EDG 7x42 and Meostar B1.1 8x32 head to head (2 Viewers)

[looksharp65]

Note: This is certainly not a technical review, it's more my general impressions of sharpness and brightness.
Placed myself in the lounge chair this evening to compare a couple of my roofs, as mentioned in the thread title. These are the two I can use with spectacles, the Meostar 12x50 HD goes reasonably well, too. And thus, I wore my specs.

The time span was about twenty minutes before, to twenty minutes after sunset. It is important to know that the Sun approaches the horizon at a shallow angle here at 57 degrees North, so the sky was quite bright all the time.

Detail: At another occasion, I had a rare opportunity to find the limits caused by the lesser magnification of the 7x.
Tonight, I looked another direction, eager to find a detail so small that I barely could detect it with the 8x32, and then try at 7x. Tonight I failed. There is a level of detail so small that the visual acuity sets the limit and the 8x prevails over the 7x, but while not entirely theoretical, for any practical purpose the level of detail was the same.
Of course, the 8x's 30% more areal magnification is more impressive to the eye.

On the other hand, less magnification gives an impression of greater resolution when compared because the details appear smaller but still visible. This is obviously just a perceptual phenomenon.
In my chair, I couldn't support the binos with my elbows. It was very obvious how much calmer and steadier the 7x was, which also enhances the detail.

Bottom line: With a super sharp 7x, you will see virtually anything you see with an 8x.

General view pt. 1: It is no secret that the EDG is razor sharp to the field edge, or that it has the same FOV as the Meostar. The edge sharpness of the latter is clearly sufficient as you center the object of interest to the field center.
Colour reproduction is a close call but I'd judge the Meostar very slightly warmer than the EDG, which in turn is slightly warmer than the Kite Lynx ED that I can't see any colour deviation in. For practical purposes, both are perfectly usable and really not far off from colour neutral. For further reference and final verdict, see pt. 2.

Einblickverhalten: Recently, I described the Meostars as workhorses and my Nikons as, well, princesses . The E II is quite obvious why, with its lack of weatherproofing, its folding eyecups and its short eye relief. The EDG is quirky in another way - despite its huge exit pupils it is very sensitive with IPD and eye placement. The eye relief is so big that I have to use spacers, kindly sent to me from BF member Stanbo. And it is also so sensitive that I must adjust the left eyecup about .5 millimetres more.
To avoid IPD problems, I use the Vortex Binoc-Loc. Without these adaptations, the EDG would be very annoying in real use. Adapted, the view is very pleasurable and I can let my eyes roam inside the exit pupil.
In contrast, the little Meostar almost appears to self-center and delivers the image lightning-fast. No blackouts with spectacles but it is preferable to turn it to center the object of interest. Not really nice without spectacles, which is where the E II and the Lynx HD excel.
Hands down, the Meostar is vastly superior in this respect.

Brightness: Many years ago, I found that the FL 10x32 held its own against the Fury 6,5x32 in terms of brightness even twenty minutes after sunset. It wasn't until I got under canopy that the picture changed dramatically. As I'm now older, my maximum pupil diameter should have decreased but I'd probably still see a difference between a 3.3 mm and a 4.9 mm exit pupil. But how about 4 mm vs. 6 mm?
Sitting where I sat, the bright evening sky probably made my pupils constrict, but I tried to avoid the sky and look towards the ground from above. There is this little grove where the foliage gives considerable shadow.
I was however unable to find a condition where the 7x42 showed something I couldn't see with the 8x32, even long past normal birding hours.
Brightness is a tie - no apparent winner.

General view pt. 2 I recall someone here writing that 80 mm scopes and bigger may not show more detail than a medium-sized scope, but that the image has more 'inner detail'. I don't know what it translates to optically other than bigger instruments have bigger exit pupils. I'm not sure what is going on when I compare the 7x42 to either of my 8x3x's, but the effect is similar to using the 30x Wide DS with the ED82A, just even more stunning.

