Objective diameter: 42 mm
True aperture (measured): 41mm
Magnification: 10 x
Exit pupil: 4.2 mm
Eye relief (acc. to spec): 15 mm
Useful eye relief (measured from rim of eyecup): 11 mm
IPD (measured): 56 – 75 mm
RFOV: 6.0 degrees = 105 m
Minimum focus distance (measured): 2.9 m
Focus type: CF (direction of rotation from close to infinity: < anticlockwise)
Degrees of rotation of focus wheel from 3m to infinity (measured): 270 degrees
Range of diopter adjustment (acc. to spec.): +/- 4 dpt*
Excess travel of focus wheel beyond infinity position (estimate): 7 dpt*
Prism system: Schmidt-Pechan
Weight (measured, with eyepiece cover and strap): 832 g
Made in: Czech Republic
*range of diopter adjustment not affected by position of focus wheel
Meopta’s latest binocular series (currently two models, 8×42 and 10×42) could be considered their “entry level” for regular size binoculars, with the “MeoPro” series in the middle and the “MeoStar” series at the top in terms of performance and cost. Very nicely finished, mechanically impeccable and optically offering a very decent performance for their price, but with slightly short eye relief for eyeglass wearers. See review below.
A brief first look at the new Meopta Optika 10×42 HD
A number of binocular producers have three or more different 10×42 models in their product portfolio. With the introduction of the new Optika line, Meopta is one of them: MeoStar 10×42 HD, MeoPro 10×42 HD, Optika 10×42 HD.
So basically, Meopta has now three categories of 10×42 models on offer, one for roughly $1’000, one for $500, and one for $300.
How do they compare? Is the most expensive one (MeoStar) clearly the best, followed by the middle one (MeoPro), which in turn is followed by the cheapest (Optika)?
In the binoculars forum of BirdForum, Lee has published a very nice, well written review of the MeoStar 10×42 HD:
to which I have nothing to add. I agree with almost everything he writes.
The MeoPro 10×42 HD got reviewed by allbinos in early 2017:
and I disagree with several of their findings. In particular, the sample in my collection does not exhibit the bright areas around the exit pupils shown in allbinos’ review, and I consider the edge sharpness actually quite satisfactory. In contrast to the MeoStar, which exhibits just a tiny bit of field curvature, the MeoPro doesn’t show any of it, and its field of view is larger than that of the MeoStar.
Other reviews of the 8×42 and 8×32 MeoPro models (including the always informative reviews by Gijs) are overall quite positive, esp. when the price of the MeoPro is taken into account.
I have not found any reviews of the Optika yet. Here is what I think about it.
Where the Optika shines:
• Impeccable finish
• Nice haptics, good grip of the armour (dry or wet)
• All things mechanical work well, smoothly and precisely, the central hinge and the diopter adjustment (on right eyepiece) sufficiently firm
• Well-made screw-in eyepieces with 4 positions (in, two intermediate stops, out) and clear click stops
• Very little vignetting
• Good image brightness (comparable to MeoPro)
• Good color fidelity (similar to MeoStar, slightly better than MeoPro)
• Good central (not as good as MeoPro) and decent off-axis sharpness (comparable to MeoPro)
• Almost no spikes on bright light sources (better than MeoStar, and much better than MeoPro)
• Very satisfactory stray-light suppression
Where the Optika shows why it is cheaper than the MeoPro:
• Distinct false pupils (this may affect twilight performance under certain conditions, to be verified)
• Field of view is clearly narrower than MeoPro (and also narrower than MeoStar)
• Reflections on bright objects outside the field of view are slightly more pronounced than in the MeoPro or MeoStar
• The true aperture is just a tiny bit (1mm) narrower than the 42mm of the objective lenses
• Impossibly long neck strap (of the three Meoptas, only my MeoPro came with an acceptable neck strap, the others seemed made for giants)
• Chromatic aberration – it is a bit more pronounced in the Optika than in the MeoPro, when looking for it, you may find traces even at the center of the image. This may be one of the reasons why the image appears slightly less sharp. HD glass and HD glass may not always be the same thing.
• Eye relief: on the Optika, the useful eye relief (see spec in post #1) is a bit tight for people observing with eye glasses. I don‘t, but tried it out anyway and found that it was not easy to see the entire fov with the glasses on.
Overall, when it comes to image quality, it seems to me that the price is a good indicator, also at Meopta. The MeoStar is at the top, an excellent 10×42 as confirmed by other reviewers; the MeoPro is a good middle class binocular and competes well with its peers; and the Optika appears to be a competitive lower middle class bino. All three share excellent finish and mechanics.
Of course, the Optika needs now to be further reviewed under “field conditions” and compared with competitors. A first tentative side-by side with the same size Zeiss Terra would indicate more sharpness / contrast in the image of the Optika (although in terms of price, the Terra compares with the MeoPro, not the Optika).
This would indicate that for those with a limited budget, the Optika may be an option to seriously consider. I like it quite a bit.