-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Eye Relief of Meostar 8x32 vs. 10x32 ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chris6
- Start date
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I would send an email to Meopta and ask them to correct the error. :t:
chris6
Well-known member
Thank you.
Nor did I have an ER problem with 8x32, so in that repect it's good news that 10x32 should be even easier.
Lee,
I can't recall, but do you wear glasses? The 8x32 Meostar has always been on my radar but I've had limited success with 8x32s and my eyeglasses; the 8x32 Zeiss T*FL Victory has so far been the easiest for me to use.
Thanks,
Justin
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
If that's the case they must have improved it in later versions and made completely new oculars in the 10x version.
2009 the ER was said to be 15mm for the 10x32 (8x32 was same back then at 15.5mm) in this meopta-brochure:
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/295346/Meopta-Meostar-B1-10x32.html?page=8#manual
I also find it a bit strange that the 10x32 would have more ER than the 10x42 as the later has less AFOV/FOV.
And usually 8x version have a bit more ER than the 10x model (don't think I've seen the opposite).
AFOV for a 10x tend to be a bit higher so that might cause problems with eye glasses also.
In this case 8x and 10x seem to have rather similar AFOV though.
10x42 - 15mm FOV 110m
10x32 - 16.3mm FOV 111m
8x42 - 17.4mm FOV 137m
8x32 - 15.5mm FOV 139m
Just being a bit skeptical about specs on webpages etc. Errors have a tendency to spread like viruses.
Would be interesting to hear what Jan (HouseOfOutdoors) that sells theses have to say, I guess he have access to both models.
:smoke:
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
It's probably against most optical theory that a 10x would have longer ER than an 8x (within the same model series).
I wouldn't eat my hat on it but it looks like an anomaly.
But the only way to know if it works for you is to try both.
Last edited:
Unfortunately webpage specs commonly contain errors.
For example the MeoStar 8x32 is listed as having 58-74mm IPD range but is in fact 56-75 according to my experience and confirmed by Meopta.
Lee
chris6
Well-known member
I do wear glasses but found that ER with Meostar B1 8x32 that I have already tried was sufficient. Liked it a lot but it had a minor fault and I also wanted a bit more power, hence the enquiries about "16.3mm" ER quoted for the B1 10x32.
Looks as if I may indeed have to order just the (rarer) 10x32 to find out after all.
At reduced prices I have done this with several different binoculars recently and have been reluctant to return them unless there really was a fault. I was however able to re-sell the good ones at much the same prices.
At full price there would perhaps seem more justification for checking first with the seller about 'trying them out'...but keeping them would surely later turn out to be an extravagance when inevitably they had to go, and by now the total expenses would have been fairly shocking |:$|
Have seen no 'new other' Meostar B1 10x32s yet, and one 10x32 T*FL at £949 but 'about 8 years old', while remaining unsold.
chris6
Well-known member
Vespobuteo,
Thanks for that and I reckon '15mm' makes the most sense and should be ok, so have ordered Cabela's Euro Instinct HD 10x32 from USA (chosen over Meostar B1 10x32 from Germany) and it will take a couple of weeks for them to arrive.
Last edited:
black crow
Well-known member
While you're at it tell them to take a look at their stated FOV on the Meopro 10x32. It's very misleading. I believe what they are doing is stating the fov in meters at 1000 yards. So they have a fov that looks like around 383 when it should be around 354 or something if we are doing correctly ft. to yds. I don't have the exact numbers but that's about how comes out. That's how it was anyway when I was shopping the Meopro.
Last edited:
chris6
Well-known member
black crow,
I gathered that a calculation in geometry can be done to derive a constant for all cases, using cosines etc. which means that for any given field of view, expressed as an angle, the linear field of view in Feet at 1000 Yards must always be the same:-
e.g. 52.5 (the constant) x 6.7 (the quoted angular field) = 351.75 ft (the width in feet of the image at 1000 yards)
So if Meopta's quoted angular field is really "6.7°" then "384 ft/1000yds" is certainly incorrect as you said.
However if the angular field were really to be "7.31428571°" then the "384 ft/1000yds" would be correct after all!
