looksharp65
Well-known member
In another thread I was asked to post my impressions with my newly acquired Meopta. I've had this binocular since about the beginning of February.
This is not intended to be a thorough review with aberrations and all, merely a report from the user perspective.
I ran into it when browsing one of the nationwide ad sites. Usually, the asking prices are plain ridiculous, or it's broken, unusable crap. Not this time and the price was too good to pass on. The seller had realised he'd be better served with an 8x32 and needed to sell this one first.
I had expected a big chunk, and the 12x50 is a handful. However, I have fairly big hands and the B1 design language is very well implemented. There's no way to pick it up and hold it wrong, it finds its place in my hands immediately and every time. The streamlined bullet shape has no details that are in the way, and the thumb rests are useful. It sort of reminds me of the first time I looked through a decent modern roof binocular, the B&L Discoverer 7x42. I guess others would mention the older Trinovids or the Zeiss Night Owls.
While I clearly see that it's bigger and feels bigger than my 42 mm binoculars, it's still not bigly big.
Just like with the diminutive 8x32, which is exactly as easy in real use, it is very easy to point in the exact direction where the bird is. I believe that the smooth shape factor is the single most thing to contribute to this.
The focus knob has a perfect resistance. It was tighter initially, but perfectly usable.
Even in front of the eyes it's just like the 8x32, extremely easy to position.
Fine-tuning the position is very rarely needed. I can roam the image freely without tendencies to kidneybeaning or blackouts. With my quite snugly fitting spectacles, the eye relief is sufficient to see the wide 63 degree AFOV.
Shake is no issue unless I'm immediately after a physical effort.
It helps to allow smooth movements - trying to keep it extremely still with locked muscles only induces fast, short amplitude shake (quiver).
The sweet spot is very large and it is mostly field curvature that reduces the edge sharpness. Boosted with a Bushnell Doubler (2.5x = 30x) it doesn't disappoint, but it's obviously nicer to use it as a binocular.
Some insignificant lateral CA can be seen close to the edge of the FOV if I want to find it.
Re the apparent sharpness, there's definitely no softness. Like David wrote in his thorough review, bird's individual barbs of their feathers appear through the 12x50. Obviously, the magnification is a major part of this.
However, at the same time there's a noticeable ease of view that it shares with the 8x32, and that makes the 8x32 my most important bin.
I recall Holger speculating about the silver coatings being the main contributor to the ease of view, and I understand his line of thought.
I'm leaving out assessment of the straylight and ghosting properties, but in short I can tell I have not seen such yet. This may mean performance is flawless, but also that I haven't found a situation that provoked them.
Colour is important to me, however every new binocular appears to educate and re-balance my discerning set of eyes.
In short, colours are very good with no obvious suppression of individual wavelengths. The 8x32 renders blue a bit unsatisfactory, it's easiest to see when looking at Blue Tits where their heads appear greyish blue.
Not so with the 12x50.
The overall hue tends slightly towards warm, though. Allbinos would probably write it's towards cream. It can be best seen looking at the overcast sky.
This result is less than perfect, but doesn't affect the performance.
However, some other things happened when I made colour assessments and comparisons. I did already know that my EDG 7x42 and the Fieldscope EDs tend a very tiny bit towards orange-red. First impression of the HD was it wasn't quite up there with the EDG, but then I also discovered tiny colour hues in the EDG too, probably caused by the properties of the dielectric mirror coatings.
I also found that I could not discern any colour difference whatsoever between the Meopta and my Fieldscope ED82A with the 30x Wide DS.
So it is in fact closer to the Nikon scope than the Nikon EDG is :eek!:
This result is fine and very reassuring to me.
I however believe my sample is an early one, and that he sample David reviewed was newer.
The defining feature of the 12x50 is the high magnification, balancing on the edge of what can be handheld.
I used to be a 6.5x + 10x guy, I even wrote a thread about the 8x being a not so good compromise. However that changed when I found that a Nikon E II 8x30 delivered all the detail I could see with my 10x32 FL. Then came the Meopta 8x32 and the EDG 7x42. For a long time now, 8x was the most magnification I actually used. I gave away my old man's 10x40 BGAT Classic to my son.
The image area of an object through the 12x is nearly three times larger than the 7x which does show, though maybe the difference isn't as huge as one would think when looking at short and medium distance.
Instead, it is the really long distance that makes the 12x shine.
Within moderate distance, you can often walk closer to get the same image size with less magnification, but if it's very far away, it's rarely feasible and often impossible to get physically closer.
The more magnification, the more emphasis on the background, which becomes magnified visibly in a way not so apparent at shorter distance.
I have and will use the 12x50 partly as a substitute for the small scope.
Remembering that boosting it to 30x provided no apparent advantage, it's not preposterous to sometimes let it substitute the ED50A 27x.
Yes, there's definitely less power, and very far away, the 12x will be inferior.
But it helps that both eyes are engaged and that the brightness is better.
The Meostar 12x50 HD filled a gap I was unaware of, and is rapidly becoming a cornerstone in the optical toolbox. It delivers superior performance not only power-wise, but is also as free from real flaws as you could ask for.
Few birders can use these as their only binoculars, but if you have the 7x and/or 8x covered, and want an addition that makes a difference that's more than incremental, go with one of these.
