Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 8th September 2016, 17:11   #1
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Troubador's Review: MeoStar B1 10x42 HD

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Meopta’s MeoStar 8x32 and their S2 spotting scope and looked forward to another of these fine instruments. Avisum (Meopta’s UK Nature Observation agent) was kind enough to respond to this by loaning a sample of Meopta’s 10x42 HD model and this is the model I am reviewing here.

If we consider its competitors in the UK market to be priced within £200 either side of its retail price of £1122, then this bracket of £922 - 1322 would include Swarovski’s SLC, Vortex’s Razor, Nikon’s recently announced Monarch HG and Kowa’s Genesis XD 44 in 10.5x44 guise. Across the pond in the USA where Nikon’s Monarch HG has yet to come ashore, this price bracket converts to $266 either side of Cabela’s price of $1200 for its Instinct Euro HD – branded version, so a range of $934 – 1466. Due to the vagaries of pricing in different markets and the whims of currency conversion rates, this bracket means Swarovski’s SLC is squeezed out due to its State-side sticker of $1799, while Zeiss’s Conquest HD squeezes in at $1,000. Bushnell does not compete in this price range and neither do Leupold or Vanguard.

The Meopta is compact in this company but its weight is towards the top end of this group:

Meopta MeoStar B1 896g 31.61 ozs 140mm 5.5in
Kowa Genesis 10.5x44 960g 34.25ozs 165mm 6.5in
Zeiss Conquest HD 795g 28ozs 150mm 5.9in
Swarovski SLC 765g 27ozs 144mm 5.7in
Vortex Razor 694g 24.8ozs 150mm 5.9in
Nikon Monarch HG 680g 24.3ozs 145mm 5.7in

The Genesis, with its 44mm objectives, is therefore 41% heavier than the lightest here, which is the Nikon, so you have you have a choice of weights ranging from around 900 grams / 32 ozs through the 800 grams / 25 ozs region, all the way down to 680 grams / 24 ozs.
The Meopta is the shortest at 140mm and is even 7mm (0.28”) shorter than the king alpha-shorty, Leica’s Ultravid 10x42. The Meopta feels hefty but it is so compact that, with the weight concentrated in your hand, it doesn’t feel as heavy as the figures suggest. In fact I suggest that with its compact shape and heft it has something of the feel of a Leica BA/BN about it.

One differentiating factor of this group that can be important to those with a small inter-pupillary distance is that only the Conquest HD will close down to 54mm. All of the others are 56mm minimum apart from the Vortex at 55mm.

As with the MeoStar 8x32, the carrying case is rather insubstantial and the outfit comes with only one strap and a pair of short connecting straps to fit onto the bins, the snap-in connectors allowing the strap to be quickly swapped from bins to case and back again. Used in this way the strap is a good length for use with the binoculars but will be rather short for anyone wanting to carry the case across their body bandolier-fashion while wearing waterproof and bulky clothing.

I found the eye relief and eyecup design perfect both with my spectacles and without, despite the inadequate-sounding eye relief of 15mm. Go figure. Now, about those eyecups. They move between positions with a feel of precision and luxury that Zeiss has yet to achieve on any model. So that’s plus two bonus points for feel, but minus two bonus points for having only two positions. Please give us more adjustability with your next generation of binoculars Mr Meopta.

The rain-guard and objective caps both have thoughtful designs and win back some of those bonus points. The rain-guard will close right down to the minimum IPD and still function correctly (some Zeiss ones do not), it presses down smoothly onto the eyecups and for additional security when clambering over obstacles it has ridges that click under the eyecups to keep it in position. Lastly there are two strap loops one of which is split allowing a fast change from using both straps to only one, depending on circumstances. The objective covers can be tethered to the bins by unscrewing the cap at the bottom of the hinge and fitting the metal washer to which the covers are tethered by flexible wires, and screwing the caps back on. These solutions may not suit everybody but they go further than many in an attempt to give the best ownership experience to as many as possible.

