Brief review of Meopta Meostar B1 HD 10x42 with comparison against Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 (1 Viewer)

[jackjack]

several month ago, I have posted review of Meostar B1+ 8x42 and came across much more opposal then I expected.

Thread 'Brief review of Meopta Meostar B1+ 8x42. (in comparison with Zeiss Victory SFL 8x40' Brief review of Meopta Meostar B1+ 8x42. (in comparison with Zeiss Victory SFL 8x40


one thread keep bothering me is that Meostar with HD ver is better (sharper)then non HD model being close to alpha

as many knows, meostar series only have HD lens on 10 or higher powered products.
and meostar also price then differently

(look at the price fap between 8x42 and 10x42 HD B1+ sells in Meopta euro shop)


so, 8 power of recent B1+ have no HD lens but 10 power of B1 HD have HD lens in it, is 10x42 is enough good (sharp?) enough to claim highly to compete with alphas?

the comparison will be taken with Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 which is a popular and very good peice of 1000$ bin.

also named HD (though it didn't have fluoride HD glass like meostar HD does) and also lauched at early 2010s

meopta meostar B1 HD and Zeiss CHD


though meostar is much thicker it have bigger rest area for fingers


to make it clear again, Meostar is 'HD' model

(and also you can see ocular of CHD is much bigger 20mm / 23.5mm approx)


Meostar is one of the shortest 42mm in the market
(only bino I 've seen to be significantly shorter then meostar is Svbony SA205.)

size comparison of 42mm binos
meostar / BN / EDG / CHD / BC / HT / Razor UHD


with eywcup extended, 42mm meostar is shorter then 32mm ELSV


but it's weight is not fitted for it's small size


it's weight and shape resembles of Leica trinovid BN...
similar fat - short - heavy design with only one clickstop eyecups...


but it's much easy to hold on because of softer rubber and contoured barral


back to the comparison with CHD,

Meostar's objective lens is much shallower placed then CHD and other 42mm bin


have to be careful or you might get the lens damaged...


light leakage against CHD

meostar / CHD


meostar have bigger light leakage then CHD.

exit pupil is bigger and more rounder in Meostar

CHD 10x42 indeed have truncated exit pupils like allbinos quoted.

and for the size of the exit pupil, CHD have slightly bigger real magnification then Meostar

x3 digiscoped result of

meostar / CHD




lets proceed to optics

 

[jackjack]

OPTICS

Every digiscoped photo is

Meopta Meostar HD / Zeiss CHD

1. Brightness

despite of the significantly truncated, smaller excit pupil of CHD, there are no acknowledgeable brightness difference between two bino.
which result it one conculsion

Meostar < CHD

2. Color fidelity

photo taken from objective side


digiscoped image



Meostar has significantly orange hue based on supressed blue transmission compared to yello ~ red

CHD is bit biased on greener side with slight yellow in it.


color satuation of brown leaves light green grass is much better on meostar but color fidelity and contrast between white and black is significantly better on CHD

color bias of meostar B1 HD is much stronger then 8x42 B1+ even stronger then Leica BN 10x42 and Nikon MHG 10x42

it's very easy to feel yellowish warm feel. mich warmer (yellower) then leica NV 10x42

in terms of Color fidelity(accuracy)

Meostar < CHD

3. Field of View

up : meostar
below : CHD


you can see which bino shows more range of view

Meostar < CHD


4. Central Sharpness





hands down win for CHD.

CHD 42mm is one of the sharpest 1000$ that I consider it's sharpness 'The gateway to alpha sharpness'

many bino that advertised to be 'Sharp as alpha' doen't even managed to stand next to the gateway. such as Nikon EDG, Kowa Genesis, Leica UV, Minox HG, Meopta meostar B1+(non HD)

and unfortunately,

Meostar B1 HD joined the pack.

it's sharpness is just okey for 1000$ bin. just enough to compete with Nikon MHG and Leica BN which have inferior cnetral sharpness than CHD and Leica UV
Definitely not a biggest asset meostar privides

Meostar < CHD

5. Edge sharpness





also another large gap for CHD.

Meostar's sharpness maintains about 77~80% of FOV while CHD goes up around 85%

Meostar < CHD

6. Distortion



another undoubtable difference.

Meostar shows high amound of pincusion distortion easy enough to recognize by everyone looking at straight lined object such as building.

similar with 10x42 Victory HT, Leica BN and Svbony sv202.

CHD 42mm has very scarce amount of pincusion distortion.
not over controlled as EL and SRBC to produce rolling ball effect but, indeen highly controlled for users to not recognize the presence of distortion in real use.

Meostar < CHD


7. Chromatic Abberation

center


edge


in terms of CA control,

Meostar B1 HD's 'HD lens' work well enough to blow CHD out of the comparison of CA.

If one is highly concerned with CA, the difference is sure enough to overcome other options meostar fall behind CHD.

'HD lens deployed' Meostar's CA contol is good enough to regarded as among the top of the range


Both Edge and central CA is better then EDG 10x32.

Central CA control is similar with SRBC 10x42 but CA is much better at edge

Central CA is bit inferior then EL 10x32 but edge CA is better.

