I'd forgotten to check out Meopta's stand the last time I visited - something I was keen to rectify. The stand was very quiet (fortunately for me) and the big bear wearing a... I mean the most gracious and hospitable member of the Meopta team I spoke to kindly let me have a good look over their top products, Meostars.
I'd planned on looking at their 10xs but found myself picking up the 8x56 on seeing that their top end range included one. I then tried the 10x42 HD - according to them their most popular model, the 10x50 and very briefly the 7x50 (roof).
A number of comments in common to all the Meostars I tried - build quality and feel in the hand seemed extremely good, bordering on superb. Details such as the feel of the rubber armour, weight, balance, handling, and controls (how the binocular opens and closes to set IPD and focus feel) and overall perceived feel of quality were very impressive. The eyecups themselves were excellent, every bit as finely adjustable and even firmer when adjusted than Swarovski's. Eyecups on the demos I tried required a surprising amount of pressure to set, which made them feel somewhat less refined than Swarovski's, but I like that - I sometimes find myself pressing my binoculars quite hard against my glasses and don't want the eyecup settings to change. All the sizes seemed compact, balanced, and natural to handle and the 8x56 in particular was very handy for a binocular its size, noticeably more so than the 8x56 SLC - appearing only a little larger than a x50. The only aspect of this range's handling and operation that I'd express any reservations about was the Leica style diopter, which worked perfectly well but (I thought) seemed not as robust as the rest of the binocular. I felt a more positive click out and click in would have been more in keeping with the overall feel of the range.
Optically they were all impressive - bright, showing very natural colours (to my eyes), clean and showing excellent ability to pick out slim tree branches at long distance and small/tiny targets in the sky. Edge sharpness seemed extremely satisfactory. Field of view was less generous than top-range products from Swarovski etc - a trade-off for the slimmer barrels and lighter weight that made for such excellent handling.
I really liked every Meostar I tried with the 10x50 and 8x56 being particularly good. The 10x42 HD's image was excellent but the easier eye placement of the 10x50 made for an easier and steadier, less affected by wobble view. I went back to the Meopta stand after trying the Conquest 10x42 HD and both 8x42 and 10x42 Monarch HG and felt the Meostars were fully competitive and better in some respects, particularly build quality. Optically the Meostar gave me a better image than the MHG and probably at least as good as the Conquest. Although there is a little less of it (field of view) the eyecups of both the Meostars and the Conquest can be adjusted so that the image fills up very satisfactory - you don't get the feeling of looking through a tunnel and thus the MHG's greater field of view is less impressive than on paper.
These binoculars are in many respects the polar opposite of the Canon 10x42 IS L - products that give off a very apparent feel of quality in how it's built, that handle superbly, made with obvious (and well-deserved) pride. These things are very much high-quality traditional binoculars in the way that Swarovski et al are, and which the Canon product is not. The large exit pupil and excellent handling of the 10x50 and 8x56 make for a very steady view by traditional binocular standards, noticeably more so than the 10x40 Dialyt I'd brought as a comparison piece. But the Canon design is optically in the same ball park (to my eyes anyway) and its image stabilization trumps everything else as far as a steady view is concerned. I suppose some day one of the alphas will combine the best of both worlds, although after shelling out for one the image stabilization will likely be essential for most folks for a good long time...
Next: The Big Tent...