The focuser on the MeoStar B1 8x32 that I reviewed had a wonderful feel of precision about it but for quick-draw nature observation where you need to shift quickly from a distant focus to one quite close and then back again, it was far too stiff. It would have been hopeless in relatively close country for example in forests or on woodland edges, but would have been fine in big open landscapes such as on sea coasts. Not all examples of this model have focusers as stiff as my review unit so interested parties should check out a few units if this is of concern. The unit we are looking at today has a very acceptable focus feel and speed, with not a trace of back-lash. The dioptre is the same arrangement as on the 32mm model and, using two fingers to rotate it, it moved positively through its micro-clicks and came to rest where I wanted it and never moved. Excellent.

As usual I used the Meopta in a variety of circumstances and especially at my favourite test site where there are woods, open grass and scrubs and a long narrow lake with many ducks and other water birds. My first job at the test site was to check for chromatic aberration and for a while I struggled to find any. I tried wooden posts against bright water, dark branches and twigs against white clouds. Nothing. Not even off axis. And then along came a Mute Swan and as it surged into a patch of dark water, there it was, just a little, and right off axis. This was the last time I saw any and I have to say I am not that sensitive to it providing it doesn’t intrude into the central part of the field of view. Talking of field of view, the Meopta is competitive at 110m @ 1,000m / 330ft @ 1,000 yds, and the sweet spot, as with the 32mm model, stretched to about 85% of the FOV. As usual I remind you that was my personal estimate and you should assess this yourself if this is important to you.

By this time the sun was breaking through the thinning clouds, reflecting brightly off the water and giving me a chance to check for glare. There was none. Mallards swimming through the dazzling water were rendered with great contrast and colour.

At this point dragonflies had warmed up enough to begin flying and several Sympetrum striolatum individuals chose perches nearby and allowed me to examine their wings to find out how sharply the veins were captured. With lesser optics these can look as though they have been painted on with a fine brush, having a dense centre but looking as though the black ink has bled into the surrounding surface giving slightly indistinct margins. Through the Meopta these looked as though they had been scribed in Indian ink using a pen with the finest of nibs. A recently emerged male, still with a straw-coloured abdomen was nevertheless darkening somewhat and a central dorsal line of red had formed, hinting at the overall red colour that would develop over the next days. The subtle shades of straw and red were superb, but using the unit for close focus work in this way, I did find the close focus of 2.6m / 8.5ft just a little frustrating. Its competitors focus to 2m or closer apart from the SLC at 3.2m which would be fine for birding specialists but for general nature observation is simply too limiting.

At this point, larger dragonflies, Aeshna grandis, began flying over the water, while Swallows and House Martins were swooping. This gave me an opportunity to check that the focus action would really manage to move quickly enough from close focus to more distant subjects and back again. It worked just fine and captured the blue of the Swallows and the ginger wings of the dragonflies with great accuracy just at it did the variation in tones of brown on the heads of the female Tufted Ducks out on the lake. Some were dark chocolate while others had hint of chestnut and all were a pleasure to view through the Meopta.

Meanwhile this contemplation of things natural was rudely interrupted by the arrival of a rowdy couple who thought it amusing to throw a ball into the lake for their two Border Collies to chase after, despite the presence nearby of a female Mute Swan, guarding its family of 4 cygnets. The Swan lifted its wings and its head and swam at the dogs, hissing like a basket of vipers and the cygnets scattered. When all fuss had calmed down and the Border Collies had wisely retreated, the cygnets came swimming slowly by to re-join their mother. As they did so the breeze ruffled their immature plumage the wrong way, lifting the feathers and separating the individual barbules that were reproduced sharply by the Meopta.

The Meopta faces strong competition at its price-point. Some folks will rule out the Kowa on the grounds of its weight and others the SLC due to its poor close focus. Depending on where you are in the world that would leave you looking at the Nikon, Vortex and Zeiss (and no doubt other brands if you spread your search wide enough) all of them with great combinations of qualities and features. If you are looking for a compact and high-performing 10x42 within this price bracket then the Meopta is well worth auditioning.

