Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 5th August 2017, 23:52   #1
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Review: Tract Toric 8x42

Well, this has taken longer than I thought it would when I started out on this series. The Toric was out of stock and there was a wait for the new shipment, and by the time I got this unit, I was too busy into farming to have time to get into this.

The Tract Toric has been discussed a lot here. That discussion was what prompted my interest in this binocular. I make no secret about having an interest in new binoculars, as I for one welcome any and all competition. This is a new company founded by two people with long experience in optics working for Nikon. They have the direct to the consumer sales model, similar to another newcomer, Maven. The prices for the Tract Toric from the website are $626 for the 10x42 and $616 for the 8x42. This is the price with the binocular kit which includes a chest harness, lens pen,and case. My new unit came without the kit and does not include the case. I did not see a price for the no kit version I received. Mine has a neck strap, lens covers and no case.

Out of the box we have a light graphite gray armored binocular with dark charcoal gray eye cups, lens covers, diopter ring and focus wheel. The armor is a soft sort of a silicon leather affair, pleasant to the touch. The armor has a stippled pebble grain finish and is a more than adequate grip surface. The binocular has a right eye diopter adjustment ring. The ring seems to be somewhat easy to turn, but in use, I have had no issues with inadvertent movement.

The specs can be viewed in detail here: https://www.tractoptics.com/products...ss-bino-storag

This is a more or less typical size for a 42 mm class glass and of somewhat average heft at a weight of 26.4 ounces. The minimum IPD is listed at 58 mm, however this unit adjusts to 57 mm.

Focus action: This unit has 1.25 turn of focus wheel travel ad the focus direction is counterclockwise to infinity. This one focuses to 7 feet as compared to the listed close focus distance of 8 feet. From the close focus distance, .75 turn gets to 75 feet. A full turn gets to 100 feet. Another .25 or so turn gets to infinity and the rest is over travel past infinity. There is no looseness or side play in the wheel. The focus behaves as a relatively quick focusing unit.

Field performance: The spec sheet says… Yeah the spec sheet says. Lately I have come to regard the spec sheet with a somewhat jaundiced eye. What the spec sheet says, and what is also marked on the binocular is 7.2* or 377 feet at 1,000 yards. That is an afov of 57.6*. There was substantial comment here already that, in spite of many comments about a restrictive fov, the people who actually had the Torics were saying the view did not seem restrictive. Well in spite of what the spec sheet says there is a reason the view does not seem restrictive. The spec sheet understates the actual dimension by more than a half of a degree. At a measured 30 feet from the center of the tripod, there is clearly 49.5 inches of tape visible across the field. This is 4.04 feet or 404 at 1,000 yards and is just over 7.8*, yielding an afov of 62.5* This obviously is the SLOW (Simple. Old fashioned. Logical. Way) afov method. Viewing the tape there is obvious distortion around the outer inch. The black numbers on the white tape are clearly visible, but the 1/16” fractional markings are not separable. The fractions get clearer as you move to the center and at 5” they are clearly distinct. At 4” they can be easily separated, but are blurred. There is a minimal apparent black ring in the outer fov at the field stop. Distortions across the field can be found, but you have to look off axis to see them, and on axis, where observations will occur, there is negligible distortion. So if you go looking for distortions you will find them.

Image performance: The Toric has a very competitive image. It is bright, clear, and sharp. The apparent color presentation is quite neutral, but there is a very slight yellow tint viewed against a well light white background. The contrast is very good, details at any distance a hand held binocular will be used is excellent. The view overall is quite transparent. There is not much feeling of there being a binocular in front of your eyes. The view seems wide and is pretty relaxing. Nothing to fault at the price level. It won’t match toe to toe with careful examination with the alpha, but the worth of the difference will be one of personal choices. The view is good enough that I’d take one of these on a once in a lifetime trip with no qualms.