//L
This is not intended to be a thorough review with aberrations and all, merely a report from the user perspective.
I ran into it when browsing one of the nationwide ad sites. Usually, the asking prices are plain ridiculous, or it's broken, unusable crap. Not this time and the price was too good to pass on. The seller had realised he'd be better served with an 8x32 and needed to sell this one first.
I had expected a big chunk, and the 12x50 is a handful. However, I have fairly big hands and the B1 design language is very well implemented. There's no way to pick it up and hold it wrong, it finds its place in my hands immediately and every time. The streamlined bullet shape has no details that are in the way, and the thumb rests are useful. It sort of reminds me of the first time I looked through a decent modern roof binocular, the B&L Discoverer 7x42. I guess others would mention the older Trinovids or the Zeiss Night Owls.
While I clearly see that it's bigger and feels bigger than my 42 mm binoculars, it's still not bigly big.
Just like with the diminutive 8x32, which is exactly as easy in real use, it is very easy to point in the exact direction where the bird is. I believe that the smooth shape factor is the single most thing to contribute to this.
The focus knob has a perfect resistance. It was tighter initially, but perfectly usable.
Even in front of the eyes it's just like the 8x32, extremely easy to position.
Fine-tuning the position is very rarely needed. I can roam the image freely without tendencies to kidneybeaning or blackouts. With my quite snugly fitting spectacles, the eye relief is sufficient to see the wide 63 degree AFOV.
Shake is no issue unless I'm immediately after a physical effort.
It helps to allow smooth movements - trying to keep it extremely still with locked muscles only induces fast, short amplitude shake (quiver).
The sweet spot is very large and it is mostly field curvature that reduces the edge sharpness. Boosted with a Bushnell Doubler (2.5x = 30x) it doesn't disappoint, but it's obviously nicer to use it as a binocular.
Some insignificant lateral CA can be seen close to the edge of the FOV if I want to find it.
Re the apparent sharpness, there's definitely no softness. Like David wrote in his thorough review, bird's individual barbs of their feathers appear through the 12x50. Obviously, the magnification is a major part of this.
However, at the same time there's a noticeable ease of view that it shares with the 8x32, and that makes the 8x32 my most important bin.
I recall Holger speculating about the silver coatings being the main contributor to the ease of view, and I understand his line of thought.
I'm leaving out assessment of the straylight and ghosting properties, but in short I can tell I have not seen such yet. This may mean performance is flawless, but also that I haven't found a situation that provoked them.
Colour is important to me, however every new binocular appears to educate and re-balance my discerning set of eyes.
In short, colours are very good with no obvious suppression of individual wavelengths. The 8x32 renders blue a bit unsatisfactory, it's easiest to see when looking at Blue Tits where their heads appear greyish blue.
Not so with the 12x50.
The overall hue tends slightly towards warm, though. Allbinos would probably write it's towards cream. It can be best seen looking at the overcast sky.
This result is less than perfect, but doesn't affect the performance.
However, some other things happened when I made colour assessments and comparisons. I did already know that my EDG 7x42 and the Fieldscope EDs tend a very tiny bit towards orange-red. First impression of the HD was it wasn't quite up there with the EDG, but then I also discovered tiny colour hues in the EDG too, probably caused by the properties of the dielectric mirror coatings.
I also found that I could not discern any colour difference whatsoever between the Meopta and my Fieldscope ED82A with the 30x Wide DS.
So it is in fact closer to the Nikon scope than the Nikon EDG is :eek!:
This result is fine and very reassuring to me.
I however believe my sample is an early one, and that he sample David reviewed was newer.
The defining feature of the 12x50 is the high magnification, balancing on the edge of what can be handheld.
I used to be a 6.5x + 10x guy, I even wrote a thread about the 8x being a not so good compromise. However that changed when I found that a Nikon E II 8x30 delivered all the detail I could see with my 10x32 FL. Then came the Meopta 8x32 and the EDG 7x42. For a long time now, 8x was the most magnification I actually used. I gave away my old man's 10x40 BGAT Classic to my son.
The image area of an object through the 12x is nearly three times larger than the 7x which does show, though maybe the difference isn't as huge as one would think when looking at short and medium distance.
Instead, it is the really long distance that makes the 12x shine.
Within moderate distance, you can often walk closer to get the same image size with less magnification, but if it's very far away, it's rarely feasible and often impossible to get physically closer.
The more magnification, the more emphasis on the background, which becomes magnified visibly in a way not so apparent at shorter distance.
I have and will use the 12x50 partly as a substitute for the small scope.
Remembering that boosting it to 30x provided no apparent advantage, it's not preposterous to sometimes let it substitute the ED50A 27x.
Yes, there's definitely less power, and very far away, the 12x will be inferior.
But it helps that both eyes are engaged and that the brightness is better.
The Meostar 12x50 HD filled a gap I was unaware of, and is rapidly becoming a cornerstone in the optical toolbox. It delivers superior performance not only power-wise, but is also as free from real flaws as you could ask for.
Few birders can use these as their only binoculars, but if you have the 7x and/or 8x covered, and want an addition that makes a difference that's more than incremental, go with one of these.
//L
Last edited: