• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Meopta 6.5x32 MeoPro (1 Viewer)

Hello Optic N,

I cannot argue with your guesses. This is when we need the expertise of Elkcub, a perceptual psychologist.

However, there is no question, in my mind, that one needs to make some things bigger, to see them. With regard to camouflage, that's one of the reasons artillery and infantry need binoculars, and photo reconnaissance is so important. Those hummer nests are small and are not too distinct from the branches but the bird's movements to and from the nest are a big help in locating them, just as movement often defeats camouflage.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
Thanks, I'm glad I fell onto this detail at the moment.
I think you need more magnification for a hummingbird nest at 10 ft than a Red-winged blackbird at 150 ft, right? Sure seems that way.

I was equating power with distance, but I keep seeing 10x users referring to little details instead of distance.
Not resolution but serving size. Details you can see at 7x, but not quickly and easily.

I tweaked-up my (relatively) sharp 10x50s for more resolution this weekend, and I told a 1-yr-old
and a 2-yr-old apart on the eings, but 10x is not generous for details while tracking
a bald eagle from 400 to 900 yards away.
And...I found out binoculars have basic limits on resolution anyhow, regardless of power
(Well, their narrow range of powers and sizes has a limited resolution, let's put it that way).

I think I may need a C90 Mak if I really want to pursue distance. I need extra light fuel for the power,
and a bigger f/ratio. It was fun squeezing the 10x50s, but they only have so much juice. Most spotters
are squished, lengthwise, like the binocs.

I was hoping for 2 nice things to cover it all. I might need 3, if I need to blow up details under 200 yds.
If I keep the Selsis, I'll have to pop open and clean the field lenses. Extra hooding shows up the focal-plane dits.
 
Last edited:
... I had the glass out, today, where it met its match, even with a working focussing knob. It was just about useless to find a humming bird's nest, 9 cm. tall and 3 m, away, when Tuesday, an 8x did the job. Fortunately, I had a 10x, today, so I was able to observe the female ruby throated hummingbird, minding the nest and flying off.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

Hi Arthur,

Did you happen to mean 30 m away, which would be somewhat short of 100 ft?

Getting to the perceptual aspects of camouflage, either natural or manmade, it's by no means a simple matter — by which I don't mean to suggest that I know any particular answers. Size, motion, and edge detection (those retinal ganglion cells, again) come into the picture.

I've attached two articles for your consideration.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Camouflage and visual perception.pdf
    596.6 KB · Views: 148
  • Visual Recognition.pdf
    294.8 KB · Views: 128
Last edited:
Hmmm. That's a surprise. Note my update to post #103.

Regards,
Ed

Hello Ed,

That hummer was good at concealing her rather small nest. Size, colour and texture were well exploited.

Interesting articles, which recognized the difference between static objects and moving objects. It seems to me that birds, like the American woodcock, excel at static concealment but generally fail at concealing movement.
In naval conflict, "dazzle" camouflage was developed for moving ships but it did not do much for concealment but worked on confusing an observer as to speed and direction. This is far less valuable when visual recognition has been generally supplanted by radar detection. Stealth engineering is now part of naval ship design to accommodate this environment.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe;
 
...I had the glass out, today, where it met its match, even with a working focussing knob. It was just about useless to find a humming bird's nest, 9 cm. tall and 3 m, away, when Tuesday, an 8x did the job. Fortunately, I had a 10x, today, so I was able to observe the female ruby throated hummingbird, minding the nest and flying off.

Arthur,

Everything here suggests that you had difficulty with the original sighting, but found later sightings progressively easier. It is in the nature of camouflage to make visual identification difficult, but once location and edge geometry are known, subsequent sightings become easier.

Ed
 
Last edited:
A way to test for that effect is:
--find the nest with the 10x
--now look with the 6.5x :: does the nest appear in a few seconds, or is it lost?

The only good camo where I am is the salamanders now working the potholes in the woods.
I'm not going there....the mosquitoes are booming now! Maybe if I can pick up a dragonfly swarm.
Sometimes they rack up on my head for fighter escort.
 
Last edited:
A way to test for that effect is:
--find the nest with the 10x
--now look with the 6.5x :: does the nest appear in a few seconds, or is it lost?
Hello Optic N,

Yes. I need the the 10x to acquire the target but not get back to it.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
I thought so... if camouflage is seen through by seeing tiny inconsistencies in larger
curves or lines, you would need good resolution for the 'jink', but also lots more
points on the curve or line to form a tightly estimated centerline. I am supposing the cortex
has to do something like I would do for image processing from sensors.
 
How does the Meopta handle coma, or stars. I looked through a 6.5 x 32, and the stars were somewhat flowery, that is they weren't pinpoints.

The rest of the views were impressive though, nice midsize binocular.
 
How does the Meopta handle coma, or stars. I looked through a 6.5 x 32, and the stars were somewhat flowery, that is they weren't pinpoints.

The rest of the views were impressive though, nice midsize binocular.

Hello Anansi,

Please, define coma for me,or provide me with a link. If you want me to do a "star" test, please provide a link on how to do it. Otherwise, I will look for pinpoint rendering of stars in the center of field.

For astronomical observation, all roof prism binoculars are at a disadvantage compared to a similar Porro binocular. The highest quality roof prism binoculars are only slightly poorer for astronomy. The 6.5x32 is not of the highest quality but it is good value for the price.

If it is a clear night, tonight, I will take a look and return with my impressions.


Happy nature observing,
Arthur :hi:
 
Coma link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_(optics)

Basically, are the stars pinpoints, or do they spark or flower? The pinpoints are well corrected.

I think the Meopro's are a great little binocular. Like any other bino, they have a weakness here and there.

Hello Anansi,

First, you must realize that I live in Manhattan, perhaps 3 km from Times Square, not the best place for star gazing. Secondly, I need new spectacles, as my astigmatism has changed and I cannot bring the Meopta to focus at infinity, with my glasses off.
Last night, it was cloudy. Monday night and tonight, the only star I could see was a very brilliant Vega, high overhead. Even with a 6.5x, I had to steady myself to keep the image from dancing. I would write that it never came to a perfect dot, with both eyes, but there was a difference between the two barrels. While looking at Vega, I saw lesser magnitude stares which appeared as specks.
Does that help?

Happy nature observing,
Arthur
 
I have similar issues with 10x50s, even. Handheld, sky looks clear, can't quite focus, tiny flowers.
My eyes are quite good otherwise. It's only on some nights. My theory is that there is a layer
in the atmosphere, probably ice crystals, or an inversion/vapors.
The same binoculars on the same night on a tripod have a
similar sparkler effect. It isn't there other nights.

Just a personal observation.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top