gjraider. You know what is amazing to me is how some people are saying there is no way the Trac Toric could be as good as it is without TRYING it. I am like you shut up get off the fence and try one.
-
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.
Tract Toric 8x42 Experience (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jgraider
- Start date
Tract_Optics
Well-known member
Hi Jerry,
My experience comes from a tenure at Opticsplanet where I worked with many of the Optics Companies. After which I moved to another company in the outdoors industry (I did not work for Nikon) , at the same time now, working for Tract to help the forum community. I don't dislike any company, but I have had the chance to work with most and have gone through actual experiences which I share.
As for our customer service policy, if you have any problem, contact us, and more than likely we will exchange out the product in lieu of repair. I personally have loved that approach ever since my days working with Vortex. Simple peace of mind.
Trevor
Tract Optics
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
What is amazing is you were just like "some people" in your original postings of the Zeiss SF and the Swaro 8X32 EL SV until you got off the fence and tried one.
I have tried just about all the mid-tiered binoculars and never felt any of them could compete with the alpha's until the Trac Toric. This binocular is a game changer.What is amazing is you were just like "some people" in your original postings of the Zeiss SF and the Swaro 8X32 EL SV until you got off the fence and tried one.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Dennis,
Have you considered evaluating the 10X42 Toric and comparing it to your 10X50 Swaro EL SV alpha and your 8X Toric?
What makes the 10X Toric unique compared to the 8X Toric is that it has a 341 ft FOV. That is right in there with the 42mm alphas and the Swaro 10X50 at 345 ft FOV as compared to the 8X Toric which comes up sort in the FOV compared to the 8X HT and the 8X SLC alphas.
It would be interesting to know if the 10X is up to the same high standards as it's 8X sibling. If so, then it would be a candidate to replace your 10X Swaro as the 8X was up to the task of replacing your 8X32 Swaro.
As you say, get off the fence and give it a 30 day trial.
I have already got the Canon 10x42 IS-L for my 10x. If I would sell the 10x50 SV I think I would try the Maven 9x45. Just to have different magnifications. An 8x, 9x, and a 10x. 9x interests me. A little more reach than an 8x but not as much shake as a 10x. Also, I am intrigued by the AK prisms in the Maven 9x45 for low light and the big AFOV 65 degrees and 377 feet. Also, gjraider said the 10x42 Toric didn't do it for him like the 8x42 Toric and I do trust the guy. He turned me on to the Toric and he was totally correct.
It would definitely be interesting to see transmission numbers on the Trac's.
6.5 inches with the eyecups fully extended. 6.0 inches with the eyecups down.
Ontario
Well-known member
http://www.outdoorlife.com/2016-binocular-test-we-test-17-full-and-mid-size-binos
Tract Toric 10x42
GREAT BUY: FULL-SIZE BINO
Score: 88.2
Price: $664
Upshot: Tremendous value
if this freshman effort from a couple of veterans of the sports-optics industry is any indication of their intentions, you’ll be hearing about Tract for years to come. The Toric is a wonderfully bright and durable premium optic that prompted the most telling quote of our test: “I expected this binocular to cost several hundred dollars more than it does,” said panelist Dale Manning.
The rest of us testers nodded our heads in agreement; the Toric was the unanimous choice for our Great Buy award. If that endorsement has you rushing to the store to buy a Toric, I’ll save you the trip. You can only buy Tract optics through the company’s website. The system is designed to cut out retailers and their marked-up pricing, say Tract co-*founders Jon LaCorte and John Allen, both alumni of Nikon’s sports-optics division.
The Tract shares the solid build, tight controls, and edge-to-edge clarity that defines Nikon’s higher-end optics. Internally, the Toric was a top performer in our test, turning in one of the best combined low-light and resolution scores, owing to its high-end Schott glass and premium coatings. It also won points for its stylish graphite-and-black finish and its classy packaging.
Hunters will appreciate the Toric’s compact frame; its grippy finish; its tack-sharp focus; and its face-fitting eyecups, which adjust as smoothly and positively as a fine watch.
Ontario
Well-known member
From Field and Stream
Interesting too see how Allbinos ranks the Tract and the New ED IV.
3. KILLER DEAL: Vanguard Endeavor ED IV
Score: 86.3 • $499 • vanguardworld.us • Specs: 8x42 • 5.8x5" • 28.8 oz. • 19mm eye relief • 5.25mm exit pupil • 377' FOV • 5.9' close focus
Lowdown: This was a surprise. Priced on the bubble between the mid and low range, there was no reason for us to think the Endeavor ED IV would hang with models costing $300 to $500 more. But it did—and in many of the categories that matter most to hunters, including resolution, image quality, and low-light performance. The Endeavor pulled fine detail from both sun and shade, and delivered a clean, immersive picture. Another open-bridge model with a soft rubber coating, it too feels good in the hand. The focus wheel is big and smooth, and the diopter adjustment locks. The Endeavor did fall slightly behind the other top contenders for design and build and finished in the middle of the pack for weather resistance, but at this price, it’s a versatile, quality hunting tool and a standout value.
http://www.foxnews.com/great-outdoor...and-rated.html
Well not really. Let's remember....these review are primarily geared towards hunters...so different criteria. MOST of us place a premium on FOV...not even listed on Outdoor Life's score sheet. That's just one....
ALSO...The difference in the score between the two is MINISCULE. Different day, different eyes, different results maybe.
The Trinovid HD IS really good OPTICALLY. It just falls short in some other areas compared to the PREVIOUS Trinovid, IMO.
Ontario
Well-known member
New link for the Field and Stream review.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/ten-new-binoculars-ranked-and-rated#page-7
Field and Stream - THE TEST
After weighing and measuring the binoculars, we evaluated them in the following eight categories: Resolution Zavislan set up two poster boards, one in the sun and another in deep shade, each with 1951 USAF Resolution Test Charts in varying contrasts, as well as two color artifact tests. From 100 yards away, testers recorded values corresponding to detail resolved and color shift perceived. Perceived Image Quality Testers judged each model’s image for ease of use, feeling of immersion, clarity, and visual artifacts, including stray light and apparent field curvature (or blurring at the edges). Low-Light Performance This category aggregated exit pupil, deep-shade resolution, and light transmission, as measured by Zavislan. Design & Build Zavislan evaluated features and subjected each unit to a drop test; he also measured collimation and focus backlash and wander. Weather Resistance We submersed each binocular in a 5-gallon bucket, and then froze them for an hour, rating the effects each time on image and functionality. Ergonomics We judged overall feel in the hand, as well as the quality, feel, and functionality of the focus wheel, eyepieces, diopter adjustment, and lens covers. Handling The lighter and more compact, the better. Value Performance divided by price. We scored each binocular on a 1 to 10 scale for every category, and then doubled the key ones of resolution and image quality for a total possible score of 100.—D.H.
OutdoorLife - How We Test
Our binocular test is designed to determine the optical performance of submissions using measurable, repeatable criteria. But it’s also designed to capture those qualitative attributes familiar to most hunters: How does it feel in your hand? How responsive is the focus control?
We measure each binocular’s optical resolution using a standard Air Force resolution target. This test indicates the sharpness of the glass and uncovers any optical aberrations. Our low-light test, conducted over the course of several evenings, measures brightness. Our subjective testing rates the functionality and versatility of each binocular. The highest overall score gets our Editor’s Choice award. The binocular with the highest price/value score wins our Great Buy award.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/ten-new-binoculars-ranked-and-rated#page-7
Field and Stream - THE TEST
After weighing and measuring the binoculars, we evaluated them in the following eight categories: Resolution Zavislan set up two poster boards, one in the sun and another in deep shade, each with 1951 USAF Resolution Test Charts in varying contrasts, as well as two color artifact tests. From 100 yards away, testers recorded values corresponding to detail resolved and color shift perceived. Perceived Image Quality Testers judged each model’s image for ease of use, feeling of immersion, clarity, and visual artifacts, including stray light and apparent field curvature (or blurring at the edges). Low-Light Performance This category aggregated exit pupil, deep-shade resolution, and light transmission, as measured by Zavislan. Design & Build Zavislan evaluated features and subjected each unit to a drop test; he also measured collimation and focus backlash and wander. Weather Resistance We submersed each binocular in a 5-gallon bucket, and then froze them for an hour, rating the effects each time on image and functionality. Ergonomics We judged overall feel in the hand, as well as the quality, feel, and functionality of the focus wheel, eyepieces, diopter adjustment, and lens covers. Handling The lighter and more compact, the better. Value Performance divided by price. We scored each binocular on a 1 to 10 scale for every category, and then doubled the key ones of resolution and image quality for a total possible score of 100.—D.H.
OutdoorLife - How We Test
Our binocular test is designed to determine the optical performance of submissions using measurable, repeatable criteria. But it’s also designed to capture those qualitative attributes familiar to most hunters: How does it feel in your hand? How responsive is the focus control?
We measure each binocular’s optical resolution using a standard Air Force resolution target. This test indicates the sharpness of the glass and uncovers any optical aberrations. Our low-light test, conducted over the course of several evenings, measures brightness. Our subjective testing rates the functionality and versatility of each binocular. The highest overall score gets our Editor’s Choice award. The binocular with the highest price/value score wins our Great Buy award.
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Actual IPD Measurement of the Toric 8X42
Some of the specs stated for Maven and Tract products come direct from the manufacturer and comments have been made that in some cases, they are intentionally understated.
The stated IPD spec of the Tract Toric 8X42 is 58 - 72mm which is narrow compared to other binoculars promoted in this same class from the same manufacturer.
58 - 72, 14mm range - Tract Toric 8X42
56 - 73, 17mm range - Maven B1 8X42
57 - 75, 18mm range - GPO Passion HD 8X42
52 - 74, 22mm range - Zeiss Conquest HD 8X42
The actual measurement of my Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42 (which lists the same IPD as the 8X42 version) gives approximately 53 - 76mm.
It may a be helpful for some folks who are considering the Toric 8X42 to know if the IPD listed is accurate. Hopefully someone who owns one could measure it and post the results. The 58 - 72 spec sounds like it may be understated.
Some of the specs stated for Maven and Tract products come direct from the manufacturer and comments have been made that in some cases, they are intentionally understated.
The stated IPD spec of the Tract Toric 8X42 is 58 - 72mm which is narrow compared to other binoculars promoted in this same class from the same manufacturer.
58 - 72, 14mm range - Tract Toric 8X42
56 - 73, 17mm range - Maven B1 8X42
57 - 75, 18mm range - GPO Passion HD 8X42
52 - 74, 22mm range - Zeiss Conquest HD 8X42
The actual measurement of my Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42 (which lists the same IPD as the 8X42 version) gives approximately 53 - 76mm.
It may a be helpful for some folks who are considering the Toric 8X42 to know if the IPD listed is accurate. Hopefully someone who owns one could measure it and post the results. The 58 - 72 spec sounds like it may be understated.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
jgraider, post 236,
With a ruler jgraider, with a ruler......
Gijs van Ginkel
With a ruler jgraider, with a ruler......
Gijs van Ginkel
I have digital calipers. I'm assuming all you do is measure from the middle of the lens to middle of lens at max and minimum distances, correct? In my feeble mind it seems like a ruler would introduce a few mm margin of error.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Dennis deleted this post from this thread ages ago, speaks volumes....
''I would call a FOV of 377 feet below average now days when the new models are pushing 430 to 440 feet for an 8x42. The new Nikon 8x42 HG has 435 feet I believe. That would be a deal killer for me. They look like another Maven clone.''
In the end, it's all Trump-speak - ignore what he says and imagine what he feels in his heart..o
''I would call a FOV of 377 feet below average now days when the new models are pushing 430 to 440 feet for an 8x42. The new Nikon 8x42 HG has 435 feet I believe. That would be a deal killer for me. They look like another Maven clone.''
In the end, it's all Trump-speak - ignore what he says and imagine what he feels in his heart..o
Similar threads
