Non-alpha 7x comparisons (8 Viewers)

[Boogieshrew]

Hi,

has anyone compared the Zen Rays, 7x36 and 7x43, and the Meopta Meostar 7x42?

Thanks for any input.

 

[FrankD]

I am short on time at the moment but will try to post some later. I have owned all three though not at the same time. I do have both Zen Ray models now and will try to do a comparison for you.

The good news is that I should have a new pair of 7x43 ED3s arriving today. Past comparisons between the 7x36 ED2 and the 7x43 ED3 were with a prototype of the latter. A three way comparison should prove interesting...

....plus I have really been focused on 7x bins lately and have purchased several older porros models to use as reference points.

 

[FrankD]

The 7x43 production model didn't arrive today. Probably tomorrow....stinkin' holiday shoppers.

;-)

Just some thoughts though on the three bins in question.

The Meopta has the largest sweet spot (going by the 7x43 prototype) with the flattest field because of its design. The optical negative is that it does have a slight yellow color bias though not as much as the 8x42 model. CA is well controlled but not as well as the ED glass bins.

The ZR 7x36 has the widest field of view and controls CA very well. The image is brighter than any other 36 mm roof I have owned and reasonably comparable to the Nikon 7x35 E FMC that I owned. The image between these two is very comparable if you rule out the much smaller field of view of the Nikon and the edge performance of the ED2. The Nikon may be a tad sharper but it is difficult to tell at times. Probably the biggest issue folks have with the ED2 is the edge performance. It is a combination of field curvature and pincushion distortion and occupies a bit more of the field of view than some people would like. I did not have an issue with it that much in the last unit I had on hand.

The ED3 prototype is a bit different animal than either of the other two. It is the brightest and sharpest of the three with a very neutral color representation and, again, literally no CA in the image. The image is almost as flat as the Meopta. The only optical negative of the prototype is that it has noticeable astigmatism in the outer 1/3rd of the field of view...very similar to the Zeiss FL. I am hoping the production unit does not display this to this degree.

Those are the optical summaries. Physical differences are worthy of an entirely separate post as they are more disimilar than similar.

 

[eitanaltman]

Probably the biggest issue folks have with the ED2 is the edge performance.

I think you have to include stray light control / flare as well. Doesn't bother everyone of course but the ED3 is a noticeable improvement in this regard.

literally no CA in the image.

this isn't quite true, unless the 7x43 is better than the 8x43. I can easily induce CA outside of the center ~30% of the field or so. That said, it is quite minimal and as well controlled as any bin I've used, but it not 100% nonexistent.

I also think the ED3 has plenty of pincushion, not an expert with optical terminology so not sure if that's not the same thing as having a "flat field"? Or does that refer to a lack of distortion/curvature parallel to the viewing axis? (as opposed to pincushion distortion which is perpendicular to the viewing axis)?

 

[Steve C]

I think you have to include stray light control / flare as well. Doesn't bother everyone of course but the ED3 is a noticeable improvement in this regard.



this isn't quite true, unless the 7x43 is better than the 8x43. I can easily induce CA outside of the center ~30% of the field or so. That said, it is quite minimal and as well controlled as any bin I've used, but it not 100% nonexistent.

I also think the ED3 has plenty of pincushion, not an expert with optical terminology so not sure if that's not the same thing as having a "flat field"? Or does that refer to a lack of distortion/curvature parallel to the viewing axis? (as opposed to pincushion distortion which is perpendicular to the viewing axis)?

The real issue with stray light and veiling glare seemed to be mostly confined to the 7x36 ED 2, early runs. The x43's were never as bad, and those improved.

The ED 3 does have a wider sweet spot that its counterpart ED 2. There is still some pincushion. I'd a lot rather have a little pincushion and not have rolling ball. However everything seems a fistful of compromises. Can't seem to have flat field, sharp edge and no rolling ball in the same package. There is still some curvature in the ED 3 as well, but again, it is less than the ED 2. So there is a double ring of distortion at the very edge of the ED 3 image. Seems to me that if what is there bothers you, then I guess it bothers people. ZR seems to take comments here to heart, we got better glass as the ED series evolved. The Prime, I am hopeful anyway, will move the ZR product line forward along lines of many things mentioned here.

