Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 22-08-2006, 06:46 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,736
Review: Meade 9x63 binoculars

Hi all

Chris Lewis has kindly written a review on the Meade 9x63 binoculars. Well worth a read if you're in the hunt for some binoculars. You can read the review on the IceInSpace Reviews page, or directly by clicking on the link below:

Meade 9x63 binoculars

Thanks to Chris for writing the review!

If you'd like to submit an article or review for the site, please contact me!

Last edited by iceman; 23-08-2006 at 05:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23-08-2006, 05:52 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,736
Review uploaded.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25-08-2006, 10:19 AM
chris lewis
Registered User

chris lewis is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: auckland
Posts: 191
Amendment to Meade 9x63 review

I receved an E. mail from Mike Smith at Bintel [via Mike Salway]. It does appear that the Meades do have 63 mm clear aperture.


Somebody pointed out to me a review of Meade binoculars on IceInSpace and noted the following:
'One negative issue is they do not appear to be the full 63mm's aperture as advertised. There is a ‘cell holder / baffle’ more or less immediately behind the main lens. Measuring the effective aperture comes out to be 'approx'. 58 - 60mms. It is curious as to why this cell ‘holder / baffle’ is so close - as any loss of light is a major negative'.


Many objective lenses (binos, eyepieces, finderscopes etc) show this strange effect. It looks like a shiny black cut-out baffle attached to the rear of the objective. It's not there! It doesn't exist.
When the objective housing is unscrewed and examined there is no baffle behind it. I have demonstrated this strange fact to one well-known local 'expert' and he was dumfounded when he saw the reality. (This effect is often seen with 8 x 50 finderscopes). It isn't just an effect with Meade binoculars. Have a look at others, including finderscopes and you'll see it there too.
I don't know what causes it, but it is some sort of optical illusion. Maybe somebody somewhere can explain it, but I can't.


Regards Mike Smith

Thanks to Mike Smith - It is important to 'get it right' - so my review is amended to acknowledge that the Meade is correctly advertised as a 9x69mm Binocular



Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-08-2006, 10:25 AM
janoskiss's Avatar
janoskiss (Steve H)
Registered User

janoskiss is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris lewis
... - so my review is amended to acknowledge that the Meade is correctly advertised as a 9x69mm Binocular
You mean 9x63mm?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25-08-2006, 10:30 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,736
heh I'm sure that's what he means

Chris, send me the update of your review (with updates highlighted) and i'll amend it on the site.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-11-2006, 06:56 PM
stephenmcnelley
Registered User

stephenmcnelley is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 427
I have only just read your review Chris-a bit late, but i mostly agree with your experiences with these bino's all exept build quality, mine seemed to be a good pair mechanically.
I sometimes use them for birdwatching but there is of course a daytime outer FOV distortion but it is not objectionable. Other more experienced birdwatchers and hardened binocular users love the 9x63 for the captured fov, e.p, eye relief and the steadiness provided by their 9x mid-range size and weight, that weight becomes a vice though carrying them around.
I agree that the Milky Way and larger DSO's are where these binoculars shine, most all of the daytime flaws disappear at night and my 37 YO eyes have had no trouble discerning Jup's moons and other fine details in star fields.
At around $190 from Bintel and other retailers they are a relative astro bargain but not to be overestimated

Last edited by stephenmcnelley; 05-11-2006 at 08:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-11-2006, 04:43 AM
chris lewis
Registered User

chris lewis is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: auckland
Posts: 191
'Stephenmcelley' - thanks for the feedback. Writing a review can be a bit anxiety provoking. Have been a telescope man for 20 years + so relatively new to 'two eye' viewing. Now have 15 binos ! My last one being the Oberwerk 25x100 IF's - stunning optics but heavy. I am surprised that birders use the 9x63's as you say they are not lightweight.
Trialed a pair of the new type 10x42's recently - phase FMC coatings, nitrogen filled, Bak4 prisms, sharp to edge with an excellent Afov. Would be good to see a review as they would appear to be excellent birding binos as well as for astro use.
Clear skies
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-11-2006, 10:01 AM
stephenmcnelley
Registered User

stephenmcnelley is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris lewis
I am surprised that birders use the 9x63's as you say they are not lightweight.
Clear skies
You are right Chris birders dont use them, and they mostly seem to stick with Porro prism bino's. But as i only do it 3 times a year or so i take them along because i now get optically claustrophobic with narrower FOV's and i am a large strong lad.
The Hervey Bay birdwatchers i have gone out with love them but hand them back pretty quick in preference to their you beaut, lightweight nitrogen filled self focusing gyroscopically balanced super tech Euro bino's.
Its funny though, because some of the most knowlegable and experienced amoungst them are sometimes content with a cheap old pair of Bushnells or Tasco's.

The 9x63's are perfect for tracking a bird in flight or when they are bouncing around branches, just have to be carefull not to pan to close to the sun!

Also-The 9x63's have adjustable prisms, there are fine screws under the peel back rubber coatings beneath where the objective tube assembly screws into the main focusing body. I dropped them one night, and having no local technician to sort them out learnt how to get them right again the hard way.

Cheers for the review mate, your 15 Bino's sounds like a small colony!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19-02-2007, 08:40 AM
Miaplacidus's Avatar
Miaplacidus (Brian)
He used to cut the grass.

Miaplacidus is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hobart
Posts: 1,234
Thanks for the review.

When I was in the market for astro binoculars, I looked at these but quickly dismissed them. These binoculars must be using roof prisms, mustn't they? rather than porro prisms (i.e. no dog-leg deformity in the shape of the binocs).

I'm no expert on this stuff, but my understanding has always been that it takes more money, effort and expertise to make roof prisms perform as well as porro prisms. (Isn't the main advantage of roof prisms their compactness for small binoculars? Which would hardly seem important for something like these Meade's, which as like as not people would mount on a tripod.)

I would appreciate any comments on this.

Cheers,

Brian.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 19-02-2007, 03:03 PM
chris lewis
Registered User

chris lewis is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: auckland
Posts: 191
You are correct - historically Roof binos like the Meade 9x63's are more expensive for the reasons you outlined. A general rule of thumb is, you will get "more" binocular for your money in a porro prism, than in a roof prism costing the "same" amount. It is generally understood that it costs more money to produce and manufacture roof prism binoculars. The Chinese labor market is starting to change this however.
Porro prisms also inherently produce a brighter image as less light is absorbed then their roof eqivalents - although this is changing with phase coatings on the roofs.
Sometimes it come down to preference - 'birders' do prefer the more compact roof designs for instance - ergonomically also some astro observers prefer roofs as they are slimer to hold.
Roofs can only go up to 15x due to there inherent inability to exceed your inter pupil distance - as they are two 'straight' tubes. You willl never see a giant 'roof'.
There is an ongoing 'roof vs. porro' debate - much like Newt. vs. refractor.
In the end the consumer wins with more choices.

Last edited by chris lewis; 20-02-2007 at 06:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 19-02-2007, 05:02 PM
Miaplacidus's Avatar
Miaplacidus (Brian)
He used to cut the grass.

Miaplacidus is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hobart
Posts: 1,234
Thanks for that, Chris. As you say, at the end of the day it is how well an individual pair of binocs performs. I know I wouldn't have had the guts, gumption or patience to keep exchanging 3 pairs that weren't properly aligned.

Cheers,

Brian.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement