Review: Styrka S7 8x42 (1 Viewer)

I've gone over the company basics of Styrka in my S9 review. I will skip that here and just go straight to the binocular itself. I have used this glass quite a bit over several weeks.

It is a different ergonomic presentation compared to the S9. This is a typical central hinge design. It is also quite compact for a full sized 42 mm binocular. It has the same assortment of accessories that come with the S9. A decent zippered case with the large white STRYKA emblazoned across the front, the chest harness for the case, neck strap, and quite good lens covers.

The focus direction is opposite of the S9, this one being clockwise to infinity. This unit has a close focus of six feet. One full turn of the wheel goes from the close focus distance to 25 yards. Another quarter turn gets to infinity and there is another quarter turn past infinity. The focus moves with a smooth, medium tension with no observable slack in change of focus direction. The diopter it a typical right eye adjustment, the movement is without click stops, and is stiff enough to stay where it is put. It stayed in place my entire usage regime.

The eye cups are pretty much like many eye cup assemblies. There are three positions, down, middle and extended. The S7 has better eye cups than the S9, although they appear to be identical units. Turned down there is 2 mm clearance between the ocular lens and the outer eye cup rim. The measurement extended is 12 mm. The eye relief is listed as 18 mm.

Image performance: The fov on this 8x unit is listed at 7.8 *, or 408’. Measuring the fov gives an actual of 8.28*, or 435’. This is just one unit, so I have no idea of whether or not this is a characteristic or a variation. The S9 specification sheet and the actual measurement were the same. I judge the sweet spot to include 75% of the field. There is some slight pincushion and little field curvature.

There is a very slight yellowish green color bias. This shows against a well lit white background, but in image viewing, the color presentation is neutral and no color tint is evident in the view. Contrast is on par with the S9, showing good edge definition and quite good texture definition characteristics. The image is crisp, sharp and bright and low light performance is on par with a good 42 mm binocular. The S7 seems to lack the notable dreary, gray day brightness of the S9. The S9 has SK-15 prism glass and the S7 is BaK 4. Overall the S7 presents a relaxing, sharp image with ample detail.

Color fringing and Glare: Here I get into the only real nit I have to pick with this binocular. I have stated multiple times that I am not CA sensitive. I typically have to work to induce the appearance of CA. Not so here. However, the ONLY appearance it makes is when a well lit ridge line is in the top one third of the view. Nowhere else does it appear, and none of my typical CA evaluation techniques make it show up either. Just a well lit ridge line in the top of the field. However it is there for me, with a fully focused binocular, making no special attempt to look for it. It is minor and I could live with it if needed, but it is there. All the way across the image. Frankly this is the only binocular I have seen CA in this fashion. The S9 does not behave in this fashion. Glare control on the other hand is quite good.

The binoculars strong points are the wide fov, sharp image, compact nature, and value for the money. It seems very solid and substantial and is nearly indistinguishable from the $900-1,000 class in construction or view. 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. This binocular does have ED glass. This is a good, solid glass (aside of my CA issue) and represents a solid value for the sub $700 price point for those wanting great value for the price.

Hi Steve:

You said: “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.”

Yep, the CA on the one I reviewed was good. BUT, and as they say, it’s a BIG BUTT. I would like it remembered that we DO have different visual acuities and different brains to interpret the results, But, more importantly to the discussion is that I don’t get wrapped around the axle with so much of the minutiae that some other people thrive on. Thus, unless I’m forced to go the other way, my reviews target the AVERAGE observer. And the average observer doesn’t need to quantify things that most people can’t see! Remember: “Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.” :cat:

Speaking of which, I came across another quote this afternoon that I think you’ll like. It’s from president Andrew Johnson.

“Washington D.C. is 12 square miles surrounded by reality.”

Pretty nifty, huh?

Bill

WJC said:

Hi Steve:

You said: “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.”

Yep, the CA on the one I reviewed was good. BUT, and as they say, it’s a BIG BUTT. I would like it remembered that we DO have different visual acuities and different brains to interpret the results, But, more importantly to the discussion is that I don’t get wrapped around the axle with so much of the minutiae that some other people thrive on. Thus, unless I’m forced to go the other way, my reviews target the AVERAGE observer. And the average observer doesn’t need to quantify things that most people can’t see! Remember: “Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.” :cat:

Speaking of which, I came across another quote this afternoon that I think you’ll like. It’s from president Andrew Johnson.