I have a 7x43 ZEN ED 3 on the way too, probably Monday at the earliest. I want to get it set in my mind just what the differences in the 7x36 and the 7x43 are for my uses. I had sort of avoided it as the 7x36 is a personal favorite, but curiosity has the better of me.

 

[FrankD]

Eitan,

I tend to agree with Steve about the 7x36 ED2 and stray light. Though I wasn't even suspectible to it in the first version I have tried to induce it in the 2nd run and can see it...barely as a faint crescent in the bottom of the field of view. For my preferences I consider the edge performance more of a discussion point than the stray light control.

There is less pincushion in the ED3 series than the ED2...and a bit less field curvature as well. The field appears more "flat" overall. Again, in reference to my optical preferences, I find the astigmatism in the prototype more of an issue than any of the other optical performance areas.

As for CA, you must be more sensitive to it than I. I can see it in the 8x43 ED3 along the edges (outer 20-25%) if I put the bin in a situation where it would be readily apparent. Towards the center of the field I just don't see it. The 7x43 prototype is slightly better than the 8x43 in this area.

Should have more to comment on later today when the 7x43 production unit arrives.

 

[Boogieshrew]

Thanks for the great responses guys.

I am asking the question because I have been using the Meopta 7x42s and love them. Optically I think they are amazing and I prefer them to Zeiss and Leica 7x42s after a brief comparison. But they are heavy so I would like something lighter that I don't have to use a harness with.

I am particularly concerned with curvature and edge performance because these seem to be increasingly troublesome. I think my aging eyes have a lot less accomodation these days and this makes me very picky about what I look through.

Although the 9* fov is very appealing, the edge performance of the ED2s makes me think twice about them so I am hoping that the ED3 could be what I am looking for.

Very much looking forward to reading what you guys think of them before I risk the customs charges of importing them to the UK.

Seasons greetings!

 

[oleaf]

Hi Boogieshrew,

I too use the MeoStar 7x42's and love them. No need for me to try anything else.

I switched to a bandolier style strap (home made) and now have no problems with the weight. My issue was a neck strap put the weight up too hight for my bad back.

If you use a bandolier strap make sure it's long enough to locate the binocular at your hip. That makes it long enough to swing up for easy use.

I think a bandolier is more versatile and much better than a harness.

Seatbelt material works great as a strap for this purpose. Comfortable and slides easily with no binding.

Don't trade those MeoStar 7's for the latest chinese flavor of the month! They're too good!


Cheers!

 

[Boogieshrew]

Hi Oleaf,

having spent the day birding with the Meoptas yesterday, in all conditions from watching the sunrise to bright sun and clear skies and heavy grey overcast skies and snow showers, I have come to the same conclusion. Nothing is going to replace them.
In fact I should get another pair in case Meopta stop producing them.

Nothing is going to better them. They are amazing binoculars with just one issue for me.The weight.

I like the idea of the seat belt fabric, Brilliant idea. Made to glide smoothly accross your clothes. I have never tried using any bins bandolier style so I'll give it a try. I'm not sure how it will work with rucksack straps and a tripod strap in the mix too but there's probably a way.

Thanks for the good idea.

 

[Steve C]

You won't find any full size 7x glass that is significantly smaller than the Meopta. The ZEN is lighter, not much, but who knows.

Now IF you like the 7x, as do I, and if you want a light glass, take a look at the Swift Eaglet 7x36. Opticron sells its twin, the BGA Classic. Nice optics, good build, superb focuser, small, and a 5.0 + exit pupil to boot. My Eaglet actually measured a half degree wider in fov than its stated specs. A lot of people look at the fov, automatically dismiss it for a "restricted fov" and as a result deprive themselves of experiencing a very, very good small binocular. That puts it within about 20 feet of having the same fov as the Meostar stated specs.