Since I always ride the bike when birding, smaller binoculars are preferable as they can be in a frame bag or around the neck. The check lists are important, at least this year that I'm trying to make my Big Year, and the simplicity of 30/32 mm roofs with them generally fast-to-use makes them indispensable tools for this style of birding.
In Swedish, birdwatching is called fågelskådning, a slightly arcaic expression meaning 'bird-beholding' or 'beholding the birds'. That would be a proper description what the EDG 7x42, and to some extent the E II promotes, in particular at closer distances with the 7x. The inner detail of the image is nothing short of stunning.
The 30/32 mm roofs are more 'bird-finders' than 'bird-beholders'. They lack something, somehow.

Final verdict: Detail and brightness are both a draw, which may surprise some. The Meostar is a lot more practical in real use. Depending on which flavour of birding is desired an actual day, the 7x42 and the 8x32 complement each other. Although this 'style of image' is the biggest difference between them, the overlap is nearly total and I'd do fine with either of them. But if I didn't own the EDG and knew what a superior image it can deliver, I'd stick with the Meostar and never look back.

//L

 

[[email protected]]

Nice review. Interesting that you found no difference in brightness between the two binoculars with that much difference in EP even in low light. I never found the EDG 7x42 to be a really bright binocular either, despite its 6 mm EP. Nikon's seem to have a reddish tint for me that somehow decreases the apparent brightness. I never found the EDG 7x42 to be overly sensitive for eye placement, so it just goes to show you how important it is that a binocular fits you well, and the eye relief matches your eye socket depth and diameter.

The EDG is twice the price of the Meopta, so I am not surprised that you saw more detail in the image. Alpha level binoculars like the EDG often do show more detail because they have better resolution, and the bigger 42 mm aperture of the EDG probably helps. A full size 42 mm binocular will often outperform their smaller 32 mm cousins in many ways that are not immediately obvious until you use them for a while in the field under different lighting conditions.

Once you are used to the image of a binocular like the EDG 7x42, you notice the difference when you go back to a smaller binocular like the Meopta 8x32. It just seems like you are missing something. You should try an EDG 8x42 sometime. I think you might like it even better.

 

[adhoc]

Looksharp65, thanks for that, a different and valuable way of assessing binoculars, as before by you.

"Bird beholding" is a fine expression. To most of us any good binocular is for bird beholding as well as bird finding! (I take it that by bird finding is meant identifying and/or studying as well as locating.)

Bird beholding is another reason other than gear addiction why many of us on this forum seek instruments that are way better optically than we need for bird finding!

7x showing as much or more detail than 8x is an interesting subject in itself. I can recall that being reported in this forum for the Leica Ultravid 7x42 and recently for the new Hawke Endurance 7x32 vs the Zeiss Victory 8x25. I wonder if this has entirely to do with steadier holding.

 

[gcole]

Nice review. Interesting that you found no difference in brightness between the two binoculars with that much difference in EP even in low light. I never found the EDG 7x42 to be a really bright binocular either, despite its 6 mm EP. Nikon's seem to have a reddish tint for me that somehow decreases the apparent brightness. I never found the EDG 7x42 to be overly sensitive for eye placement, so it just goes to show you how important it is that a binocular fits you well, and the eye relief matches your eye socket depth and diameter.

The EDG is twice the price of the Meopta, so I am not surprised that you saw more detail in the image. Alpha level binoculars like the EDG often do show more detail because they have better resolution, and the bigger 42 mm aperture of the EDG probably helps. A full size 42 mm binocular will often outperform their smaller 32 mm cousins in many ways that are not immediately obvious until you use them for a while in the field under different lighting conditions.

Once you are used to the image of a binocular like the EDG 7x42, you notice the difference when you go back to a smaller binocular like the Meopta 8x32. It just seems like you are missing something. You should try an EDG 8x42 sometime. I think you might like it even better.

Dennis , his final verdict was …. Detail and Brightness was a Draw between the two. Your implying that he saw more detail in the EDG because the EDG 7x42 cost twice the price. Yes the EDG is more expensive but where did you come up with …. so I am not surprised that you saw more detail in the Image. My take on what I read was …. the little Meopta B1.1 8x32 stood toe to toe with the Nikon EDG 7x42, giving Alpha like views.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis , his final verdict was …. Detail and Brightness was a Draw between the two. Your implying that he saw more detail in the EDG because the EDG 7x42 cost twice the price. Yes the EDG is more expensive but where did you come up with …. so I am not surprised that you saw more detail in the Image. My take on what I read was …. the little Meopta B1.1 8x32 stood toe to toe with the Nikon EDG 7x42, giving Alpha like views.

"In Swedish, birdwatching is called fågelskådning, a slightly archaic expression meaning 'bird-beholding' or 'beholding the birds'. That would be a proper description of what the EDG 7x42, and to some extent the E II, promotes, in particular at closer distances with the 7x. The inner detail of the image is nothing short of stunning. The 30/32 mm roofs are more 'bird-finders' than 'bird-beholders'. They lack something, somehow."

To me, this sounds like he saw more detail with the EDG 7x42, although I agree in other parts of the review he said detail was equal between the two binoculars. A bit confusing. Maybe he could explain it a bit further?

 

[looksharp65]

Sorry about the confusion. Unfortunately, I can't pinpoint what's the real meaning of "inner detail", an expression I didn't coin. This was mentioned in the original post as 'I don't know what it translates to optically (---) I'm not sure what is going on when I compare the 7x42 to either of my 8x3x's'.
Both binoculars are capable of delivering more detail than my visual acuity can handle, so the question begs, does the EDG resolve at a much higher level still, and can I perceive this although both binoculars already outresolve my eye? My binocular visual acuity is about 1,8 or 20/11.

The 7x impresses most at shorter distance, which should be no surprise. But when I look very critically at very long distance, I find that I sometimes become fooled by the excellent sharpness of the EDG - I think it is extremely sharp, but when I continue to focus even more towards (beyond?) infinity, it delivers even better than I thought possible. (The Meostar is still a wee bit ahead thanks to the bigger magnification, but it is insignificant in real use).
But when I focus as far away as I can until I reach that incredible sharpness, and then look at treetops 15 metres away, they are clearly not within my perceived depth of field, and very similar to the 8x.

I take this as a confirmation that a high visual acuity decreases the perceived DOF - had my eyes been unable to discern that last fraction of sharpness at infinity, I'd have stopped the focusing motion earlier and the treetops would then have appeared sharper.
So among the EDG II 7x42's all virtues, I don't count the perceived DOF. Not that DOF is something I look for and/or assess, but I find that that binocular requires great attention to fine-tuning of focus to shine.
Well, I know it is mighty sharp after having boosted it with a 2.5x doubler, the obvious way to separate the chaff from the wheat.
Edit: Most likely I'm effectively using only the central part of the objectives with the 7x42, which may be why it appears so outlandishly sharp.

So it may be that deeper hidden or 'inner' detail could be perceived even if the binoculars both outperform my visual acuity. Snellen letters or line pairs are common means to determine the eye's resolution, but not the one exclusive way, and they have little relevance to daily life.
Regardless of if there's an actual resolution difference between the 7x42 and the 8x32, I stand by my observation that the 7x42 has a certain 'richness' of the image that is absent in all the 30/32 binoculars I looked through, with some exception for the E II, and it makes it very suitable for bird-beholding.
Is it the better binocular overall though? Weighing in practicality, I'd go with the Meostar. But for my eyes, I'd jump to a 7x32 if it was a Meostar, and it should have that 64 degree AFOV and sufficient eye relief for spectacles. A really good 7x32 should be the best compromise for a vast majority of birdwatchers, and complemented with an equally fine 10x50ish bigger brother, anything more would be abundant. Unless it's a porro of course.