In the UK the network of dealers serving the nature observation market is still under development so all those interested in any Meopta instruments should, in the first instance, contact Avisum | T: 01423 780649 | E: info@avisum.co.uk | www.avisum.co.uk .
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0626RED.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	128.4 KB
ID:	597622  

Last edited by Troubador : Thursday 8th September 2016 at 19:35. Reason: Incorrect Conquest weight
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th September 2016, 18:02   #2
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,175
Very nice review Lee. Thanks for putting all of that together!

Of the ones I have seen in your list, my favorite is the Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42. Part of the reason is due to the way it fits for me.

I have looked at 10X42 Cabala's version several times, mostly in the store and once at an outdoor expo, and thought it provided a high quality view. It has been a couple of years and your review has motivated me to take another look. The Conquest has a more traditional shape that I am used to. The Cabala's has a different feel but not in a bad way. The Cabela's did feel slightly heavy to me but I was using a 32mm quite a bit at that time. You list shows a weight of 24.7 oz for the Conquest. Ziess USA shows 28 oz which seems to be about what I remember. You might want to check that out.

I recall you owing a Zeiss Conquest HD model and I am thinking it is a 8X32. If that is correct, then I assume you did not do any side by side comparisons to the Conquest 10X42. I am wondering if the color balance of the Cabela's is more on the warm side.

I remember concluding that the optics were as good as any of the others in this class and the decision of which to choose would come down to personal preference items such as weight, feel, fit and price. I thought the normal Cabela's USA $1,200 price was on the high side for this class but sometimes Cabela's has a good sale price and if the timing is right, there may also be a coupon offering saving a couple of hundred dollars or more. Some loyal customers may also have some Cabela's dollars to make it an even better deal.

Of those on your list, how would you rank them as your personal favorites?
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 8th September 2016, 18:09   #3
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,489
Nice review Troubsey and once again very useful to those of us who
use our bins observing wildlife and not examining charts :)
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 8th September 2016, 19:36   #4
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Very nice review Lee. Thanks for putting all of that together!

Of the ones I have seen in your list, my favorite is the Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42. Part of the reason is due to the way it fits for me.

I have looked at 10X42 Cabala's version several times, mostly in the store and once at an outdoor expo, and thought it provided a high quality view. It has been a couple of years and your review has motivated me to take another look. The Conquest has a more traditional shape that I am used to. The Cabala's has a different feel but not in a bad way. The Cabela's did feel slightly heavy to me but I was using a 32mm quite a bit at that time. You list shows a weight of 24.7 oz for the Conquest. Ziess USA shows 28 oz which seems to be about what I remember. You might want to check that out.

I recall you owing a Zeiss Conquest HD model and I am thinking it is a 8X32. If that is correct, then I assume you did not do any side by side comparisons to the Conquest 10X42. I am wondering if the color balance of the Cabela's is more on the warm side.

I remember concluding that the optics were as good as any of the others in this class and the decision of which to choose would come down to personal preference items such as weight, feel, fit and price. I thought the normal Cabela's USA $1,200 price was on the high side for this class but sometimes Cabela's has a good sale price and if the timing is right, there may also be a coupon offering saving a couple of hundred dollars or more. Some loyal customers may also have some Cabela's dollars to make it an even better deal.

Of those on your list, how would you rank them as your personal favorites?
Bruce

You are right about the Conquest HD weight and I have corrected it. Thanks for spotting that. I will reply in full tomorrow but have to run now due to drying paint in the kitchen!!!!

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th September 2016, 19:37   #5
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 571
Troubadour

"I found the eye relief and eyecup design perfect both with my spectacles and without, despite the inadequate-sounding eye relief of 15mm. Go figure."

I guess it depends on how Meopta measures eye relief: if from the rim of the eyepiece it would be effectively more for many bespectacled users.
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 09:18   #6
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Very nice review Lee. Thanks for putting all of that together!

Of the ones I have seen in your list, my favorite is the Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42. Part of the reason is due to the way it fits for me.

I have looked at 10X42 Cabala's version several times, mostly in the store and once at an outdoor expo, and thought it provided a high quality view. It has been a couple of years and your review has motivated me to take another look. The Conquest has a more traditional shape that I am used to. The Cabala's has a different feel but not in a bad way. The Cabela's did feel slightly heavy to me but I was using a 32mm quite a bit at that time. You list shows a weight of 24.7 oz for the Conquest. Ziess USA shows 28 oz which seems to be about what I remember. You might want to check that out.