Eye cups and eye relief: Here we have the weakness of the Toric. The eye cup assemblies are really pretty comfortable and they have three stops in their travel. The stops are distinct, but nowhere near as tight as they need to be. Not an issue for a single user as a couple of O-rings will fix the slack. The outer lip of the eye cup is very comfortable and will not be an issue for many people. The issue here is that they extend out 5 mm above the lens when completely retracted. Depending on whether or not the user is a wearer of eye glasses and the distance of the lens from the users eye, there may be some adjustment difficulty. The eye cup extends to 17 mm above the lens. If these measurements do not fit your needs, if you wear glasses, these may not be for you. Otherwise for non eye glass wearers there will probably not be an issue. When fully extended, there is some evident play in the eye cup around the inner circumference of the eye cup and the outer dimension of the ocular tube.

Glare and CA control: These issues are well taken care of here and should not pose a problem unless there is a poor facial fit or unless the user is particularly CA sensitive. CA can be induced here, but only with some difficulty and in extreme glare prone scenarios. There are no false exit pupils around the outside of the EP. The EP is distinct and completely round. There appear to be no reflective internal surfaces.

Service and Warranty: Their policy is called Trust Assurance and you can read it for yourself here: https://www.tractoptics.com/tract-trust. It is a customer oriented policy and their aim is customer satisfaction. Yes we do get into the old company vs the new. That argument is what it is and time will shake things out. If you need the security blanket of a name you happen to like, than that is what is is. Not better or worse, just human nature.

Summary: We have here yet anther example of what you can get for $1,000 or less. In the scope of this review series it represents extreme value. I said earlier I’d be happy to take a Toric anywhere. Tract states in their literature this is the best glass you can buy for less than $700. At this point I am inclined not to argue the point. With some eye cup issues, this is a solid well balanced and apparently well constructed binocular that is pretty clearly aimed at the mythical average user. There is some reduced diopteric adjustment and the 8x has fewer lens elements than the 10x.

I had both the 8x and 10x42 Torics, so be advised what applies to the 8x here also goes for the 10x. The exception is that the 10x was right at its stated fov. There seems to be no more difference between the 8x and 10x Toric than there is between an 8x and 10x version of any other model of binocular.

This is a binocular worthy of a long, hard look, whether or not you buy it. It represents just about the apex of what you get for the price. Note this last has changed since I got the Toric, but more will come on that. The Tract Teoka needs to be evaluated here too.

More to come on the overall comparison. Cheers
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Sunday 6th August 2017 at 00:04.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 04:15   #2
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
"It represents just about the apex of what you get for the price." "In the scope of this review series it represents extreme value." "The view is good enough that I’d take one of these on a once in a lifetime trip with no qualms."
That pretty much sums up the Tract Toric. It is very hard to beat for the money. I knew the FOV was bigger than the stated specifications. Nice review Steve.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 13:32   #3
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,202
Very nice Steve, thanks for posting.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 14:16   #4
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 759
Could you 8x42 Tract Toric owners comment about: 1) how far out from center (%) before lines appear to distort and if the distortion remains mostly gradual or increases noticeably; 2) how far out from center (%) do you perceive the sweet spot.

Thanks... CG

I ask because I see an 8x42 in my not so distant future... trying to decide if I'll part with the money and go top tier or just stick with mid tier product... I seem to be content with both but do like the top tier better ... just don't know how much I value an 8x42.. ?

Thanks for the review!

Last edited by cycleguy : Sunday 6th August 2017 at 14:18.
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 17:16   #5
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,187
Steve ..... Thanks for putting together the Toric review. There is a lot of good information for someone interested in either Toric model. I appreciate your additional comments on the 10X since that is the model that has my primary interest.

Finally we now have an actual measurement for the FOV. That has been a hot topic. Now knowing it is over 400 ft makes the 8X42 a more appealing binocular for birders. It will be interesting to see if Tract updates the specs on the web page. It creates a problem because the web page will say one spec yet the binocular itself will say something different. Not saying anything about the wider FOV puts them at a competitive disadvantage since the trend for 8X power binoculars is to go with a 400+ FOV.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 18:16   #6
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleguy View Post
Could you 8x42 Tract Toric owners comment about: 1) how far out from center (%) before lines appear to distort and if the distortion remains mostly gradual or increases noticeably; 2) how far out from center (%) do you perceive the sweet spot.

