Can (higher) weight be a deliberate choice? (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

Bit of background:
I got myself a lovely 7x42 Meopta Meostar B1 and I've been using it with great pleasure lately. In the past I've had the Meostar in 32, 50 and 56 mm in various configurations, it's a model that somehow appeals to me: it's chunky but compact size, the understated Czech take on a robust no-nonsense quality field binocular (which in some areas I personally think is a take on what Swarovski was doing with the SLC some years ago), the quality of materials.

Surprisingly, I've found the 42 mm to be the sweet spot of the B1 range. I loved the image quality and overall feel of the 7x50, but it was a tad bulky (as is to be expected from a 7x50). But the form factor of the 7x42 is amazing. Here, compared to my go to non-IS, a 8x32 pre-FP EL SV.



The 7x42 B1 is just marginally taller, the eyecups seem to be a copy of the EL series, even the colour is quite close. The 8x32 EL is not the smallest 8x32, but it isn't the largest or heaviest at 580 g. I really like the way the 7x42 B1 fill your hands, and the focus wheel is also very nice. Maybe the wheel moves a little slow, but given that it's a 7x it's not a deal breaker. The image leaves little to be desired. I'd say that, surprisingly it feels very close to the EL (given how different on paper the EL and B1 are), although maybe the last bit of "sparkle" is missing. But overall I'd say is one hell of a binocular...

... and then we come to weight (which leads me back to the title). At 900 g is a bit of a beast. I mean, there are 50 mm (even some Minox 52 mm) lighter than this 42 mm. And I wonder whether such a heavy weight is a deliberate choice. Yes, one can argue that the B1 is a an "old" design, launched 17 years ago, and some designs that were popular on those days include the Leica BN (also around 900 g for the 42 mm) or the Nikon HG (which offered a really heavy 32 mm). But then, the new B1 Plus, that was launched not that long ago, maintains the same 900 g mark for the 42 mm version. I am pretty sure a company like Meopta are technically capable of producing a lighter flagship, but yet they don't. So I wonder why: is it because Meopta as a brand is aimed primarily at hunters and weight is not a priority for hunters? Or is it because Meopta thinks that no shortcuts or compromises are to be made when it comes to toughness and durability of their flagship model? (Which in turn can sparkle a debate about the durability of current lightweight offerings). Maybe it has to do with heavier binoculars being more "stable" when handheld?

What are your views on this? Any ideas? Is there any designer from Meopta in the room?

 

[Canip]

I think perception a definitely a factor here. Remember when the SF 8x42 / 10x42 came out and some people were debating in forums whether the SF could be taken seriously or whether it was just too light to be sturdy?

 

[yarrellii]

@Canip Yes, most definitely. Probably a similar thing can be said about the perceived lack of toughness of the "plastic" (sic) Zeiss FL that, over time, has proven to be a really tough binocular.
In this case, I wonder if Meopta builds them so heavy:

• because it's cheaper
• because they incorporate all the needed "toughness" that could be compromised with lighter pieces
• becase they think it offers a more stable view
• because they think people will perceive this weight and "chunkyness" as a sign of quality (opposed to the doubts regarding the SF)

I mean, a 800 g 8x42 is "solid" enough, so where do all those 100 g go? Is it more glass? Does aluminium offer such a remarkable weight difference compared to, say, magnesium? I find it all very intriguing.

 

[A2GG]

I doubt the heaviness is for perceived durability. It’s the glass that makes it heavy; all of the lenses and prism glass. Based on what I’ve read here a binocular frame without the glass is very light weight. Meopta uses the types and amount of glass elements to achieve the quality of view they want. Plus, I read here somewhere that Meopta Meostar frame is big/wide to accommodate the big prisms.

 

[dries1]

The Meostar B1 line up was made for hunters and not for the birding community so weight was not a factor. I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Dennis Mau]

What is weird is Meostar Plus 8x32 is a very light binocular for a 32 mm, coming in at 560 grams, so why is the 42 mm so heavy? I agree, the 42 mm is the sweet spot in the Meostar line. The 8x42 Meostar is an excellent binocular. I don't know if it is heavy because they are for hunters because hunter's value a lightweight binocular also, or because of the glass and heavy prisms. The Zeiss SF has has many lenses and a very complex eyepiece, yet it remains relatively light, and of course the SFL sets new standards for weight in a full size binocular. Building something light but durable can be more expensive than building something heavy and durable. I think Zeiss is more leading edge when it comes to building light but durable binoculars. Even their 8x54 HT only weighs 36 oz. and is very light and small for a big eye binocular. They purposely made it 20% smaller than the 8x56 SLC so even though it competes with the SLC optically in low light it is a much smaller and lighter binocular. I think even though Meopta's are excellent optically, they lag a little behind Zeiss and Swarovski in other areas as far any new concepts in binoculars. If there is going to be something new and groundbreaking like the SFL or Curio, it is going to come from Swarovski or Zeiss.

 

[dries1]

Er the SF trimmed the lack of heavy glass that is why they are light with the magnesium body. The body of the Meostar is aluminum not magnesium so that combined with the glass contributes to the weight.

 

[A2GG]

Er the SF trimmed the lack of heavy glass that is why they are light with the magnesium body. The body of the Meostar is aluminum not magnesium so that combined with the glass contributes to the weight.

Yes , I read a review recently the SFL is using thinner lenses to save weight.

 

[yarrellii]

What is weird is Meostar Plus 8x32 is a very light binocular for a 32 mm, coming in at 560 grams, so why is the 42 mm so heavy?