I recall you owing a Zeiss Conquest HD model and I am thinking it is a 8X32. If that is correct, then I assume you did not do any side by side comparisons to the Conquest 10X42. I am wondering if the color balance of the Cabela's is more on the warm side.

I remember concluding that the optics were as good as any of the others in this class and the decision of which to choose would come down to personal preference items such as weight, feel, fit and price. I thought the normal Cabela's USA $1,200 price was on the high side for this class but sometimes Cabela's has a good sale price and if the timing is right, there may also be a coupon offering saving a couple of hundred dollars or more. Some loyal customers may also have some Cabela's dollars to make it an even better deal.

Of those on your list, how would you rank them as your personal favorites?
Hi Bruce

Back again despite home decorating taking place. Bear in mind I was trying out the Meopta HD and not Cabela's version, yes I think the colours were tending to the warm side.

I haven't auditioned the different models sufficiently to name a personal favourite. Of course I like Conquests and my 8x32 is a favourite. I was impressed by a brief look through the Nikon at Bird Fair but if I leave it at that it is unfair on the other models that I never looked through. There are hints in the review of my own tastes so I would probable rule out the Kowa on weight and the SLC due to its poor close focus. Which would leave the Zeiss, Meopta, Vortex and Nikon. If you were to twist my arm and insist on my reducing this short list I would guess that it would come down to a shoot-out between the Nikon and the Zeiss.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 09:57   #7
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Wanderer View Post
Troubadour

"I found the eye relief and eyecup design perfect both with my spectacles and without, despite the inadequate-sounding eye relief of 15mm. Go figure."

I guess it depends on how Meopta measures eye relief: if from the rim of the eyepiece it would be effectively more for many bespectacled users.
It may also depend on the rim design and size of ocular lenses.
If the ocular lens have a larger diameter, the rim tends to be higher, and then the effective eye relief will be less when using glasses.
At least that is my experience.

I suspect the diameter of the meopta 10x42 oculars are not close to 25mm like the ones on Swaro SV or Noctivid.
Vespobuteo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 10:35   #8
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
It may also depend on the rim design and size of ocular lenses.
If the ocular lens have a larger diameter, the rim tends to be higher, and then the effective eye relief will be less when using glasses.
At least that is my experience.

I suspect the diameter of the meopta 10x42 oculars are not close to 25mm like the ones on Swaro SV or Noctivid.
I am sure you are right VB because the height of the rim is there to prevent your spectacle lenses from rubbing on the eyelenses of the bins and the wider the eyelens, the higher the rim has to be to give clearance for the curved surface of spectacle lenses.

I have just measured the eyelenses of the Meopta and they are 20 mm. So you are right about this too You should award yourself a half kilo of surstromming to celebrate, but be sure to wander alone in the forests until Monday when your breath will have become human-friendly again.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 10:36   #9
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
Nice review Troubsey and once again very useful to those of us who
use our bins observing wildlife and not examining charts :)
Why thank you kindly GiGi

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 10:41   #10
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Wanderer View Post
Troubadour

"I found the eye relief and eyecup design perfect both with my spectacles and without, despite the inadequate-sounding eye relief of 15mm. Go figure."

I guess it depends on how Meopta measures eye relief: if from the rim of the eyepiece it would be effectively more for many bespectacled users.
You are right of course. I am sure the software that all of the manufacturers use to develop the optical systems will give the 'theoretical' eyerelief at the click of a mouse-button ( by theoretical I mean the height of the point above the top lens of the eyepiece at which the full FOV is visible) but whether the ER figure quoted in the binoculars' specifications is nett of the height of the eyecup rim, and is thus the true available eye relief is another matter.

Lee

Last edited by Troubador : Friday 9th September 2016 at 10:53.
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 11:20   #11
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 571
For spectacle wearers, if the eye relief is measured from the rim to the eye, I do not see that the diameter of the rim matters, what does matter is the distance from the rim to the ocular.