 

[Boogieshrew]

Hello Steve,
I'm a big fan of 7x,

I did try the Opticron BGA Classic once. Terrible rolling ball. I had never experienced it before and it made me feel seasick. I know someone that uses them and he sees rolling ball slightly but he manages to ignore it. I couldn't though. To me it was really extreme. I was very disappointed because a light 7x is my ideal and I hoped that the Opticron would be it. The narrower fov wasn't a problem for me. I think fov is something that I can adjust to quite easily. The difference is only noticeable when comparing bins side by side.

I have wondered if the Swift might be different to the Opticron and not have the rolling ball but the bodies are identical. I'll get to try the Swift one of these days.

I have tried the Viking 6.5x32 also but I can't bring myself to go lower than 7x. It's a psychological barrier but a barrier none the less. Do you use 6x at all?

Seasons greetings
BS

 

[Steve C]

Hello Steve,
I'm a big fan of 7x,

I did try the Opticron BGA Classic once. Terrible rolling ball. I had never experienced it before and it made me feel seasick. I know someone that uses them and he sees rolling ball slightly but he manages to ignore it. I couldn't though. To me it was really extreme. I was very disappointed because a light 7x is my ideal and I hoped that the Opticron would be it. The narrower fov wasn't a problem for me. I think fov is something that I can adjust to quite easily. The difference is only noticeable when comparing bins side by side.

I have wondered if the Swift might be different to the Opticron and not have the rolling ball but the bodies are identical. I'll get to try the Swift one of these days.

I have tried the Viking 6.5x32 also but I can't bring myself to go lower than 7x. It's a psychological barrier but a barrier none the less. Do you use 6x at all?

Seasons greetings
BS

Rolling ball...:eek!:...bummer...:-C. I can only speak for the Swift here, but that never even came on the radar with that binocular. Strange at it may seem I can only say the Swarovision EL is the one that really gets me, and no it is not a pleasant encounter. The Swift has enough pincushion that I don't think it would do that, but how similar the edge distortion on the Opticron and Swift might be, I have no idea. I agree with you on the fov thing too.

I understand about psychological barriers. I had a similar one too that just about caused me to pass on the Vortex Fury 6.5x32 when Doug at Cameraland sent some around for review on 24 Hour Campfire. I overcame my reluctance as the use of the binocular was free. With the discount prices of the Fury these days, maybe you can get a good enough deal to use that as a psychological counterweight . I doubt you will be able to tell a difference in 6.5 vs 7x. I'm pretty sure I can't. However, everybody will at some point begin to notice a slight difference somewhere. If I have a 6x Yosemite and a 6.5x Raptor side by side, I "think" I can begin to see the extra .5x magnification. My brother has the Fury and my go to glass is pretty much the 7x ZEN. I really don't use the two little porros much. I am kind of looking at the Opticron Traveller 6x32 for use in the fishing vest as a little magnification can be real useful in matching the hatch, and besides you can see some interesting birds along the river too.

Happy Holidays

 

[eitanaltman]

Steve - can you compare the 6.5x32 Fury to the 7x36 Zen optically?

 

[looksharp65]

Steve - can you compare the 6.5x32 Fury to the 7x36 Zen optically?

Chiming in once again...
Initially I was choosing between the Nikon Action EX and the Zen-Ray 7x36, when the Fury came up before my eyes. I have never been disappointed with its performance and it turned my binoculars collection upside down.

I had to let go of the Minox HG 8x33 in order to find a 10x that matched the Fury. My father's old Zeiss Classic 10x40 BGAT* clearly didn't.
Now I'm happy with the Zeiss FL 10x32, and consequently, I'd want a wider FOV in a 7x, which leads me back to the Zen 7x36 path.

