• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Comparative review, GPO, Maven, Stryka, Tract (1 Viewer)

Another nice summation...

I've owned three from this group. Currently still have two, the S7 and the B.1. I like the Maven branded binoculars. They are really well made. Focus....really among the best.... Really a nice product. Don't know a thing about the GPO but I'd certainly put the Maven at the top of MY list.

The S7...
Really a great handling binocular. It and the Terra ED 8X42 handle GREAT. It's mainly because they are smallish and light. Really a great feel to them!

I really like hands on reports....thanks Steve!
 
Thanks Steve, for that useful information.
If I do get the Styrka (had to re-type that!) S7 8x42 I hope my "eyes will learn to unsee" the CA.

Steve, others,
I would guess that the Styrka S7 8x42 is "co-clones with" a few other models by other manufrs. I cannot right now think which. Any ideas? Thanks.

No ideas, mostly it is a non issue to me. I suppose it could be argued that any roof prism binocular with a Schmidt-Pechan prism is a clone.

I think CA sensitivity is one of those individual things. I have stated multiple times I am not very sensitive to it. So I was a bit perplexed by its unbidden appearance when I first used it. I did not have to select high value CA targets and defocus the binocular.I wonder if this means it is just me and this particular binocular or just what. I will say I would be hesitant to tell you that because I don't see it in a bothersome manner in the S7 now that I have used it for a few weeks, that you will adjust in a like fashion.
 
Thank you Steve. The reason I would search for a "clone" is to see other options for an 8x42 of good optical quality which is similarly small with a wide FOV (though I do know that among "clones" these parameters can vary a lot).

I have found your review of the Styrka S7 8x42, which, I am sorry, I had forgotten about! What is said there about CA is not enocouraging, but you add: "Bill Cook did an evaluation of the S7, but he seemed to have better CA control in his unit than this one, or our eyes are just different." I have searched quite a bit for his review but cannot find it.

Also in the thread for your review, I note, David/Typo comments that he too cannot think of a "family member" (what I called a clone) for the S7. But it is likely that there is/are.
 
Thank you Steve. The reason I would search for a "clone" is to see other options for an 8x42 of good optical quality which is similarly small with a wide FOV (though I do know that among "clones" these parameters can vary a lot).

I have found your review of the Styrka S7 8x42, which, I am sorry, I had forgotten about! What is said there about CA is not enocouraging, but you add: "Bill Cook did an evaluation of the S7, but he seemed to have better CA control in his unit than this one, or our eyes are just different." I have searched quite a bit for his review but cannot find it.

Also in the thread for your review, I note, David/Typo comments that he too cannot think of a "family member" (what I called a clone) for the S7. But it is likely that there is/are.

If all else fails, I think Bills review is also on the Styrka site.

I don't off hand call to mind a similar glass, but different armor can change the appearance immensely. Since Styrka seems to be an outgrowth of Celestron, it is possible that it may be unique, but I can't say for sure.

Another compact 8x42 I reviewed some time ago with a really wide field, class leading in fact is the Kruger Caldera. Same length as the S7 but feels chunkier. I'll have to remember to drag mine out and put the two side by side
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steve.
Bill's review in the Styrka website: I just read it. (I could find no others on the S7 8x42 there).
S7 8x42 "clones": I will be following up.
Kruger Caldera 8x42: Some years back I read up all about about it in this forum and elsewhere (including what you wrote of course) and was keen on it for a while. But there were some negative aspects, I now forget exactly what, and the co. seemed weak; their website, I just found, is now defunct.
At a higher price the Nikon Monarch-HG 8x42 is tempting with all its positive qualities, but David/Typo's lone voice about its lack of sharpness has deterred me so far. If that is resolved (get it?) I may go for it.
The Styrka S7 842 is attractive to me because of its mix of size (even smaller), FOV and optical quality. Now, that CA...
 
Adhoc,

I'd speculated that one or two of these models might have European cousin, but I'd also posted that I could't think of anything similar to the Styrka 7.

Check the Nikon threads again. We might be a minority but I'm definitely not alone in thinking the Monarch HG centre field performance isn't a match for some other, upper midrange binoculars.

David
 
Steve,

We know from a technical perspective the depth of field is just dependent on the magnification and effective aperture, however our eyes set their own limits based on effective acuity and, I suggest, the binocular's optical performance. It doesn't surprise me that you found differences in the apparent DoF. Interesting that the Tract Toric was worst, if I understood you correctly. Which one was best?

David
 
......Check the Nikon threads again. We might be a minority but I'm definitely not alone in thinking the Monarch HG centre field performance isn't a match for some other, upper midrange binoculars.