//L

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

This post must be kismet because I've literally been window shopping these two binoculars in my head the last two weeks -- thanks!

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

To use the spaces you have to unscrew the eyecups and then screw them back on?

What does the bino-loc do? Keep the IPD in locked in place?

The ending of your post is interesting. My reading of it was it seemed you implicitly preferred the edgs. But if I'm reading your last sentence correctly, if you were forced into a world where you had to have one you would go with the meostars? It seems their extra afov speaks to you.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

I stand by my observation that the 7x42 has a certain 'richness' of the image that is absent in all the 30/32 binoculars I looked through, with some exception for the E II, and it makes it very suitable for bird-beholding.
Is it the better binocular overall though? Weighing in practicality, I'd go with the Meostar. But for my eyes, I'd jump to a 7x32 if it was a Meostar, and it should have that 64 degree AFOV and sufficient eye relief for spectacles.

So which would you choose/prefer between the e2 and x7 edg? You mention in your original post you don't like that the e2 arent waterproof, have folding eyecups and short eye relief.

Are the e2's vastly larger the x7 edg?

 

[Paultricounty]

This post must be kismet because I've literally been window shopping these two binoculars in my head the last two weeks -- thanks!

There’s so much to unpack in the posters descriptions and opinions. There is no doubt that the Nikon EDG’s here is the superior optic In almost every way. I would love to see how that comparison would’ve been if he was comparing it to an 8x32 EDG. 7 x 42 I might say , IMO is the better overall platform, especially when comparing these two. Might be different if we were comparing the EDG to a 32 NL or SF, or even an EL.

No disrespect intended , I question if the poster has a preference or a bias towards the Meopta for some reason, ergo, feel , weight that could sway a preference. In many parts of his description he is saying that both binoculars are beyond his level to perceive the differences, that both are so good that it’s hard to see discernible differences. Many here know that some can differentiate every minute differences in optics.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

So which would you choose/prefer between the e2 and x7 edg? You mention in your original post you don't like that the e2 arent waterproof, have folding eyecups and short eye relief.

Are the e2's vastly larger the x7 edg?

I dont have the EDG handy, but here is a picture of four binoculars. The one to left is a Nikon MHG just about the same size as the EDG, maybe slighty slimmer because of thinner and less armor, but it’s a good example. The Nikon E2 is the first porro (3rd) to the right. This should give an idea of the size differences. The other two bins are the Leica 8x32 UVHD and the Nikon SE 8x32.

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

There’s so much to unpack in the posters descriptions and opinions. There is no doubt that the Nikon EDG’s here is the superior optic In almost every way. I would love to see how that comparison would’ve been if he was comparing it to an 8x32 EDG. 7 x 42 I might say , IMO is the better overall platform, especially when comparing these two. Might be different if we were comparing the EDG to a 32 NL or SF, or even an EL.

No disrespect intended , I question if the poster has a preference or a bias towards the Meopta for some reason, ergo, feel , weight that could sway a preference. In many parts of his description he is saying that both binoculars are beyond his level to perceive the differences, that both are so good that it’s hard to see discernible differences. Many here know that some can differentiate every minute differences in optics.

Paul

Are the 8x42 EDG's also known for giving the rich depth of field, "bird beholding" description? I've seen the 7x EDG's lusted over but wasn't sure about the 8x EDG. From what I gather from other posts, it seems the meopta give a nice big eye view while the EDG present some kind of potentially endearing image.

Regarding the detail discernment, if there is one, perhaps their spectacles are an added factor?

I dont have the EDG handy, but here is a picture of four binoculars. The one to left is a Nikon MHG just about the same size as the EDG, maybe slighty slimmer because of thinner and less armor, but it’s a good example. The Nikon E2 is the first porro (3rd) to the right. This should give an idea of the size differences. The other two bins are the Leica 8x32 UVHD and the Nikon SE 8x32.

Thank you for the picture. The e2's look tiny! If only they were waterproof then they could maybe be a really fun travel bin.