Although having a huge TFOV of 148m/1000m, I think the AFOV is the only area where I'd like an improvement. Everything else is fine, in fact.
I said it before, if Zeiss came up with a 7x32 FL with the Zen's FOV, I'd sell my aunt to get it. Anyway, they don't seem to have any use for her. :-O

Edit: Some folks complain and say the Fury is no alpha, and inferior to even the Crossfires. But what about a Meopro 6.5x32? I'm very curious about how it delivers.

 

[bh46118]

looksharp65

How far away is the Fury from the Zen-Ray and Zeiss in overall optical performance ?

Thanks Bruce

 

[Steve C]

I spent some time today with the Fury, my ZEN ED 2 7x36 and the new ZEN ED 3 7x43. The Fury is a nice binocular to be sure, but it is not the equal to the 7x36 ED 2. The ZEN is brighter (not much but there), sharper (again, not much, but there) and has better contrast (the most significant difference) than the Fury. The edge distortions on the two are about the same in realtionship to the sweet spot, but the ZEN is more noticeable...if you think nirvana awaits in examining the edges of a 9* fov...I don't. I hardly know the edge is even there. Ditto the Fury. The Furys advantages over the ZEN are the fact that it is more compact, by a fair margin, and that it has a faster focus, more friendly to many birding situations. The practical observable difference in either the total fov or the sweet spot of each is not big enough to really notice, but if you go looking for it it is easy enough to see the ZEN is wider. In this class of binocular it is best to get one and use it for the strengths it has and just enjoy it. See the 7x43 thread for further comments.

Either one is far closer to the Zeiss in optical performance than many will ever be willing to even think possible, particularly the ED 3 with its bright image. No, not a Zeiss, but oh so close...optically anyway. Edit to add, I agree with Frank, the 7x42 Zeiss FL is my favorite 7x binocular.

 

[looksharp65]

looksharp65

How far away is the Fury from the Zen-Ray and Zeiss in overall optical performance ?

Thanks Bruce

Steve has covered that very well in his latest post. The Fury hasn't much field curvature, if any, but the sweet spot is sufficient rather than glorious.
But I'm very "stiff" when using bins and always put the bird in center of the field.
The image is very steady thanks to its low magnification (like all low-mag bins) which makes the already sharp image appear sharper than a shaky 10x image.

I did find some CA when I evaluated my first specimen - I have bought a spare! - but in real life birding I've never noticed any.
As a comparison, I owned the Nikon Monarch X 10.5x45 and got rid of it because of its horrible CA.

One area where the Fury really excels is the backlight properties.
Scarcely do I see any glare, only at some very limited angles and never covering more than 25% of the field. This is probably because of the modest AFOV. Anyway, it's the best I've seen - better than the Minox HG 8x33, the Zeiss FL 10x32 and most likely better than the Zen-Ray 7x36.

What I haven't mentioned here is that the Fury 6.5x32 is sort of a Jekyll/Hyde binocular. With the eyecups collapsed, it has a wonderful lightness and transparency, when they are extended it becomes very clear that the AFOV is modest. So I use them exclusively with spectacles and because of the (too?) great eye relief I don't press them towards my eyes because that would cause some kidney-beaning.
If I try to use them without spectacles, it makes me disappointed!

//L

 

[bh46118]

I received the 6.5X32 Fury late yesterday. Haven't had a look through them yet, but I did notice that the ocular covers are WAY TO BIG. If the binocular is tilted over to any significant degree, the cover falls off. Is this the way they all are ?

Thanks Bruce

 

[looksharp65]

I received the 6.5X32 Fury late yesterday. Haven't had a look through them yet, but I did notice that the ocular covers are WAY TO BIG. If the binocular is tilted over to any significant degree, the cover falls off. Is this the way they all are ?

Thanks Bruce

:eek!: No. Never dropped mine.

 

[eitanaltman]

See the 7x43 thread for further comments.

we're waiting! :smoke: I'm curious to see if your evaluation of the 7x43 ED3 dovetails with Frank's (which of course it usually does, I'm not convinced you guys aren't the same person ). I may make the switch from my 8x43 to the 7x43 if you also agree with the assessment of better clarity, sharpness, depth of field, and size of sweet spot...