Meopta 8x32 First impressions (2 Viewers)

The long and eagerly awaited Czech glass arrived yesterday and here are some of my (very subjective) findings:

There are few things that haven't been covered in the reviews of this binocular.
In general, I concur with the conclusions drawn by previous reviewers, so I would like to point out some things where my emphasis falls differently.

I haven't been able to make a thorough optical examination of them, so what I write here are merely first impressions.

First of all: This is a keeper. I like it. The price I paid was only £260 and that's a bargain. More about that later.

PART 1 - HARDWARE

The binocular arrived in the newer cordura case (as opposed to the dreaded felt case) and had the distinctive bubble strap mounted. The lens caps had already disappeared somewhere and with their reputation im mind, I couldn't care less.

I was astonished to see how small it was. Although being about half an inch taller than the Zeiss FL 10x32 with their eyecups collapsed, it is pleasantly sleeker and a lot easier to tuck away in a pocket or under the jacket.

I don't care for thumb indents, and as usual, these are useless for me. I hold binoculars with my fingers 90 degrees crosswise vs the barrels, not slanted. When my index finger is positioned on the focusing knob, my thumb is a good inch in front of the intended indent, almost exactly halfway between the ends of the binocular. The thumb indent does not do any harm, though.

Thanks to the sleek barrels, there's plenty with space for my thumbs between them. This means that I can vary the way I hold them, which makes it more comfortable than any other 32 mm binocular I've tried.
YMMV. My IPD is 67 mm.
If you have smaller IPD and smaller hands, the Meostar 8x32 should provide a grip that's similar to what us people with large hands experience with full-sized binoculars.

The Meostar hangs perfectly flat on the chest and the strap lugs don't protrude much. They are out of the way from my hands.

As has been mentioned before, the eyecup diameter is very small. As a result, they can't be used to support against the eyebrows. This also means that if they are pushed closer to the eyes, blackouts occur.
So the eyecups could have been a couple of mm longer.
With spectacles, I can see most of the FOV.
The eyecups feel very solid and move smoothly with one intermediate stop.

The focus knob is somewhat tight for my taste and also a little slower. Since I haven't had the opportunity to go birding with it, I can't yet tell how that influences the warblering chase speed.
As usual with 8x binoculars, I'm hunting the focus now and then but I'm hoping to learn.

The central hinge is sufficiently tight but I wouldn't mind if it were a tiny bit tighter.

As a whole, it has an apparent build quality only surpassed by the extremely solid - and subsequently heavy - Nikon HG.

PART 2 - MAN AND MACHINE

Well aware I'm notorious for loving the Vortex Fury 6.5x32, for promoting the PFOV aspect and for loathing anticlockwise focusers, I'll get to the point right away.

Some reviewers have mentioned the "transparency" the Meopta 8x32 offers, and I'm inclined to agree. With the eyecups collapsed, only a thin black ring surrounds the reasonably wide 64 degree AFOV.
Strangely, the narrower AFOV of the Fury doesn't seem restricted in comparison, as long as both are used with the eyecups down.
With the Nikon HG, with an AFOV similar to the Meopta's, the width of the black circle feels more intrusive. The obvious explanation is that its eyecups have a much larger diameter than the Meostar's, so they occupy a larger portion of the human FOV.

Another thing these have received praise for, is the ease of view they provide. Indeed, they are easy on the eye and eye placement is not critical.
However, the statement that they are "like cutting out a slice of the reality and magnifying it" seems exaggerated to me.

The Meostar has been called "what the Nikon E II would be if it were a roof prism binocular". This does not conform with my findings. The Meostar can, and should be, judged by its own merits.
In this "Man and machine" section I will not go very deep into optics. I want to share my opinion about how it feels in real use, and here is a comparison with a couple of other binoculars:

Vortex Fury 6.5x32: Very large FOV, moderate AFOV, great PFOV
Meopta 8x32: Large FOV, large AFOV, great PFOV
Nikon E II 8x30: Extremely large FOV, very large AFOV, good PFOV
Zeiss FL 10x32: Medium FOV, very large AFOV, great PFOV

The reason the E II does not reach "great PFOV" status is that the porro shape and the very wide oculars occupy more of the human FOV, in particular when the eyecups are extended. Using the E II feels like walking into a wide-screen cinema and see the illumination be dimmed so only the beautiful image stands out.

From the little chart above, it's obvious that the Meostar provides a very good combination of the three FOV aspects. In this respect I think it provides a clever mix of what the Fury and the E II can deliver, and in a package that's both tiny and rugged.
I'm planning to use it as my go-everywhere-beater binocular and as such, I can hardly think of any more qualified bino.

There's nothing not to like about its ergonomics for the hand and the eye.


To be continued...

PART 3 - OPTICS

This is a brief summary of my very limited experience with the Meopta.

The image hue is very little, but still visibly more warm than the nearly exactly neutral Fury. This performance is slightly less good than I had hoped for. However, since I can use the orangey Nikon HG with delight, I can't complaint with a very slight yellow hue.
But it makes me wonder about the 42 mm models and in particular the 7x42, all of which are well-known as having a warm colour representation.
Maybe it is the reduced brightness of the 4 mm exit pupil that makes the Meopta seem warmer than the Fury.