My latest bins have the same eyepiece and the distance is, as best I can measure, 5mm. I would not mind so much if the manufacturer made a design so that the distance was shorter, or offered such as an option: free - or included - would be good.
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th September 2016, 11:39   #12
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Wanderer View Post
For spectacle wearers, if the eye relief is measured from the rim to the eye, I do not see that the diameter of the rim matters, what does matter is the distance from the rim to the ocular.
You are right that we spectacle wearers are interested in the amount of usable clearance above the height of the screwed-down eyecups. But we are unsure about this as it is not clear if all manufacturers take account of the height of the screwed-down eyecup when giving an eye relief figure.

Vespo was pointing out that the larger the diameter of the top lens of the eyepiece, the higher the eyecup rim has to be to make sure your specs don't scratch the lens or vice versa. This just means that bins with bigger eyepiece lenses may (depending on how the maker arrives at their published ER figure) not have as much clearance as the ER figure suggests.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 09:52   #13
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 230
Thank you Lee for the fine review, the last of several that I have read of this excellent model, and the longest I recall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
...The Meopta is the shortest at 140mm and is even 7mm (0.28”) shorter than the king alpha-shorty, Leica’s Ultravid 10x42...
Would you not consider the Swaro SLC, whose details you give just above this text, an alpha? It is shorter than the Leica.

I am presently wavering between a 10x42 or a 12x50. At 10x42 the short list is this, heavy but the weight not as much a bother a the figure suggests, according to your explanation also, the Leica Ultravid-Plus, and the Nikon Monarch-HG, depending on its reviews, not in yet, and at 12x50 this same make and model in that spec.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 10:14   #14
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 571
Troubador,
Via the used market I now admit to being Swaro owner. The gap between the fully in rim and the ocular is c. 5mm. Surely this is more than is needed other than in exceptional cases?
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 11:55   #15
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
[quote=adhoc;3452602]


Would you not consider the Swaro SLC, whose details you give just above this text, an alpha? It is shorter than the Leica.

/QUOTE]

Well spotted! I am so used to considering Leica the reference brand for compactness that the SLC passed me by. Perhaps I didn't take as much notice of SLC as I should have due to its poor close focus distance.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 12:00   #16
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Wanderer View Post
Troubador,
Via the used market I now admit to being Swaro owner. The gap between the fully in rim and the ocular is c. 5mm. Surely this is more than is needed other than in exceptional cases?
This does seem a lot but maybe it is to accommodate spectacle wearers whose lenses have an extreme curvature. I understand from your previous posts that you have strong feelings about what efforts manufacturers should make to enable the use of their products by the widest possible range of people and perhaps this is one of those aspects that help some people but make things worse for others. I have similar feelings about IPDs as my IPD is rather narrow. I have never found bins that I couldn't use because of my IPD but it has made me aware of this aspect (as have the posts from Alex) and also the need for makers to give us a wider band of IPDs especially to enable kids to begin using bins at an early age.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 13:54   #17
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 571
While writing my comment, I was well aware of my lack of knowledge of demands made in exceptional cases. When making eyepieces for £2,000+ bins, I would have thought that two versions of eye cup could be made for those that need them.

My suspicion is that designers, young and less afflicted than others ignore the demand, or the bean counters say no.

I quite like my Swaros but they do not entirely suit. I can get by with my personal criticisms, but not addressing eye-relief in design and construction, and obfuscating the measurements are inexcusable to me.

I did suggest those that went to Birdfair sought manufacturers' information on eye relief but I am not aware of there having been any feedback.

If Birdfair were closer to me I might attend, but the images and comments of contributors to this forum do not make me feel that I missed anything particularly significant to me. I suspect, with notable exceptions, (Pete Gamby of Opticron for one) most on the stands would not be particularly knowlegeable, but would likely have read the copywriters BS.

Last edited by The-Wanderer : Saturday 10th September 2016 at 19:02.
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 16:30   #18
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Hi Bruce

Back again despite home decorating taking place. Bear in mind I was trying out the Meopta HD and not Cabela's version, yes I think the colours were tending to the warm side.