Chris
I gathered that a calculation in geometry can be done to derive a constant for all cases, using cosines etc. which means that for any given field of view, expressed as an angle, the linear field of view in Feet at 1000 Yards must always be the same:-
e.g. 52.5 (the constant) x 6.7 (the quoted angular field) = 351.75 ft (the width in feet of the image at 1000 yards)
So if Meopta's quoted angular field is really "6.7°" then "384 ft/1000yds" is certainly incorrect as you said.
However if the angular field were really to be "7.31428571°" then the "384 ft/1000yds" would be correct after all!
Chris
chris6
Well-known member
Thanks and I found the 8x32 Euro HD was ok with glasses too, but did you by any chance also try out the 10x32?
No, sorry, they supposedly didn't have that model available to test, though I contend that was more due to the incompetence of the counter worker.
chris6
Well-known member
My Cabelas Instinct HD 10x32 have arrived and I have no trouble seeing the whole field when wearing glasses.
In use the available Eye relief for Instinct HD 10x32 seems the same as for the Meostar 8x32 I had, maybe a little greater, so I suppose the figure of 16.3mm given on Meopta website for Meostar 10x32, is somehow right after all...
In use the available Eye relief for Instinct HD 10x32 seems the same as for the Meostar 8x32 I had, maybe a little greater, so I suppose the figure of 16.3mm given on Meopta website for Meostar 10x32, is somehow right after all...
chris6
Well-known member
As it turned out I preferred the Meopta B1 Meostar 8x32 to Cabelas Instinct HD 10x32: rubber armour very similar but the nobbles of Meostar gave better grip when carrying/handling; slightly less easy view with the smaller exit pupil of 10x32 was not compensated by any improvement of sharpness or brightness compared to Meostar 8x32 i.e. the significance/meaning of Cabelas 'HD' label was not clear between the 10x32 'HD' and the Meostar 8x32 (although that is not called 'HD').
In the end I decided to hold on to my 4 year old Pentax DCF ED 8x32 because I also preferred it's view to that of Meostar 8x32 which, when nit picking in direct comparison, appeared a touch brighter and slightly sharper. The Pentax also looks very slightly bulkier, which in fact I prefer. In use I found the Pentax handling, ease of use, and colours are generally somehow nicer, with better snap to focus and more evidently solid build quality and no free play in focus mechanism, which was a fault with that example of Meostar 8x32.
I still much prefer B1 Meostar HD 12x50 to everything tried so far, for its luxurious view - Ok it is bulkier and heavier, but its 'density' is pleasantly low which, to me, makes handling more pleasant - as with a big lump of balsa wood cf. a more fiddly smaller peice of something dense like metal.
Strangely, after the most frequent use, the 12x50 has also developed some free play in focus, and the hinge between the barrels has become slightly too loose as well. I am off to Oz for a break with our daughters so it is on its way to be checked, and I trust perfected by Meopta. It's otherwise so good that I decided it was worth the bother and the wait won't seem so bad while away. The opticron DBA VHD has also gone to a good home, but at least I can still take the Pentax instead!
In the end I decided to hold on to my 4 year old Pentax DCF ED 8x32 because I also preferred it's view to that of Meostar 8x32 which, when nit picking in direct comparison, appeared a touch brighter and slightly sharper. The Pentax also looks very slightly bulkier, which in fact I prefer. In use I found the Pentax handling, ease of use, and colours are generally somehow nicer, with better snap to focus and more evidently solid build quality and no free play in focus mechanism, which was a fault with that example of Meostar 8x32.
I still much prefer B1 Meostar HD 12x50 to everything tried so far, for its luxurious view - Ok it is bulkier and heavier, but its 'density' is pleasantly low which, to me, makes handling more pleasant - as with a big lump of balsa wood cf. a more fiddly smaller peice of something dense like metal.
Strangely, after the most frequent use, the 12x50 has also developed some free play in focus, and the hinge between the barrels has become slightly too loose as well. I am off to Oz for a break with our daughters so it is on its way to be checked, and I trust perfected by Meopta. It's otherwise so good that I decided it was worth the bother and the wait won't seem so bad while away. The opticron DBA VHD has also gone to a good home, but at least I can still take the Pentax instead!