“Washington D.C. is 12 square miles surrounded by reality.”

Pretty nifty, huh?

Bill

Click to expand...

Yeah different visual acuities see things differently. I should have said in the review that the several people I showed the S7 to were not bothered with any CA. So I think the average user is probably OK...whatever average is.

I like that quote, but I wonder how Andrew Jackson would increase the distance scale in today's world.

Steve C said:

Yeah different visual acuities see things differently. I should have said in the review that the several people I showed the S7 to were not bothered with any CA. So I think the average user is probably OK...whatever average is.

Click to expand...

From another post on AVERAGE:

"Which average person are you referring to?"

Bingo!!! "Average Person" is just as nebulous as asking for a "decent" or "affordable" binocular that relates to a battle I have been fighting for years. But, inexperience is NOT going away and some people find it much easier to pontificate than to do research.

Recently, I saw a post in which the poster talked about the new binocular he had just purchased as having “super light grasp” and “incredibly sharp images.” In the course of the post this fellow shared that this was his first binocular. Thus while both comments may have been true, one has to wonder exactly what this exuberant new observer was using as a point of reference. He had none, only an inexpert opinion.

Yep, the young people have visual acuity all over fossils like us: ~11 diopters at 20, 6 diopters max at 40, and 1 to 2 diopters at 60. And those diopters have much more importance than in focus. Aah, but such is life. :cat:

Bill

PS I said Andrew Johnson not Jackson.

WJC said:

From another post on AVERAGE:

"Which average person are you referring to?"

Bingo!!! "Average Person" is just as nebulous as asking for a "decent" or "affordable" binocular that relates to a battle I have been fighting for years. But, inexperience is NOT going away and some people find it much easier to pontificate than to do research.

Recently, I saw a post in which the poster talked about the new binocular he had just purchased as having “super light grasp” and “incredibly sharp images.” In the course of the post this fellow shared that this was his first binocular. Thus while both comments may have been true, one has to wonder exactly what this exuberant new observer was using as a point of reference. He had none, only an inexpert opinion.

Yep, the young people have visual acuity all over fossils like us: ~11 diopters at 20, 6 diopters max at 40, and 1 to 2 diopters at 60. And those diopters have much more importance than in focus. Aah, but such is life. :cat:

Bill

PS I said Andrew Johnson not Jackson.

Click to expand...

Johnson it was as you said. I spelled Jackson correctly so the spell checker did not alert me (at least that is the story I'll use :eek!.

Average is just the top of the bell curve. Lots of leeway on either side. Whatever the average binocular user is, it probably is quite a bit different from the Bird Forum average user.

One of the reasons I started ATM Journal was because near the end of Telescope Making’s run someone started complaining about those who wanted articles like “How to Find the Sky.”

I thought those new to telescope making deserved better. But, I find that while my book will be for the beginner, it will not be for the beginners who are too lazy to use a dictionary or Wikipedia. If I did so, I would not be raising the bar on understanding but rather producing the same tripe that has been filling magazines and books for decades. I love those folks, but that sub-elementary stuff has dominated the newsstand far too long. :cat:

Bill

Steve,

Thanks for the report. I did wonder if the S9 might be a close relative of the Kite Bonelli 2.0 I looked at a while back, but I'm not recognising any obvious family members for the S7 from your description. That CA and possibly the colour does sound a concern, particularly at $800, but I find things like can be forgiven if things like sharpness are really top notch. I'll have to scratch my head on that one, I guess I would find some "minutiae" helpful.

I seem to have been drawn into this thread by Bill on the subject of the 'average' user. The point I made in the other thread is that the average 20 year old is very different from the average 60+ year old. On 'average' they will have 50% better acuity, double the low light capability and much better colour descrimination, particularly at the shorter wavelength. It's pretty obvious visiting stores and shows that many youngsters spot differences in binoculars more readily than oldies. If I were to write a review from the perspective of the 'average' 60 year old it would only be relevant for half of 60 year olds and certainly a waste of time for the majority of those under 30. I'm fortunate my eyesight happens to be pretty good for my age but I still feel I need to work pretty hard on the "minutiae" to make my reports as relevant as they can be for users less than a third of my age.

Not so long ago someone on the forum asked that reviewers report their visual acuity and scores on an online colour discrimination test so he could judge the merits of the report. I can't see many volunteering, but I definitely understand the frustration behind the request.

David