Central sharpness: Good, but not spectacular like the E II. I may change my opinion later.

Sweet spot: Could and should have been wider, but doesn't present a problem.
Only little of the edge fuzziness is curvature of field, and there's definitely astigmatism outside of the sweet spot.

Straylight: Here's the Meostar falling short, but not worse than the FL. Annoying reflections when looking towards the general direction of the sun.
Street lamp test show distinct but thin spikes and very slight ghosting.

CA: Shows some CA even within sweet spot, but not at the center of the image. Will look further on this subject.

This section will be complemented later.

PART 4 - VERDICT

A pleasant acquaintance but has some flaws. Even though the price point is attractive for a European binocular, more could be done to add value to the offering.
If it tells anyone here anything, I have thought of the Meopta as a tiny notch above Kahles (which I've admittedly not tried). But in real use, I find its optical perfomance somewhere where I would have expected to find the Kahles. A tiny bit disappointing, but the price I paid does make it a bargain.
Unfortunately I think I would hesitate to buy it new, to normal RRP. In particular the colour representation and the straylight handling are minor flaws that need to be addressed in the Mk II version.
Dielectric coatings and ED glass should also - unconditionally! - be added.
I'd also want to see a 6x32 or 7x32 model, and maybe a 9x32 to replace the 10x32 with a model with a competitive FOV around 125 m/1000 m.

This one will not replace my 10x32 FL but it may still become the binocular I use the most among all I own. If not, this is an absolutely brilliant travel binocular and I can't see myself sell it.

//L

Sounds like money well spent.......usually is if it's on a bin!

The 6.5x32 Meopta Meopro wasn't that impressive. For a claimed 440 foot FOV the field seemed very small compared to a Swaro 8x32 EL. Also, I had a rough gritty focuser. I think a Nikon Monarch 8x42 is a better value.

Pardon my ingnorance-
PFOV?

stephen b said:

Pardon my ingnorance-
PFOV?

Click to expand...

Not to answer for LS but my interpretation is perceived field of view. Bryce...

Thanks for that detailed review. For $345 I could learn to live with the Meopta's less than optimal characteristics for me, but for the full price of $879, no way, José. Btw, you never did tell us how you managed to get these so cheap, in Europe, no less.

As to wondering why the "hue" is "warm," well, just take a look at Baby Huey's lopsided light transmission graph. That tells the story.

<B>

Stephen,

I can pardon your ignorance, but I can't pardon your spelling of "ingnorance".

<B>

stephen b said:

Pardon my ingnorance-
PFOV?

Click to expand...

Primary field of view aka "sweet spot"?

No, Bryce had it right - Looksharps PFOV is perceived field of view.

There's a mind bending thread on it on BF somewhere!


Chosun :gh:

Thanks for that review! I've been trying to pin down the image hue of the 7x42 Meostar since none are available to look thru. If my 6.5 Meopro parallels the 6.5 Fury as some claim... then I can reasonably understand its warm bias.

CG

Nice review. Very nice actually. A true pleasure to read.

But, after reading recent threads on perception differences even between each of our own eyes I stand by "...almost as if a piece of our view was cut and magnified..."

8-P

Thank you for writing this. I look forward to the continuation!
The personal factor "There's nothing not to like about its ergonomics for the hand and the eye." is exactly the contrary to myself, which shows that lab-data is not everything in a bino. And you are spot-on with the remark about its sleek appearance, the Meopta is so easy to store and carry along.

stephen b said:

PFOV?

Click to expand...

Chosun Juan said:

mind bending thread

Click to expand...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1892964#post1892964

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=220415

PFOV is a highly personal opinion regarding how 'unintrusive' a binocular feels in front of the eyes. It is only meaningful to use it for binoculars with the eyecups collapsed - when they are extended, the AFOV takes over.
I explicitly mentioned PFOV in this evaluation because the Meopta has a reputation of being very discrete in front of the eyes.

Thanks for the nice words! I wanted to share my subjective view on how the thing really feels to use, and in particular by comparing it to known entities.

Frank, I apologise for corrupting your words in your great review. Still, they are a bit surprising to me since I know you have tried many binoculars including the Meostar 7x42.
The reflections, the warm hue and the not-stellar sweet spot are the main things that make me object. Did you ever try the EDG II 7x42?

I also understand your feelings about the Sightron Blue Sky better, and why you are reluctant to say the Meopta betters it. Holy crap, why must the Sightron focus bass ackwards? :eek!:

//L

I was deceived by the Meopta optics. If you had it for 300 euros that's ok, but at 780 euros it's a bad choice imo.
I prefered the little 8x20 Swaro optics than the 8x32 Meopta. The 8x30 habicht is cheaper than the Meopta aswel.
I found me trying loads and loads of binoculars these months, when i am visiting customers for my work, i travel between towns and towns. And when on the road i find some places with optics shops (kinda rare to find some in France), hunting shops, etc i enter the shops and try optics between my rendez-vous. I like that hehe.