Absolutely! I completely forgot about that. Oddly enough, I found the 8x32 shares the same reassuring "solid-brick" feeling, but it is indeed a lightish high quality 8x32. I wonder if there are many other models with such a large difference between 8x32 and 8x42. For example, I remember the Conquest HD is quite heavy for a 8x32 at 630 g, but the 8x42, although not a feather weight at 795 g is just 165 g, while in the Meostar is a whopping 340 g!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Er the SF trimmed the lack of heavy glass that is why they are light with the magnesium body. The body of the Meostar is aluminum not magnesium so that combined with the glass contributes to the weight.

I believe you are correct. From the B&H buying guide. "All things being equal on two identical binoculars, except that one has an aluminum chassis and the other magnesium, the magnesium will be several ounces lighter." So I wonder why Meopta does not use Magnesium in their binoculars? Probably because aluminum is less expensive than magnesium, but there are less expensive binoculars that still use magnesium, so it is kind of strange. Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica almost all use magnesium in their top glass, probably because of the weight advantage and people like to think their binoculars are made from magnesium. It is good marketing.

 

[Trinovid]

Can (higher) weight be a deliberate choice?

I tried out a set of 12x50 Ultravids last month and noticed that the extra weight and length actually helped in stabilizing the image. When I eventually buy one, the weight of that particular binocular will be one of the reasons why.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I tried out a set of 12x50 Ultravids last month and noticed that the extra weight and length actually helped in stabilizing the image. When I eventually buy one, the weight of that particular binocular will be one of the reasons why.

P=MV. Momentum = Mass x Velocity.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Absolutely! I completely forgot about that. Oddly enough, I found the 8x32 shares the same reassuring "solid-brick" feeling, but it is indeed a lightish high quality 8x32. I wonder if there are many other models with such a large difference between 8x32 and 8x42. For example, I remember the Conquest HD is quite heavy for a 8x32 at 630 g, but the 8x42, although not a feather weight at 795 g is just 165 g, while in the Meostar is a whopping 340 g!

The Meostar 8x32 is much smaller than the 8x42. If I remember correctly, the 8x42 is a pretty big, chunky glass.

 

[safaridreaming]

On an unrelated topic, I notice you have Peak Design anchors on your binoculars. What Strap do you use on them? Leash? or Slide / Slide Lite?

 

[Scott98]

I was wondering the same thing about those anchors, I'd love to get some of those.

So 900 grams is about 31.5 ounces, that's not too bad, I believe it's within an ounce or two of NL Pure and Noctivid 42mm?

 

[yarrellii]

@safaridreaming @Scott98
Yes, those are Peak Design. To be honest, getting them over here in Spain is quite pricey, but I'm pretty chuffed with the system I'm using at the moment. It's (let's say) a "dual carrying system".

On the one hand, I use the Swarovski CCS strap, which is my favourite strap. I love it because you can change from long to short strap with the flick of a small lever, really fast and convenient (no messing around with doing and undoing the strap). This way, you can swap from "birdwatching/on-the-neck mode" to "bandolier style" in a second. In fact, one of the reasons I love this strap is because instead of the usual simple strap that you have to loop to the binocular (which takes some time and fiddling if you want to change binoculars), it has a quick conector (like many old binoculars), so it was in itself a quick release system (although not as quick as the Peak Design).



As you can see, on the strap I also have a clever device to carry the rain guard (a little buckle from a Zeiss Conquest HD). It works like a charm, if I simply don't want the rain guard around (like in an observatory), I just un-click it and keep it in my pocket, so that it doesn't bounce around and doesn't bother me. But if it rains or I'm walking through a forest or other instances where some debris/sweat might fall into the eyepieces, I keep it there at all times; it's really convenient to take it off with a slight movement.

I have the Peak Design connectors on my 4 most used binoculars, so changing the strap before leaving home is a breeze. And then, the second part of the "dual" system is that I have another pair of anchors on my daily rucksack, linked to the rucksack straps with a couple of thin nylon straps like the ones you use to attach something to the backpack (or keep a picnic blanket rolled) which have some adjusters to make the strap shorter if necessary (so it doesn't hang too loose in case you need to climb something, for example).



This is one of my favourite features, because it simply makes carrying even heavy binoculars a no problem. Here pictured with a lightweight 8x32, but I use it on a daily basis with the Canon IS III 12x36 (or this Meopta)

As a matter of fact, I basically take my backpack with me 90 % of the days I go birding, so it's the option I use the most, and I can't recommend it enough. But then, even when I'm carrying the backpack, I carry the Swarovski strap, just in case I want to leave the backpack somewhere (like in the car) and go lightweight. It's just a matter of click-click, and off you go.

 

[lmans66]

The Meostar B1 line...B1...B1.1, B1 Plus etc....all come from essentially the same technology that has been used by Meopta for many years. I am wondering if and when Meopta comes out with their improved Meostar line-up (no one knows when this might be), if they do start to take weight into consideration as the cost of that new line will most likely be a lot more than it is now. I only have the low weighted 8x32, so have no knowledge of the 42's.... but to me the technology of the Meostar B1.1's are up there with the big boys. The diopter is excellent, the rubber coatings...the glass etc.... But the weight of the 42's and of the new B11 Plus have me looking else where I must admit.

 

[Dennis Mau]

The one area Meostars lag behind the big boys like Zeiss and Swarovski is FOV. In that respect they are similar to Leica.

 

[lmans66]

True there....Leica and Meostar are close in my book..,in quality, uniqueness.... but also in their misgivings such as FOV. Not sure why but I prefer those brands over Swaro or Zeiss... I go against the grain in my entire life it seems so why not here in the binocular world too ;-)

 

[Troubador]

Seems to me the heavier B1 42mm offers a bino that feels robust enough to withstand earthquakes. I still have the 7x42 version and it certainly has a reassuring feel of solidity. The 32mm versions seem aimed at folks who definitely value lighter weights so there is a logic to this.

Lee