 

[looksharp65]

It is all there in my original post and the second comment.
The reason I compare the 7x42 and the 8x32 are that they are the two binoculars in my stable that are suitable for viewing with spectacles.
Nowadays I use contacts a lot, and my Nikon E II and its roof counterpart, the Kite Lynx HD 8x30, are not suitable with spectacles.

The Meostar B1.1 8x32 and the Nikon EDG II 7x42 are not so good with contacts (the Meostar's small diameter eyecups are a nuisance to many, and the EDG's excessive eye relief requires the eyecups to be fully out and then they block all of the peripheral view while the AFOV still isn't huge)
Wearing contacts is straightforward for me, and the more usual way, but sometimes spectacles are the way to go for this or that reason.

The EDG's excessive eye relief requires spacers to get the eyecups to the perfect position rapidly and keep it there. They are open and don't require unscrewing the eyecups. The Binoc-Loc limits the minimum IPD setting, but allows increasing the IPD. I use it for two reasons: the EDG is very sensitive with eye placement and would be useless if I had to fine-tune it every time I lift the binoculars, and also for the more common reason that the hinge tension is too low.

Yes I have a bias toward the little Meostar because of the very good, easy, wide view including how its small barrel diameter makes it very discrete and non-intrusive in my field of view. I addressed this thing many years ago in a post where I introduced the term PFOV (Perceived Field of View), and it caused a lot of debate as it isn't measureable, of no interest to all users who use their bins with the eyecups extended and of no or little interest even to many who have them collapsed. I will not comment further upon PFOV.

But the main reason I'd go with the Meostar is it's fieldworthy, easy on the neck and in a pocket, immediately delivers an image that's 97% of the EDG's and, in some aspect, mainly AFOV, betters the EDG. While it isn't the favourite binocular when using contacts, it is still decent and thus it's the one of all my binoculars I'd keep if I could only own one. The second would be the E II 8x30 because the porro image is totally at another level.
I wouldn't mind if the EDG view could be pressed into the Meostar while keeping the AFOV intact, but it is already far beyond 'good enough'.
The EDG 8x32 should fit the bill, but then again it's a lot larger than the Meostar. If I were willing to always carry such a bulk and weight, I'd certainly go for the Monarch HG 8x42 instead.

With all due respect to any member who can see minute differences between their binoculars, I doubt it is resolution you see unless you have a lemon in the comparison.
Obviously, you could have a visual acuity better than mine, like 2.5 (20/8) or 3.0 (20/7) but it is highly unusual. Mine is about 1.8 or slightly more, and in real use, I see no significant advantage of 8x vs. 7x. On the contrary, I struggle to find a real-world detail so small that the difference is visible. Might be another thing if i spent my days looking at resolution charts, where higher magnification gives an immediate advantage. Hence, a super quality 7x32 should be perfect for me.
But, and this is important, if your visual acuity isn't splendid, more magnification makes a real difference, and it may be a good idea to use a 12x or 15x with image stabilisation.

//L

 

[looksharp65]

Are the 8x42 EDG's also known for giving the rich depth of field, "bird beholding" description? I've seen the 7x EDG's lusted over but wasn't sure about the 8x EDG. From what I gather from other posts, it seems the meopta give a nice big eye view while the EDG present some kind of potentially endearing image.

I haven't handled the EDG 8x42, but while I think the EDG is the world's arguably finest 7x42, I'd expect the 8x42 to be the better choice of the two.
The 7x42 is a bit fiddly with eye placement and perceived depth of field. Nowhere like my Vortex Fury 6,5x32 which is the fastest target acquirer I ever handled.
The EDG II 7x42 is like 'an 8x42 with 6 mm exit pupil and narrowish AFOV'.

Still wouldn't swap to the EDG 8x42 though. I had serious thoughts of purchasing the Monarch HG 8x42, but finally I decided the expense would be too much, and deep within I knew it was the Meostar I really wanted.