I haven't auditioned the different models sufficiently to name a personal favourite. Of course I like Conquests and my 8x32 is a favourite. I was impressed by a brief look through the Nikon at Bird Fair but if I leave it at that it is unfair on the other models that I never looked through. There are hints in the review of my own tastes so I would probable rule out the Kowa on weight and the SLC due to its poor close focus. Which would leave the Zeiss, Meopta, Vortex and Nikon. If you were to twist my arm and insist on my reducing this short list I would guess that it would come down to a shoot-out between the Nikon and the Zeiss.

Lee
Lee .... I appreciate the reply. As far as I know the Cabala's model and the Europe OEM Meopta model are the same except for cosmetic branding differences. I suspect the color balance would be the same over here and a slightly warm balance is what I recall with my faded memory form well over a year ago. You confirmed what I was thinking.

Your thoughts on how you would rank them according to your preferences makes sense and goes along with what I am thinking on the models I have used.

The Swaro SLC would not be in the same class here in the states based on the pricing. The normal selling prices are about $1,000 for the 10X42 Conquest HD, $1,200 for the Cabala's (Mepota), and $1,800 for the new version of the Swaro SLC WB.

The Swaro SLC WB is an odd duck because of the lack of close focusing. If not considering that factor, then I would class it with the Zeiss HT and the Leica Ultravid HD+. All top tier binoculars for those not looking for a lens flattener design. If substituting the prior Swaro SLC WB HD (which sold for about $2,100), then my personal preferences would go with the Zeiss HT first, then the Swaro SLC WB HD, followed by the Leica. I consider these a notch up over the Conquest HD and Cabela's (Mepota) class.

The call between the Zeiss HT and the Swaro SLC WB HD is extremely close but after several comparisons between my brother's 8X42 Zeiss HT and my 8X42 Swaro WB HD, I thought the Zeiss did an slightly better job with stray light and haze and it does have a small edge in light transmission. Both are excellent and every bit as good as the lens flattener designs but with a conventional view. The down side is the increase in price for that limited improvement over the Meopta tier.

I hope your decorating project is going well and you are enjoying watching paint dry! I personally would use the Conquest HD 8X32 for that.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 10th September 2016, 18:09   #19
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Lee .... I appreciate the reply. As far as I know the Cabala's model and the Europe OEM Meopta model are the same except for cosmetic branding differences. I suspect the color balance would be the same over here and a slightly warm balance is what I recall with my faded memory form well over a year ago. You confirmed what I was thinking.

Your thoughts on how you would rank them according to your preferences makes sense and goes along with what I am thinking on the models I have used.

The Swaro SLC would not be in the same class here in the states based on the pricing. The normal selling prices are about $1,000 for the 10X42 Conquest HD, $1,200 for the Cabala's (Mepota), and $1,800 for the new version of the Swaro SLC WB.

The Swaro SLC WB is an odd duck because of the lack of close focusing. If not considering that factor, then I would class it with the Zeiss HT and the Leica Ultravid HD+. All top tier binoculars for those not looking for a lens flattener design. If substituting the prior Swaro SLC WB HD (which sold for about $2,100), then my personal preferences would go with the Zeiss HT first, then the Swaro SLC WB HD, followed by the Leica. I consider these a notch up over the Conquest HD and Cabela's (Mepota) class.

The call between the Zeiss HT and the Swaro SLC WB HD is extremely close but after several comparisons between my brother's 8X42 Zeiss HT and my 8X42 Swaro WB HD, I thought the Zeiss did an slightly better job with stray light and haze and it does have a small edge in light transmission. Both are excellent and every bit as good as the lens flattener designs but with a conventional view. The down side is the increase in price for that limited improvement over the Meopta tier.

I hope your decorating project is going well and you are enjoying watching paint dry! I personally would use the Conquest HD 8X32 for that.
I agree entirely with everything there Bruce.

While I think it a shame Swaro knocked back the close focus distance of SLC maybe they had hunters in mind but by doing this I think they reduced the desirability of this otherwise fine optic. Might have been a sneeky move to force close-focus fans to spend EL SV money if they want a top Swaro too.