Central and Edge CA is both little bit inferior then Kowa Genesis 10x33


Meostar > CHD

8. Glare suppression


meostar


CHD


despite of shorter size and shallower possessed objective lens, meostar shows less glare the CHD

Meostar > CHD

9. Ghosting

Meostar < CHD

they both have nice supression of ghosting, but in harsh testing, meostar shows bit more ghosting then CHD.



OTHER

Build quality

Meostar > CHD

only disadvantage that Meostar B1 HD have against CHD is one - click eyecup.

other thing such as
Rubber armor, hinge, build quality of eyecup it self is up to the alpha

I really like the rubber armoring of Meostar B1 HD more scratch- proof then softer rubber of B1+ and not too hard as Leica NV.

it's surface texture resembles of the rubber of Leica UV but thicker and spongier

and build quality of hinge is outstanding. the best I ever seen

in terms of robust build, Meostar is definitely on top of the market even better then most of the Alphas.

military tank feel.

Handling

Meostar > CHD

though meostar is thick and heavy, it's nicely contoured body sticked to the hands nicely then slimmer CHD.
the bigger the hand is, the more likely to be in love of handling Meostar.
but for small hands, Meostar still can be big.

balance of weight is also better on meostar

Eye placemet

Meostar < CHD

Meostar have 3mm less stated ER then CHD (15 /18)

and I feel CHD has at least 2.5mm more usuable ER then Meostar.

it will be critical to glass wearers becase 15mm is not enough to them.
I also feel much easier to view CHD with Specs even it have larger field of view.

for non spec wearers, choice will depend on the shape of the face.

face with relatively flat eysockets can feel CHD's eyecup bit short for it's ER. resulting minor blackouts
but on the other hand, deep eysockets mainly form west sides might feel meostar's eyerelif bit short in naked eyes.

so.
even for non glass wearers,
for glass wearers, CHD take a win


Focusing


Meostar < CHD

focusing of meostar have about 1.5~1 6 rotation amount and CHD have about 1.1

CHD have much fluid and faster focuser while meostar focuser feel too dry.
CHD's focuser is fast enough to feel finickiy but still better in terms of faster focusing then meostar.

and close focus is

approximately

2.2m in Meostar
2m in CHD

Comfort of the view

Meostar > CHD

due to less blue light transmission, meostar have minimal eyestrain compared to CHD.

comfort of the View is the biggest optical assets of Meostar B1 HD with CA control.

it even shows less eyestrain then Nikon EDG 10x32, Leica BN, UV, NV, Zeiss SF, EL, NL 10x42.

one of the most comfortable 10power to view through

 

[jackjack]

Conclusion

Optically,

Meostar B1 HD 10x42 struggle against CHD 10x42

though it have the REAL HD lens for CA correction compared to CHD,

it's overall sharpness is not suitable for the praises like (good for price, good as alpha... extra)

I don't prefer over corrected Distortion like EL and SRBC but meostar's pincusion distortion have plenty of room for improvement.

it is not a flat bino.
I don't prefer flat field. but in terms of optical perfection, I have to put flatter field higher.

and I prefer unflat field when it's central sharpness is sharper the flatter field one.
which Meostar is NOT.

in terms of optic, CHD will be winner. based on the fact CHD cheaper and older model then meostar B1 HD, meostar doesn't seem to deliver good - for - the - price sharpness.

but Meostar leads mainly on build quality, glare suppression and extra which can make a nice challenge against CHD but not enough to cover up it's optical disadvantages to compete with upper class.

I feel sorry for fans of Meopta, but I have no plan to change my quotes to it.
I'm both impressed and disappointed to this specific bino like any other bin.

but after all, I manage to like it.

despite of it's weak overall sharpness to be called as 'Alpha'
it is definitely 'Alpha' and even excels some in few terms that I found it useful.


First will be CA control

Second will be Comfort of view

Third will be Rugged build quality with compact and well balanced body

all three can add big help to my birding usage.

It resembles me of Nikon EDG 8x42 that I also enjoy using for birding.

Not bight and sharp for the price,

but close to top of the range edge sharpness and top of the range focusing, Comfort of view.


Among the three High quality 10x42 (meostar / SRBC, HT)
meostar's optic can even be a match to other two.
but recently I mostly enjoy going out with Meostar to enjoy it's warm yellow view that can't be seen on recent hight quality optics.

 

[jackjack]

Digiscoped photos taken by Meopta Meostar B1 HD 10x42

 

[adhoc]

Jackjack, thank you for bringing clarity to comparison issues I have been wondering about for a long time. (By clarity there I don't mean your photos! Not criticizing them, as I don't have the experience and knowledge to do so, but am not used to bino image comparisons through photos, so I bypass them, except from curiosity.)

 

[Yarkho]

As ever, another great review, with "hands on" experience.

I am a great fan of MeoStars (I have four), and agree with many of what's said above. In my view, their main disadvantage is that the concept is "mature", in the sense that it's nearly 20 years old. Optics world has moved on in several aspects (edge sharpness, FOV, ...).

Their main advantage is that whenever I go birding, I automatically pick the MeoStar 10x42 HD. And whenever holding it, I don't want to put it down.