//L

 

[lmans66]

Nice review...there are a lot of great bins that are discontinued....and are excellent buys for the $'s...both of these fit that criteria. If I was in the market, these two would be in the running more so than a newer bin, at this point in my life....

 

[eitanaltman]

The statement that 30/32 mm roofs are more 'bird-finders' whereas great 7x42 are 'bird-beholders' rings very true. I have a 7x42 Leica UVHD+ and EDG 8x32 currently, the latter is absolutely spectacular and objectively equal or better in most respects BUT there is just something about the 7x42 view which is subjectively superior. Delicious if you will

(Once more I will say a prayer to Leica to deliver a 7x35 UV which would be the perfect birding binocular thanks 🙏🏻)

I do find it interesting that you found the 7x42 EDG is so fiddly with eye placement. In addition to the 8x32, I have owned EDG in 10x32 and 8x42 and found them all quite forgiving with eye placement relative to the format. Very hard to induce blackouts, lots of “margin for error” for eye placement although I do agree to get the absolute best view with the EDG you need to get IPD, ER and eyecups extension dialed in just right.

Having owned the above as well as MHG 8x42, I heartily disagree that I would take the MHG over the EDG 8x32. The MHG has slight advantages in exit pupil / ease of view, and FOV, but the EDG is superior in all other respects IMO. Much richer colors and contrast, more depth and “pop”, near zero CA, sharp to the edge, superior build quality especially eyecups and focus knob, etc.

 

[looksharp65]

The statement that 30/32 mm roofs are more 'bird-finders' whereas great 7x42 are 'bird-beholders' rings very true. I have a 7x42 Leica UVHD+ and EDG 8x32 currently, the latter is absolutely spectacular and objectively equal or better in most respects BUT there is just something about the 7x42 view which is subjectively superior. Delicious if you will

(Once more I will say a prayer to Leica to deliver a 7x35 UV which would be the perfect birding binocular thanks 🙏🏻)

I do find it interesting that you found the 7x42 EDG is so fiddly with eye placement. In addition to the 8x32, I have owned EDG in 10x32 and 8x42 and found them all quite forgiving with eye placement relative to the format. Very hard to induce blackouts, lots of “margin for error” for eye placement although I do agree to get the absolute best view with the EDG you need to get IPD, ER and eyecups extension dialed in just right.

Having owned the above as well as MHG 8x42, I heartily disagree that I would take the MHG over the EDG 8x32. The MHG has slight advantages in exit pupil / ease of view, and FOV, but the EDG is superior in all other respects IMO. Much richer colors and contrast, more depth and “pop”, near zero CA, sharp to the edge, superior build quality especially eyecups and focus knob, etc.

That is some good information! Maybe I was misled by Allbino's review of the MHG 10x42 that they found very nearly equal to the EDG 10x42.
Seems like I can lean back now and forget about upgrades and swaps.

//L

 

[Paultricounty]

That is some good information! Maybe I was misled by Allbino's review of the MHG 10x42 that they found very nearly equal to the EDG 10x42.
Seems like I can lean back now and forget about upgrades and swaps.

//L

My experience is many allbino reviews are misleading. I have both, and I’m not taking anything away from the MHG, which are excellent binoculars, with that said I can assure you the EDG is superior in almost every way.

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

My experience is many allbino reviews are misleading. I have both, and I’m not taking anything away from the MHG, which are excellent binoculars, with that said I can assure you the EDG is superior in almost every way.

Paul

I agree grasshopper. Soon you will be able to fetch the pebble from my hand. If Nikon had made a few small improvements on the EDG nobody even Swarovski could have touched them. Look at the WX. Could Swarovski even make something like that?

 

[Paultricounty]

I agree grasshopper. Soon you will be able to fetch the pebble from my hand. If Nikon had made a few small improvements on the EDG nobody even Swarovski could have touched them.

I snatched those pebbles from your hands a long time ago master Con (artist 😜).