Decorating done thanks Bruce but now its a case of putting shelves back up on walls and cleaning up everything to go back in the kitchen, then just one or two minor jobs. While the Conquest might be ideal for watching drying paint and waiting for developments () I found Troubadoris in the kitchen this morning gazing into a distant ceiling corner with the Meopta 10x42.......

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 19th September 2016, 09:04   #20
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,332
Allbinos have just posted their review of the 10x42 HD.
http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?te...tki&test_l=310

David
typo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 19th September 2016, 10:19   #21
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Thanks David

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd September 2016, 09:24   #22
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,670
Just wonder if Allbinos tested the latest version that have better coatings,
Meopta states on their web-site:

Daylight Transmission - typical (%)
88
Twilight Transmission (%)
84
http://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/sh...bs/ctgBen.html

Not 86 and 82 as Allbinos suggests that Meopta do.

Also compare Gijs tests of old an new 8x32 Meostar
where the new have about 2% better transmission almost reaching 90% at daylight.
Meopta states 88 and 84 for the 8x32 Meostar.
Though the slanted curve might still be an issue.
But to me the curve indicates more of a color balance towards red than green-yellow,
like Gijs points out.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 22nd September 2016 at 09:29.
Vespobuteo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 25th September 2016, 03:13   #23
sillyak
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Alberta, CA
Posts: 20
You hit on a lot of the same points I did in my review from a few months back.

In short: Heavy, but short and balanced. Excellent optics for the money.

I wear glasses and can just comfortably see the whole field wearing them. I don't know where Meopta measures the ER from, but on some 15mm ER binos I can see the whole field and on some I cannot.

The Allbinos review also seems to agree with both of our reviews. It is concerning that their sample had debris on the prism. Mine do not, I haven't heard of many issues with Meopta binoculars, hopefully their example was a fluke and not a sign of poor QC.
sillyak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 25th September 2016, 12:28   #24
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyak View Post
I wear glasses and can just comfortably see the whole field wearing them. I don't know where Meopta measures the ER from, but on some 15mm ER binos I can see the whole field and on some I cannot.
My understanding is that bins manufacturers all use the optical eye relief as their measurement because this is fixed by the optical system and is reliable from unit to unit. This is the distance from the top surface of the eyelens to the point at which the exit pupil allows the full field of view to be seen.

We, as bins users and buyers, tend to assume that eye relief refers to the amount of room there is in the interface between our eyes and eyecups or spectacles and eyecups and this is wrong. ER is an optical measurement only.
The space that we all think of as eye relief is affected by many different things including the nominal height of the eyecup rim, which in turn will be affected by manufacturing variances including those in the positioning of the threads in the optical tubes and on the eyecups, the tolerances between the components of the eyecups (they can have up to 3 components), if they are plastic there are variations in the mould cavities and variation in shrinkage after moulding etc. And then there is whether the eyecup threads have been lubed or not and how hard the eyecups are screwed in. And finally, what all this means with regard to positioning the eyes in the correct place also depends on the shape of the face, the size and shape of nose, the degree of protuberance or shrunkeness of the eyes, not to mention the design of the spectacles and lenses if worn and where the user positions these on his/her nose.

Its no wonder manufacturers stick to the optical eye relief measurement.

Lee

Last edited by Troubador : Sunday 25th September 2016 at 15:20.
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th November 2016, 15:37   #25
wachipilotes
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 144
Hello,
Have black out effect this HD 10x42 Meopta ?
Thank you.
Wachi
wachipilotes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Meostar 10x42mm HD full review sillyak Meopta 15 Wednesday 7th September 2016 04:56
Review of Meopta B1 MeoStar 8x32 Troubador Meopta 29 Wednesday 11th May 2016 13:03
Review of Meopta Meostar S2 82 HD binomania Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 8 Sunday 13th October 2013 20:26
My review of the Meopta Meostar B1 8x32 oetzi Meopta 10 Sunday 2nd June 2013 21:59
Meopta Meostar 8x32 review Martin Fagg Meopta 14 Thursday 17th December 2009 06:54



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.27762604 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20.