Jump to content


Photo

7x42 Montana Binoculars with Strap and Carry Case

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#26 Jae

Jae

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2006
  • Loc: New England

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:13 PM

Something else to tempt you then.....

http://store.meade.c...binoculars.html

#27 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16357
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

I believe I had a pair of the 12x60. They look very familar. I eventually gave them to my son. They are a good deal for that price, of course. IIRC, EdZ or another of the bino mavens on CN said that the clear aperture was only about 53mm. But that is probably not too unusual for many binos. You often don't get the full advertised CA.

Mike

#28 John Kuraoka

John Kuraoka

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 371
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Sunny San Diego, CA

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:42 PM

The Meade 12x60 look like another good price, but they're not calling me.

I'm even glad I held off getting a second pair of the Meade Montanas. Although they're top-notch binoculars, and I'm very happy to have got them at such a bargain price, I don't really need two pair of the same thing. I'd rather get something with a different set of capabilities, like a 10x50. Or an observing chair.

#29 Jae

Jae

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2006
  • Loc: New England

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

Well John, thanks for your review and I admire your discipline !

Based on your comments, I look forward to a pair of Montanas for my car.....

#30 charen

charen

    Surveyor 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 28 May 2005
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:13 PM

Re. the Meade 12x60's. There is no such thing as an inexpensive good binocular. It is a true contradiction. Personally, I think the night sky, in all its glory, needs more then $20 dollars spent on it - but that just me. :)

#31 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11172
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:39 AM

There is no such thing as an inexpensive good binocular. It is a true contradiction.


That's a rash statement unless you have personally inspected every single model on sale -- which is not humanly possible.

Personally, I think the night sky, in all its glory, needs more then $20 dollars spent on it.


True bargains do happen, though rarely. It's usually when a model that's already good value for money is being sold to clear out stocks.

Personally, I think that instruments should be judged on how they perform, not how much they cost.

Getting on my own bandwagon, I also think that the glories of the night sky speak for themselves, and are visible even in the the most modest instruments -- or sometimes with no instruments at all.

People who are really grumpy about the slightest degree of light loss, or the slightest distortion near the edge of the field of view, often care more about their instruments than about the objects they're viewing.

#32 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43564
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:53 AM

True bargains do happen, though rarely. It's usually when a model that's already good value for money is being sold to clear out stocks.



Having owned a pair of 7x42 Meade Montanas for about 10 years, a new pair for $100 does qualify as a true bargain. And if $100 qualifies as "inexpensive" then this sale does represent that rare example of "good, inexpensive binoculars."

Of course the sale seems to have ended and they are now $250, a reasonable price for what you get.

Jon

#33 rydberg

rydberg

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2004
  • Loc: Richmond, KY, USA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:02 AM

I needed them like I need several new holes in the head. But yesterday morning I drilled. Given that the sale is now over, I wonder if I am really going to get Montanas or, like it happened to someone on the forum a couple of years ago, a pair of Glaciers...
Marco

#34 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43564
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:09 AM

I needed them like I need several new holes in the head. But yesterday morning I drilled. Given that the sale is now over, I wonder if I am really going to get Montanas or, like it happened to someone on the forum a couple of years ago, a pair of Glaciers...
Marco


You can always send the back...

Jon

#35 rydberg

rydberg

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2004
  • Loc: Richmond, KY, USA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:33 AM

Hello Jon:
7:09 EST and you reply from San Diego? Up late or waking up early ? :grin:
I know I could return them, but what fun is that :) In any case, I justified my purchase by saying " I don't have any 7x roofs". (pretty lame...) If I get the glaciers I could not say that anymore.
Marco

#36 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16357
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:40 AM

Tony,

People who are really grumpy about the slightest degree of light loss, or the slightest distortion near the edge of the field of view, often care more about their instruments than about the objects they're viewing.


:waytogo: What's more important to you, objects or optics? People should ask themselves that question every so often to get a better idea where their real interest lies in this hobby.

Mike

#37 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43564
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:52 AM

People who are really grumpy about the slightest degree of light loss, or the slightest distortion near the edge of the field of view, often care more about their instruments than about the objects they're viewing.


It's tough to know where other people are coming from, I don't want to go there. I suspect though that most often someone who is picky, picky about edge correction or light loss has just become accustomed to observing with better quality equipment.

Jon

#38 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:38 PM

Count me amongst those who believe very cheap binoculars are not very good.

Kenny

#39 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43564
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

Count me amongst those who believe very cheap binoculars are not very good.

Kenny


My mommy and daddy taught me to distinguish between "inexpensive" and "cheap." :poke:

Cheap implies poor quality, inexpensive does not. I am pretty happy with the Nikon 10x50 Actions. Outside of a tendency to fog up, I consider them acceptable, inexpensive, not cheap.

Of course people are always calling me "cheap," so I don't know what to make of that. :foreheadslap:

Jon

#40 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16357
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

Here we go ... :gotpopcorn:

Welcome to the Binoculars Forum!

:grin:
Mike

#41 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16357
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

I'm surprised we haven't gotten more posts from the bino mavens. You think they would have smelled the odor of "cheap" binoculars in the air.