I apologise for corrupting your words in your great review. Still, they are a bit surprising to me since I know you have tried many binoculars including the Meostar 7x42.

//L

Click to expand...

I have an easy answer for this. My comments were directed more towards the image representation with regard to "ease of view", size of sweet spot, flatness of image, etc...

The slightly warm bias and moderate CA outside of the sweetspot are certainly factors that make the image less than what I described.

Truth be told I haven't run into a single bin that actually provided "a cut out of real life but magnified". All of my favorite bins over the years had something that took away from the "totally natural view".

The reflections, the warm hue and the not-stellar sweet spot are the main things that make me object. Did you ever try the EDG II 7x42?

//L

Click to expand...

Yes, on two occassions, but only briefly. I would hesitate to write any impressions based on those limited experiences....but I did enjoy the view from what I remember.

I also understand your feelings about the Sightron Blue Sky better, and why you are reluctant to say the Meopta betters it. Holy crap, why must the Sightron focus bass ackwards? :eek!:

//L

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you look for. The Sightron "does it" for me because it provides all of the optical characteristics that I enjoy in a binocular without necessarily having all the "bells and whistles" of many of the current most expensive models.

I think the transmission curve linked by Brock is a fairly strong indication that the prisms have a metallic (Ag or Al) coating.
The Meopta shows a progressive fall-off in the infrared and still has 50% transmission at 800 nm, where most bins with dielectric coatings show a precipitous drop, e.g. Swarovision 10% at 750 nm.
What I don't understand is that Leica ultravid HDs show a typical metal-coated curve but allegedly have dielectric coated prisms!

John

Minor update:

I forgot to mention that the barrels are so sleek that I easily can pinch the focus wheel between my thumb and my index finger to turn or make fine adjustments. Very nice!
Focus speed seems fairly adequate.

Central sharpness does not lag behind any of my other binoculars. Of course the 10's give a greater resolution. At least during the day, the sweet spot is quite large, perhaps 70%. Within it there is very slight field curvature, but if the binocular is focused just a littler further away, it the peripheral part of the image also comes into focus without defocus of the central image. Outside of the sweet spot, the image quality degrades steeply but not to a horrible extent.

Re the reality cutout, I'm with Frank. The view is easy and the field is fairly flat.
Again, there are four things that corrupt the "transparency".

1) Colour bias. Always.
2) Straylight handling. Too often.
3) Sweet spot size and flatness of field. Rarely.
4) CA. Only if I look for it, and even then it's nearly negligible.

The colour balance is only a fraction more neutral than my old (non-P) Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 B/GA T*. In fact, the view is very similar, with a flat field, easy and relaxed view but with the old-fashioned yellow hue.
To some extent, this is bothersome to me, because I find that the yellow bias decreases the colour contrast and gives a slightly dull colour rendition.
Not one single hue, not even yellow, stands out against the others. As a contrast (!), the Nikon HG makes the blue on the blue tits darker, but very lively.

I said it before - the Fury is very, very close to perfectly colour neutral. The E II adds some colour brilliance and finally, the Nikon HG has an enormous colour contrast that separates and defines all colours better than any other binocular I have looked through.
When it comes to colour rendition, I would have preferred any of these characteristics above the Meostar.

I can only tell what I see, and I'm trying to live up to my profile name. Everything else is fine with the Meostar, but I doubt I'll care to try the 7x42. (It is even possible that this spills over to decrease my expectations about the SLC Neu)

If Meopta releases an updated version of the Meostars, I will be very interested to try them out. Until then, I intend to keep it. It is still very nice.
Just like Frank wrote, "Buy it for the ergonomics alone!"

//L

Dear all,
I have studied the information Meopta supplies with regard to the technical properties of their Meostar binoculars. Mentioned is Meobright MB5501 the new multicoating Meopta applies "auf die Linsen und Prismen "(qoute). No mention is made of a phase correction coating or a high reflective mirror on the Schmidt-Pechan roof prism. So no silver mirror, no aluminium mirror and no di-electric mirror. That can explain why we found low light transmission in all Meopta binoculars we measured (I think the transmission spectrum in post 8 over estimates the transmission of the 8x32, since we never measured a similar spectrum). Up to now we have investigated the 8x42 Meostar, the 6,5x32 and the 8x32. All have light transmissions of either below 80% or just above it. That would be in agreement with the lack of a high reflective mirror on the Schmidt-Pechan prisms.
Meopta mentions the presence of HD-glass in the Meostars by which they mean ED glass if we look at the picture supplied with it.
The description of the binoculars do not mention the presence of protective lenscoatings, which applied on the telescopic Meopta gunsights.
If we can trust the Meopta information we are stuck with an 800 euro 8x32 without phase correction coating, without an high reflective mirror on the roof prisms to avoid light losses and without a water and dust repellent coating and a not optimal light transmission in that price region.
John, post 17, if we look at the sensitivity of the three different cone types then light transmitted at 800 nm is not of importance for our vision with binoculars.
Gijs

Gijs,

Though it may be lacking on the site you referenced the Meostars and Meopros do utilize a phase coating and, IIRC, a silver prism coating. No antidust/water repellant coatings though.