Athlon Midas 8x42 Initial Impression (1 Viewer)

A bit more daytime testing of Athlon Midas 8x42 vs. Celestron Nature DX 8x32. I've done some viewing with bright reflections of sun off the ocean behind foreground subjects. The Midas is much better in both CA and stray light control. The result is much more contrast in foreground objects in the Midas. I am also beginning to wonder if some of the snap to focus is due to superior CA control as well. At any rate, I am no longer running around with my hair on fire about collimation, and waiting to see how a night under dark skies goes with the Midas

Slightly off topic, but I have a Sightron II 8x32 on the way for comparison purposes (yeah, that's the ticket, for comparison purposes).

Alan

Dark Sky Experience and Summary

Finally had a chance to try out Athlon Midas 8x42 under dark skies. There was a weather front rolling in and last night seemed like the only chance to get to my dark sky site before it snowed. I had only a couple hours observing, but I was able to compare Fujinon 7x50 Meibo with the Midas. Even though the Canon Image Stabilized 15x45 is by far my most used astronomy binocular, the Meibo 7x50 has always been my unstabilized reference.

All observations were hand held in a zero gravity reclining chair under Bortle level 4 skies. There is glow from LA in the South East and some lightening of the sky on the North Eastern horizon due to Bakersfield, but detailed structure in the Milky Way is easily visible naked eye. As with my home experience, the Midas kept up with or bettered the Meibo. The difference in image scale was barely noticeable and the field of view seemed similar, though the Midas was slightly wider.

Though both binoculars are well balanced the Midas is easier to point and generally more comfortable to hold. The Meibo is considerably heavier and to get it steady I generally put some of the weight on my eye sockets which gets uncomfortable after a while. At last down to the high 20s there is no problem with the Midas focuser getting stiff or difficult to control, and it is easy to use while wearing gloves.

Although I never really found a star that I could see with averted vision in one binocular that I could not at least detect in the other, it seemed easier with the Midas. On extended objects like the Veil Nebula or North American Nebulae I preferred the view in the Midas as well. Frankly, I was quite surprised. On paper with the larger aperture and larger exit pupil, the Meibo should have prevailed on extended objects. Of course, it could be that my 65 year old eyes no longer dilate as wide as they used to. Still, I didn't expect the Midas to be this good as an astronomy binocular.

I am well beyond initial impressions after two weeks, so I'll try to sum up. There has been quite a revolution in affordable roof prism binoculars since I last paid attention 15 years ago. About a year ago, after a friend asked for a recommendation, I bought a Celestron Nature DX 8x32 for $90 because it was well reviewed and I was curious about performance at that price point. It was fine for casual daytime use, but the performance was disappointing at night. I purchased the Midas 8x42 because of the Wirecutter review. Though I discounted the comparison to alpha glass, the features sounded good, and I wanted to see what I'd get at the $300 price point.

I am quite happy with the Midas. The optics are not only very good "by the numbers," but the binocular provides a very pleasing view aesthetically. I also find it comfortable to use--it feels solid and well balanced, and it is easy to hold steady. The fit and finish are good. I like the texturing on the armor and the wide slightly elastic neck strap.

One personal ergonomic complaint is the width of the eyepiece/eyecup. My IPD is narrow and the bridge of my nose gets in the way so that I can't get the eyepieces as deep into my eye sockets as I would like at the proper IPD. However, the Midas has enough eye relief to give me the "nose relief" that I need to see the entire field of view. This is a common problem for me with binoculars. BTW, I measure the Midas eyecup at 43mm vs. 41mm for the Celestron and 39mm for Sightron.

Now I need a proper field guide for shore birds.

Alan

Hi Alan,
Thanks for the review.
It could be that with nominal exit pupils of 5.25mm or 7.1mm, your eyes don't open up to use the 7x50 fully.

At your dark sky site do you see M33 with averted vision, unaided eyes?
How about direct vision, unaided eyes?

I saw M33 with direct vision on La Palma and hundreds of times elsewhere with averted vision, but in my late forties. I don't know how I would do now.