David
David,

Since it's been mentioned - just quickly until I can go into it more on the appropriate thread - I all too briefly viewed the Nikon MHG 10x42 at our BirdFair on the weekend. There was lots to like ergonomically (which really surprised me) and quality feel wise. The other surprise (from my recollection of reports) was the lack of CA over quite a bit (at least 2/3rds?) of the central view - and it was a brutal day for CA.

The 8x SF seemed sharper, but the 10x battle was closer. I spent no time setting the Nikon up, and I am wondering how much sharper it would appear with a bit of care taken. They seemed in the same ballpark as my Zens (which kept up with the Swift 8.5x44 ED porros), and get quite a lot of 'Wow' these are nice (for the price level) from many an Alpha retailer. If there's somewhere where you've listed resolution details of the MHG could you be so kind as to link it, or point me in the direction. Thanks :t:



Chosun :gh:

Ps. Sorry Steve - these things have to be viewed in the context of the competition - back to normal programming ;)
 
First, Steve: Sorry, I would repeat what Chosun says in the PS above.

David: Would Styrka actually develop a model like that from scratch, which they have not made a special effort to promote?

By "lone voice" on the Monarch-HG I meant, among the BF Celebs ;-) That is how I remembered it, sorry. There was a user who did say it was less sharp than some "alpha", but only at one time, he wavered. As I type now and think back on that thread I further remember one other user, who clearly said that vs the Leica Ultravid, whether in 8x or 10x I forget. Could they have improved that now? It seems a bit early...

Chosun: By "8x SF seemed sharper" do you mean, vs the 8x42 MHG? PS. You could respond in the "appropriate thread"!

Here is where David quantifies (approximately) the MHG's resolution, in case he finds it difficult to locate it for you: Post #23 in this thread. The MHG is off the column list.
 
Last edited:
Thanks adhoc, I will trundle over to the thread you linked later on and answer your question there, and ask David a few MHG ones too - and leave Steve in peace here! :t:



Chosun :gh:
 
Steve,

I appreciate the summary and comparison, and I look forward to your future reviews.

I know that for astronomical refractors (half a binocular plus or minus correcting prisms), the CA of an objective design will get worse as the focal ratio gets faster (smaller). If these 42mm binoculars are using similar objective materials/designs, I would expect that the more compact Styrka objectives might have a shorter focal length and faster focal ratio.

Alan

P.S. I'm still thrilled with my Maven 9x45, thanks for introducing us! And thanks to Chuck for sealing the deal.
 
.............
......... but you add: "Bill Cook did an evaluation of the S7, ............" I have searched quite a bit for his review but cannot find it.
...............

Here is a link to WJC's thread with the review.........

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=317245

The review starts with post number 11 and comments follow although most are not on topic of the review.

--------------------------

Steve ....... Thanks for the clarification on the Toric focus. It will be great if you can come up with a list summarizing the FOV measurements.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steve.
Bill's review in the Styrka website: I just read it. (I could find no others on the S7 8x42 there).
S7 8x42 "clones": I will be following up.
Kruger Caldera 8x42: Some years back I read up all about about it in this forum and elsewhere (including what you wrote of course) and was keen on it for a while. But there were some negative aspects, I now forget exactly what, and the co. seemed weak; their website, I just found, is now defunct.
At a higher price the Nikon Monarch-HG 8x42 is tempting with all its positive qualities, but David/Typo's lone voice about its lack of sharpness has deterred me so far. If that is resolved (get it?) I may go for it.
The Styrka S7 842 is attractive to me because of its mix of size (even smaller), FOV and optical quality. Now, that CA...

Just checked the Kruger site and it is fully functional. Wonder why the difference?
 
Just checked the Kruger site and it is fully functional. Wonder why the difference?

The site worked for me but I did come across one bad link.

For whatever reason, the Kruger Caldera never makes it on my radar. I am not sure why considering that I go for the wide FOV models, especially in the 8X42. It may be the winged eye cups that push them off the list.

I believe the wings on the eye cups can be folded down for eye glass use. Do you know if they can be removed altogether without things looking hacked up?

The specs indicate they have a lot going for them ...... Di-electric coatings, ED glass and a wide FOV. Matt Cashell has a nice review on his Rokslide site where he says it also has a wide center view.

http://www.krugeroptical.com/cal842.htm

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/optics/3699-kruger-caldera-8x42.html

Do you think the Caldera can be grouped in this group of sub alphas discussed in this thread or is more of a quality entry model such as as the GPO ED? The going price of the Caldera looks to be about $400 which is closer to the GPO ED class and considerably less than the sub alphas discussed here.
 
The site worked for me but I did come across one bad link.

For whatever reason, the Kruger Caldera never makes it on my radar. I am not sure why considering that I go for the wide FOV models, especially in the 8X42. It may be the winged eye cups that push them off the list.

I believe the wings on the eye cups can be folded down for eye glass use. Do you know if they can be removed altogether without things looking hacked up?

The specs indicate they have a lot going for them ...... Di-electric coatings, ED glass and a wide FOV. Matt Cashell has a nice review on his Rokslide site where he says it also has a wide center view.

http://www.krugeroptical.com/cal842.htm

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/optics/3699-kruger-caldera-8x42.html

Do you think the Caldera can be grouped in this group of sub alphas discussed in this thread or is more of a quality entry model such as as the GPO ED? The going price of the Caldera looks to be about $400 which is closer to the GPO ED class and considerably less than the sub alphas discussed here.

If the Caldera questions keep coming, I'll bump up the old review I did. I guess I should not have mentioned them as they don't quite fit here anyway. The winged eye cups can't be removed. Field Optics Research ones work better anyway. I cut mine off. They have very large diameter eye cup assemblies and will be a problem for some. The diopter on the early ones like mine unlock and move far too easily. The fov on mine is 450' and the have a pretty wide sweet spot. They are not as bright as this group so I would not place them there. They do have a lot going for them, and I don't know if light transmission has gone up since I bought the initial model I have some 8-9 years ago
 
Styrka S7 8x42

Bruce: Thanks for that link in BirdForum. It is the same review as in the Styrka website, to which Steve directed me.

Kruger Caldera 8x42

Steve: Thanks for checking the link. But it does not work for me. The reason may be geography. (As you can see on the left I live in Anon.!)

What is the present state of the co. with regard to binocular production, I wonder. (Please see the last post in your thread, in 2015.) The last time I got through to the website was 1-2 years ago and they still showed the pic of the older version of the Caldera replaced several years before that. (The diopter button had been changed from a little round to a larger square one but the pic had the earlier.)

The Kruger Caldera is "clones with" the GTH-ED which was marketed in Europe, is apparently no longer being sold, and was reviewed by Binomania. The generic original is Chinese, though to what extent I do not know.
 
Styrka S7 8x42

Bruce: Thanks for that link in BirdForum. It is the same review as in the Styrka website, to which Steve directed me.

Kruger Caldera 8x42

Steve: Thanks for checking the link. But it does not work for me. The reason may be geography. (As you can see on the left I live in Anon.!)

What is the present state of the co. with regard to binocular production, I wonder. (Please see the last post in your thread, in 2015.) The last time I got through to the website was 1-2 years ago and they still showed the pic of the older version of the Caldera replaced several years before that. (The diopter button had been changed from a little round to a larger square one but the pic had the earlier.)

The Kruger Caldera is "clones with" the GTH-ED which was marketed in Europe, is apparently no longer being sold, and was reviewed by Binomania. The generic original is Chinese, though to what extent I do not know.

I have no idea what Kruger's status is at present. Kruger is/was somewhat different than many other OEM's. They started out as Pacific Rim Optical (in China) but PRO was and is a strictly glass producing facility. It is now a division of the larger Kruger Optical. Kruger owns the assembly facility in China, but does all the engineering, design, and prototype development in Oregon (then Sisters, now Tigard). So in theory Kruger has control over the the whole process from design to the finished product. At the time I was in the facility at Sisters, they had full assembly capability, but were not using much of their capacity at that time.
 
Steve, thanks for correcting me on the generic original, and the extent of Kruger's involvement. We have another clarification of the hidden global processes which now bring us fine binoculars at a much lower price than comparable quality commanded less than a decade back. (Behind the subject makes of this thread may be similarly unexpected processes.)
 
Steve proposes a comparative review, GPO, Maven, Stryka, Tract.

In my day, it might have been a review of Celestron, Meade, Swift, and Minolta.

The generation before me had reviews of Wallensack, Asahi Pentax, Tamron, and Bell and Howell.

When we have really come into our own we will be reviewing Katsuma, Kamakura, Fujita, and Akira. :cat:

Just a thought.

Bill
 
Steve proposes a comparative review, GPO, Maven, Stryka, Tract.

In my day, it might have been a review of Celestron, Meade, Swift, and Minolta.

The generation before me had reviews of Wallensack, Asahi Pentax, Tamron, and Bell and Howell.

When we have really come into our own we will be reviewing Katsuma, Kamakura, Fujita, and Akira. :cat:

Just a thought.

Bill

When I first started with binoculars and such it was Jason, Bushnell, Bausch and Lomb, Steiner, and of course Swift.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top