Thanks... CG

I ask because I see an 8x42 in my not so distant future... trying to decide if I'll part with the money and go top tier or just stick with mid tier product... I seem to be content with both but do like the top tier better ... just don't know how much I value an 8x42.. ?

Thanks for the review!
1)At least 95% and there is a very gradual almost imperceptible distortion. The Tract has excellent edges. 2) I would say the sweet spot is 95% also. That is a nice thing about the Tract. Good size FOV and almost Swarovision like sharp edges. As Steve says the Tract view is bright ,clear and sharp. After comparing it to the Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD IMO the Tract Toric is sharper and brighter and ergonomically more comfortable and it is less expensive.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Sunday 6th August 2017 at 18:23.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 18:53   #7
cycleguy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: mile high, colorado
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
1)At least 95% and there is a very gradual almost imperceptible distortion. The Tract has excellent edges. 2) I would say the sweet spot is 95% also. That is a nice thing about the Tract. Good size FOV and almost Swarovision like sharp edges. As Steve says the Tract view is bright ,clear and sharp. After comparing it to the Zeiss Conquest 8x42 HD IMO the Tract Toric is sharper and brighter and ergonomically more comfortable and it is less expensive.
Nice... I was just handling a Conquest HD 8x42 (and Monarch HG 10x42, and Cabela's Euro HD 10x42, and Monarch 7 8x42) at the store down south this morning after dropping the kid off with south metro for a class. Love the Cabela's Euro HD 10x42 and it has been that way every time I have tried it, unfortunately I have no interest in a 10x binocular, bummer as I would own it otherwise! Wasn't impressed with the new MHG with feel and optics; owned the old one in 8x32 and thought it was great glass. Like the size and feel of the M7 but its small sweet spot don't work for me. Found the optics of the Conquest HD to be very very good; good enough to purchase but I don't get along with the eyecups and the fit with my face isn't as strong as I would prefer - so it stayed behind. My shortlist for an 8x42 grows shorter.... if the tract is on par or better than the conquest hd maybe I'll have to give it a try.

CG
cycleguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 19:20   #8
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,775
My concern with these new direct to user brands is the quality of what I'd get.

Sport optics standards are not high enough, else we would not be advising buyers to 'test all the stock and pick the best one'. A 'cherry' specimen imho means only that there is probably one or more offsetting lemons in the channel.

So when a new company can't check its own specifications sheet for accuracy, it does not inspire confidence about the rest of their production process.

There is surely a big market opportunity for a good sub alpha glass, but seizing it depends on unrelenting quality control, starting with the documentation.

Just my $0.02.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 20:46   #9
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
My concern with these new direct to user brands is the quality of what I'd get.

Sport optics standards are not high enough, else we would not be advising buyers to 'test all the stock and pick the best one'. A 'cherry' specimen imho means only that there is probably one or more offsetting lemons in the channel.

So when a new company can't check its own specifications sheet for accuracy, it does not inspire confidence about the rest of their production process.

There is surely a big market opportunity for a good sub alpha glass, but seizing it depends on unrelenting quality control, starting with the documentation.

Just my $0.02.
Why the quality of the direct to consumer model should be any more of an issue than with the traditional dealer in the middle model is a mystery to me. Sport optic standards are the result of the contract between the company whose name is on the glass and the company who makes the glass. If they make it themselves, it is all in their ball park. If they get it made by one or more of several OEM companies, then the standards are the result of contract negotiations, the knowledge of the seller, and the ability of the seller. It also hinges on the OEM and their ability and willingness to adhere to contract standards. There is also the issue of the fine print in the QC language in the signed contract.

New companies can pretty well set whatever specifications they want and are willing to pay for, and sell for what they consider a reasonable profit.

Errors in specification sheets are not the exclusive problem of new companies, not by a long shot. The issue with the fov spec in Tract and Maven models is not Tract or Maven. It is apparently with the OEM. The OEM wants to be conservative with the spec sheet as they feel nobody will complain about getting more fov than is advertised. I confess that makes little sense as it seems it would be a hindrance to sales. Mavens comment about the overly conservative fov on the C1 was, "Oh boy, we get to argue with the engineers again".

I can see no quality issues of any concern with the Tract binoculars. The eye cup may be an issue for some, but you are getting a basically $1,000 glass for less than $700. If you are expecting $2,500 quality from the objective to the ocular you will need to spend $2,500. I also think that if you have an issue with the quality of the Tract (or of the GPO, Maven, or Stryka) then you have predetermined you will need to spend the $2,500. Even then many will feel the binocular purchased for that price will have more issues than it should. I have no idea what perfection would cost.

There is my two cents. All other contributions welcome.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 21:26   #10
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
New companies can pretty well set whatever specifications they want and are willing to pay for, and sell for what they consider a reasonable profit.

Errors in specification sheets are not the exclusive problem of new companies, not by a long shot. The issue with the fov spec in Tract and Maven models is not Tract or Maven. It is apparently with the OEM. The OEM wants to be conservative with the spec sheet as they feel nobody will complain about getting more fov than is advertised. I confess that makes little sense as it seems it would be a hindrance to sales. Mavens comment about the overly conservative fov on the C1 was, "Oh boy, we get to argue with the engineers again".

I can see no quality issues of any concern with the Tract binoculars. The eye
There is my two cents. All other contributions welcome.
If the OEM's initial deliveries offer performance which is better than specified, it leaves open the door to future 'value engineering' downward adjustment which will still be within spec.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 6th August 2017, 21:38   #11
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
You seem to have your mind made up on the idea. So be it. I don't happen to agree with that view.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 00:00   #12
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Somebody with a sharper eye than mine pointed out an error on the fov the review. I said there was 49.5" of distance viewable on the tape. If that were the case that would be 4.125' or 412.5" at 1,000 yards. The numbers 8 and 9 were evidently too close together for my fat fingertips. That figure should read 48.5".

My bad, sorry about that
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 00:03   #13
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,506
Steve: Thanks for the review, you have done a thorough job, and agree with the others that have
posted about the Toric.

I have owned the 8x42 Tract Toric for around 6 months, and I purchased it from another member on
the site.
I agree with your findings, the optics are very good, and the fit and finish are excellent. They have done
a nice thing with the armor, just the right grip for me. I don't wear eyeglasses, and I have been able to
find the right setting with the metal eyecups.

I recently made a mistake on here. I recently did a review of the Nikon Monarch 10x42 HG, and I said what my
visual acuity was. I said it was 20:20, and some twit from the UK, has now decided with my dismal report,
I should go to the thrift store for a $25. pair. As that is the limit of my vision.

I have now had my eyes checked and my vision is really 20:10, and I am really in the top 1%.

I don't score binoculars with a numerical score like few would on here. I leave that up the superman typos. That whole thing is really a laugh.

Jerry
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 00:13   #14
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
Steve: Thanks for the review, you have done a thorough job, and agree with the others that have
posted about the Toric.

I have owned the 8x42 Tract Toric for around 6 months, and I purchased it from another member on
the site.
I agree with your findings, the optics are very good, and the fit and finish are excellent. They have done
a nice thing with the armor, just the right grip for me. I don't wear eyeglasses, and I have been able to
find the right setting with the metal eyecups.


Jerry
It is indeed a nice binocular. Could, or for that matter anybody with an 8x42 Toric, do a check of the fov on your unit?

Every post made is a potential mistake
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 03:40   #15
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,056
SteveC, if you'll explain to me the method you use for testing, I will test my 8x42's. I'm not very technical and have never messed with it.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 04:50   #16
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 642
Thanks for the informative review Steve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
The Tract Teoka needs to be evaluated here too.
Are you planning to do that review?
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 05:17   #17
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgraider View Post
SteveC, if you'll explain to me the method you use for testing, I will test my 8x42's. I'm not very technical and have never messed with it.
Pretty simple actually. I place a white cloth measuring tape across a wall. I then measure off 30 feet from that wall. Place the center of a tripod at the 30' mark. Mount the binocular to the tripod. Focus on the tape and adjust until the tape is centered in the horizontal center of the field. Place the edge of the tape just at the edge of the left side of the view. Read how many inches are visible on the right side. With my Toric I can read 48 and a half inches. Convert that to feet, in this case 4.04' which is at 10 yards. Move the decimal left two places and you have 404' at 1,000 yards.

Don't try to read too much tape. With most binoculars the fov measured like this is within a couple of feet of the specification.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 05:18   #18
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Nix,

I am going to ask Tract about that Teoka review.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 08:05   #19
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,011
A quality balanced review as always Steve, the Toric does look remarkably similar to the new Opticron BGA VHD which also punches well above its price, anyone else suspect they may be the same binocular ?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	bga vhd.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	203.7 KB
ID:	635427  Click image for larger version

Name:	toric.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	110.1 KB
ID:	635428  
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 08:42   #20
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 571
" the Toric does look remarkably similar to the new Opticron BGA VHD which also punches well above its price, anyone else suspect they may be the same binocular ?"

I seem to recall that Pete_Gamby implied as much, aways back on this forum, or similar, but I have not found the thread!
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 12:06   #21
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 642
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=337693

Which links to:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...&postcount=517

Which is a single post on pg 21 of currently 44 here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread....01#post3507301

Certainly an existing winning formula would find favour amongst others. Not that I have knowledge of such, yet a broad brush easily paints the possibility if not probability of 'borrowing' the same.

ETA: I'm not sure if the thread is the same as you recall. I merely note the mention of the twain.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Monday 7th August 2017 at 12:43.
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 14:16   #22
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 834
Nice review, Steve. I enjoyed reading it.

It was on my list to check the FOV of the Tract while I had it but I didn't get around to it. I actually thought the Maven B.1 8X42 had more FOV.

BTW...I had no problems with the Tract while using eyeglasses.
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 19:17   #23
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Nice review, Steve. I enjoyed reading it.

It was on my list to check the FOV of the Tract while I had it but I didn't get around to it. I actually thought the Maven B.1 8X42 had more FOV.

BTW...I had no problems with the Tract while using eyeglasses.
The Maven B1 does have a little wider fov than the Toric Check your B1 and PM me if you still have it.

I had no issues with glasses either, but eye glass wearers on the whole seem favor being able to get closer than 5 mm.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Monday 7th August 2017 at 19:24.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 19:23   #24
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torview View Post
A quality balanced review as always Steve, the Toric does look remarkably similar to the new Opticron BGA VHD which also punches well above its price, anyone else suspect they may be the same binocular ?
I see what you mean about the similarity. I have not seen the BGA VHD nor the Verano HD. I did do a review on the double hinge DBA VHD, which I thought was a really nice binocular. That is pretty similar to where these fit optically.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 19:56   #25
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Pretty simple actually. I place a white cloth measuring tape across a wall. I then measure off 30 feet from that wall. Place the center of a tripod at the 30' mark. Mount the binocular to the tripod. Focus on the tape and adjust until the tape is centered in the horizontal center of the field. Place the edge of the tape just at the edge of the left side of the view. Read how many inches are visible on the right side. With my Toric I can read 48 and a half inches. Convert that to feet, in this case 4.04' which is at 10 yards. Move the decimal left two places and you have 404' at 1,000 yards.

Don't try to read too much tape. With most binoculars the fov measured like this is within a couple of feet of the specification.

Trying it several times, I could read right at 48", but not more than that. Looks like that would put mine at 400'@1000 yds.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has Anyone Used the Tract Toric 10X42? BruceH Binoculars 43 Wednesday 2nd August 2017 21:54
Tract Toric 8x42 Experience jgraider Binoculars 275 Wednesday 19th April 2017 16:07
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 review, and updated SLC 8x42 W B review Tobias Mennle Swarovski 35 Wednesday 18th March 2015 16:14

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.27644396 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:09.