Binastro said:

Hi Alan,
Thanks for the review.
It could be that with nominal exit pupils of 5.25mm or 7.1mm, your eyes don't open up to use the 7x50 fully.

At your dark sky site do you see M33 with averted vision, unaided eyes?
How about direct vision, unaided eyes?

I saw M33 with direct vision on La Palma and hundreds of times elsewhere with averted vision, but in my late forties. I don't know how I would do now.

Click to expand...

I can detect M33 with averted vision, but not direct. I agree that my 65 year-old eyes may no longer dilate to take in the 7x50 exit pupil. Also, using the Adler index I get 7*sqrt(50)=49.5 for the 7x50 and 8*sqrt(42)=51.8 for the 8x42. So it would seem that the two might be comparable in performance with minor advantage to the 8x42. However, particularly hand held it is a very subjective call.

Hi Alan.
At age 65 my pupils were 5.9mm in total darkness as photographed with a Konica Minolta Z6. Z5 also the same I think. One must take great care doing this, as the instruction book says one shouldn't, and other cameras are probably dangerous.

My pupils are larger than average for age.

What is the altitude of your dark sky site above sea level?

Our dark sky site is at 5200 feet (1585 m). My quote of Bortle 4 is based on the clear sky clock light pollution map, not a naked eye limiting magnitude check. So Bortle 4 is about the best I would expect the site to do. Given the weather conditions last Friday, I am sure it wasn't at its darkest due to reduced transparency and light reflected by clouds coming in with the weather front.

There is nowhere in Britain that high.

5200 ft should be darker than sea level.

A quick addendum of Midas performance. I have noticed that looking at a street scene at night, I get an internal reflection or slight glare from a street light that is just outside the field stop on "the nose side" of the field. So if there is a bright light to the right and just outside of my field of view, a see streaks of light coming into my left eye at the right edge of the field. While such a thing would be harder to detect during the day, these are the sorts of things that rob contrast. BTW, I see no such effect in the Sightron 8x32.

Speaking of the Sightron, it is not as bright as the Midas, but what it does seem to have to excellent on-axis contrast, but that is for another thread.

Athlon Midas 8x42 Epilogue

I spent some time watching shore birds, porpoises, and seals today. I wanted to spend some time just viewing through the Midas. In most of my comparisons, the Midas performs better in each category, but the binocular that is most similar, the Sightron 8x32, somehow felt like a more relaxed view and more like I was in the scene. It just didn't seem right to me, so I went back to my concern about the collimation of the Midas.

I did an evening test that had been recommended on the cloudynights binocular forum. You pick a bright distant bright object, streetlamp or star etc. and you use the diopter to put one barrel out of focus while having the other barrel in sharp focus. If the binocular is well collimated, the star should be in the center of the blur in the merged image. I my case, it was not. As with my indoor daytime autocollimation test I found that while the vertical aspect is well aligned, horizontally the binocular is slightly walleyed.

The Midas will be going back to Amazon. As I said before, now I need to decide whether to replace the Midas, settle down with the Sightron, or continue the quest at a different price point.

Here is a previous thread discussing the use of a star to test collimation. I tried it on several binoculars of different price tiers and none where exactly centered in the blur, but all were in the blur with the more expensive closer to the center.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3444426&postcount=6

Allevin .... Did you also do the test with the Sightron and if so, how did the two compare?

I had some clouds come in during the evening, so I didn't test the Sightron, but I will test them tonight.

I believe that not only the size of the error, but also the direction of the error is important. As I understand it, it is much easier for the eyes to compensate for the barrels being slightly crossed, but if there is even a small walleyed error, then it can cause strain.

I am shipping the Midas back to Amazon for a refund today and will decide later whether to try another Midas or something else.

Star tested the Sightron collimation tonight and it looked good, much better than Midas, the star appeared near the center of the blur. I did this hand held as the Sightron does not accept a tripod adapter and I didn't feel like rigging something up. The problem with the Midas was obvious hand held. It was also interesting that with the Midas, I could see the focused star wandering in the blur unless I really relaxed my view. Obviously the eye muscles and brain were working to try to merge. With the Sightron, the star was just in the blur near the center, no wandering. This is my explanation of the more relaxed view.

Alan