:grin:
Mike

#42 hallelujah

hallelujah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5041
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2006
  • Loc: North Star over Colorado

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

I'm surprised we haven't gotten more posts from the bino mavens.
You think they would have smelled the odor of "cheap" binoculars in the air.

Mike


I had my experience, several years ago, when its twin brother, the Fujinon 7x42, 8x42, 10x42, CD, was on close out sale.

I was not overly impressed with my sample.
I ended up selling mine to the boss for his yearly hunting trek.
Fortunately for me, I recovered ALL of my investment at the time of the sale.

http://www.ebay.com/...etime-warran...

I still prefer Porro prism binoculars myself. :like:

Stan

#43 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

I think I understand Jon's interpretation of the difference between"cheap"and "inexpensive".

However,during times when the best 42mm binoculars cost in excess of $2000,to my way of thinking, ones that costs $20 brand new, are cheap.

Kenny

#44 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43564
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:40 PM

I think I understand Jon's interpretation of the difference between"cheap"and "inexpensive".

However,during times when the best 42mm binoculars cost in excess of $2000,to my way of thinking, ones that costs $20 brand new, are cheap.

Kenny


I have purchased a few under $20 binoculars, mostly just to see how bad they are. So far, they have all qualified as "cheap." I think the worst were some "10 x 50" binoculars I purchased at Ace hardware around Christmas for around $10. They looked like binoculars, they were built like binoculars, the eyepieces moved in an out when I moved the focus wheel. But everything was dark shade of blue-green and nothing was ever in focus.

Jon

#45 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 34239
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:12 PM

It's been well documented on this forum that I've purchased a few sub $20 binoculars since I became an active member here 10 years ago.

I've gone so far as to have praised one model in particular,namely the "Bresser 10 x 50(9x40) that the supermarket retailer LIDL sold in pre-Christmas sales a few years ago.

But I never suggested they were "GOOD BINOCULARS" per se, -- just that they were capable of providing surprisingly impressive images of stars when set to infinity focus.

For daytime use they were poor,with dull images,excessive chromatic aberration,stiff and sticking focus knob,diopter wheel and eyecup/eye-relief adjuster and too easy to knock out of focus.

They also smelled like warm tyres.

Although from a purely optical standpoint I've viewed the night sky through worse binoculars,overall I would never have classified the model as being "good",no matter what it's price.

Kenny

#46 charen

charen

    Surveyor 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 28 May 2005
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:23 PM

Over the past 10 years or so I have had 300 odd binoculars pass through my hands that I have collected, traded or sold, my current collection is 30 odd. Non of them would be below approx. $US200 new, non of then are 'entry' level binos and there is a reason for that - inferior optical and build qualities - period.
Retrospectively, I would have not wasted money on 30 or so entry level binos over the years and just saved up for one quality one.
Yes, there is an saying 'never look through a binocular you can't afford'. No, I am not rich just an average working man - the point is one quality bino is better then 30 inferior ones and yes if you are struggling to buy your first bino then wait a bit more save a bit more. No one ever regretted buying quality. [Yes, I have a strong opinion but that's OK].

Chris

#47 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2756
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:11 PM

A couple of years ago I attended a star party and as usual forgot to take binoculars, when a problem occured with my scope mount I was left with nothing,a pair of inexpensive Bresser 7x50,s saved the day, bought from a vendor who was there for about $30,regarding real bang for the buck binos, the Canon 10x30IS I picked up new for $350 has to be the best investment I made, JMTCW,DA.

#48 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16357
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

That reminds me of the first time I went with my family to a dark site. I had forgotten to pack a crucial piece of equipment for the main telescope's mount. Luckily, I did remember to pack three binoculars, one for myself, my wife and my daughter. So all was not lost. We had a great time looking at Messier and other showpiece objects under a dark sky. I pointed out the location of the objects for them with a GLP.

It's ironic that for the past few years I always bring a pair of binoculars just in case, but hardly ever use them. I suppose my 15x70 finder scope has taken the place of binoculars for me at the dark site.

Mike

#49 *skyguy*

*skyguy*

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1966
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Western New York

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:39 PM

Inexpensive binoculars can be "good" (enough) ... not necessarily perfect or even great ... but, with acceptable optics, mechanical build and price for the buyer's needs and bank account. The final determination on what is "good" should be at the discretion of the purchaser not others. However, the definition of "good" will probably change over time for most people.

Cheap binoculars ... well, they should stay in their blister pack on the store shelf! ;)

#50 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43564
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:33 AM

Inexpensive binoculars can be "good" (enough) ... not necessarily perfect or even great ... but, with acceptable optics, mechanical build and price for the buyer's needs and bank account. The final determination on what is "good" should be at the discretion of the purchaser not others.



We all have our different standards but I do think that one might be able to have a consensus as what constitutes minimum acceptable/decent/good. The things that come to mind:

- Hold focus. Must pass Bill's thumb pinch test.

- Have some realistic chance of remaining in collimation.

- Have real coatings rather than some red or green coatings that turn everything a different color.

- Have some approximating of operating at full aperture. A 50mm that operates at 40mm is probably OK, a 50mm that operates at 25mm is not.

Jon






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics