, what I really want is a high quality 7x32, though I'd settle for a 7x35.

Truth is however, that wide field 8x32s are probably most ideal for how I use birding bins.

Click to expand...

I still have the Zen 7x36 which is really an nice binocular IMO.

Kevin Conville said:

When I was a bit younger I had three 7x42s. Bausch and Lomb Discoverers (not too good) and two pair, at different times, of Leica Ultravids.

I liked the idea of 7x42s a little better than the reality. Turns out I'm not too big a fan of 42mm bins as compared to something smaller.

Now that my eyes don't dilate enough to avail myself of the large exit pupil, what I really want is a high quality 7x32, though I'd settle for a 7x35.

Truth is however, that wide field 8x32s are probably most ideal for how I use birding bins.

Click to expand...

Kevin. You summed up my feelings exactly.

I have a Leica Ultravid BR 7x42 that is currently the bin on the kitchen table, which I avail myself of, when I get home from work, and/or wander out to the front to study birds on the open space across the street. I also use it in the a.m. to look at birds on the feeder in dim light. Got it used from a local store. No complaints. Easy to focus, I can actually move my eye around the field in the generous exit pupil. That can be a useful feature, depending on the circumstance.

When I go out birding on the weekends, I usually take a Nikon MHG 8x42. It is lighter, has more aperture, and a wider (on paper anyways) FOV.

With the Nikon, I am aware of some CA in the field, especially on overcast days. It does not keep me from ID'ing birds, but it is noticeable. It is also noticeable in the Leica, but when I'm looking at Birds (not optical phenomena) I don't think about it much.

Caveat for all: I bird, and use my bins, with glasses on, so YMMV.

For the vast majority of places I bird, the 7X42 is just great and preferred. So easy to just throw up and find your bird. Usually a massive FOV. Easy to locate exit pupil. It's hard to believe I like this format so much when I used to wouldn't have anything other than a 10X42.

Both the Zeiss FL and Ultravid HD+ are hard to beat. The Swarovski SLC and the Meopta B.1 aren't slouches either.

My first 7x42 was a Leitz 7x42 Trinovid BA and then I got a Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN, and after that I got a Swarovski 7x42 SLC B; then I got a Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL T* Lotutech and along there somewhere I also got a Leupold 7x42 BX2 Cascade and I still have all of them. :king:

All of them have 8º FOVs except for the Zeiss which has an 8.5º FOV and the Leupold which has a 7.4º FOV.

I have decided to show some restraint and not get a discontinued Meopta Meostar B1 7x42 while they still last. It has a FOV of 7.84º. One cannot save all of the endangered species by one's self.:-C

Bob

Years ago, I did a few simple calculations concerning the compound effect of exit pupil size and binocular transmission. In my calculations, I used 6 mm as the baseline.
If your pupils dilate to 6 mm you may have a considerable advantage with a 7x42 in dusk. The 100% transmission rates are obviously entirely theoretical.
The exit pupil area reduces with the square of the diameter reduction.
The calculations can be altered, using for example a 5 mm pupil dilation for baseline.

Exit pupil 6 mm (7x42)

(100% = 100%)
90% = 90%
80% = 80%
70% = 70%

Above, we see the light loss bear a linear relationship to the exit pupil size since it coincides with the human pupil.

Exit pupil 5,25 mm (8x42)

(100% = 76%)
90% = 69%
80% = 61%
70% = 54%

Even with an excellent 8x42 binocular with 90% overall transmission, we see that it clearly falls short compared to the 7x42 counterpart.
It's even beaten by a 7x42 with a crappy 70% light transmission.

Exit pupil 4 mm (8x32)

(100% = 44%)
90% = 40%
80% = 36%
70% = 31%

It is very apparent that 8x32, 10x40 and the like are suitable mostly for daytime viewing.
A very good 90% transmission drops considerably to 40% if you can dilate to 6 mm when night falls



There's a saying by G.B. Shaw (or possibly Oscar Wilde):

"Youth Is Wasted on the Young"


and few quotes could be more appropriate when it comes to 7x42 binoculars. These are often loudly praised by us middle-aged or elderly men, but are rarely seen with those who in theory would have the most apparent advantage with a 7x42.

And things get literally worse. When we get older, not only the maximum pupil size shrinks, but so does the eye's transmission. So where silver-backs would have the most use of lots of light, the harsh reality is that the supposedly most suitable instruments simply have performance going over the top.

And vice versa, the excellent light transmission of young eyes can do fine even without huge exit pupils.
Thus, it's somewhat logical that the 7x42s don't sell like they theoretically should, based on my calculations.

//L

I'm a huge fan of 7x42 binoculars for many reasons, but I think that Lars has raised an excellent point regarding the exit pupil. Being a whippersnapper myself (30 counts right?) I find that the larger exit pupil of these binoculars is really useful, particularly in dull conditions or in a forested environment. I took my newly acquired 8x32 Nikon HGL's out this afternoon to look for passerines at a local sewage farm. Watching fast moving small birds some 5m above my head was compounded by tricky eye placement, and the slightly duller image of the smaller objective lenses.

Although 8x32's are an excellent all-round binocular, once you've grown accustomed to 7x42's, it is difficult to go back to the less user friendly compact size. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that the perceived difference in magnification between 7x and 8x will make or break the ID of a bird - most birders carry a scope nowadays which is much more useful when ID is critical.

It would be interesting to hear what others preferred 7x binocular is; Personally, I've only tried the classic BGAT Zeiss, and the SLC which I've used heavily for nearly a decade now.

looksharp65 said:

Even with an excellent 8x42 binocular with 90% overall transmission, we see that it clearly falls short compared to the 7x42 counterpart.
It's even beaten by a 7x42 with a crappy 70% light transmission.

//L

Click to expand...

Interesting figures.
Makes me wonder why Zeiss never gave us a 7x42 HT?
Maybe they put all efforts in the 8x54 HT instead.
If I only could own one binocular, it would be a 7x42.

dwatsonbirder said:

I'm a huge fan of 7x42 binoculars for many reasons, but I think that Lars has raised an excellent point regarding the exit pupil. Being a whippersnapper myself (30 counts right?) I find that the larger exit pupil of these binoculars is really useful, particularly in dull conditions or in a forested environment. I took my newly acquired 8x32 Nikon HGL's out this afternoon to look for passerines at a local sewage farm. Watching fast moving small birds some 5m above my head was compounded by tricky eye placement, and the slightly duller image of the smaller objective lenses.

Although 8x32's are an excellent all-round binocular, once you've grown accustomed to 7x42's, it is difficult to go back to the less user friendly compact size. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that the perceived difference in magnification between 7x and 8x will make or break the ID of a bird - most birders carry a scope nowadays which is much more useful when ID is critical.

It would be interesting to hear what others preferred 7x binocular is; Personally, I've only tried the classic BGAT Zeiss, and the SLC which I've used heavily for nearly a decade now.

Click to expand...

My only one is a Meopta 7X42, which I truly enjoy, and I have used others with smaller objectives, but I also have used the heavy 7X40 IF porro, without reticle, and have learned to appreciate the depth of field in 7X as compared to my other 8X> glass.
By the way, I still use my HG/LX 8X32 - on bright days with the easily accommodating eye-cups. Nice to hear someone else still uses the model.

A.W.