A while back I spent a winter's afternoon trying out all the compact pairs I could find. They included the Trackers (PCI) 8x25, Nikon Travelite EX 8x25, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon 8x20s, Bushnell 7x26 Elite and a dozen or so lesser pairs (IMO). I could rank them in all kinds of ways, but of course the main considerations for me were my own likes and dislikes. I really dislike veiling flare, CA and blurred edges, and like good contrast, a medium focus speed, good eye relief and of course a really sharp view. Of course all my my comments are entirely subjective, and refer only to the samples I tested on the day. At the cheaper end of the spectrum I've noted quite a bit of sample variation, and probably accounts for some differences in opinions.
I really wanted to be won over by the alpha 8x20s. I liked their size and of course they were sharp with excellent build quality, but there were niggles about CA, veiling flare and eye relief, but the decider was that the 2.5mm exit pupil was too dim for the conditions, and the eye positioning too fussy, particularly with glasses. I didn't like them, so for me they were bottom of that group.
It's a good while ago, so I can't remember all the details I noted at the time, but certain negatives stick in the mind. All of the reverse porros suited me better than the 8x20s. None of them have a particularly wide field of view, but the port hole effect was most notable with the Nikons. The Nikons and the Olympus have a 3.1mm exit pupil and the Bushnells 3.7mm. The difference in brightness was obvious under the conditions. Both the Nikons and Olympus showed CA and some veiling flare, which were both virtually absent on the Bushnells. The focus action was acceptable on all of them, but again the Bushnells suited me best. There is this peculiar phenomenon which we call 3D-effect but is certainly a misnomer when it comes to reverse porros as the objectives are closer together than roofs let alone porros. What ever it is the Bushnells had the most and the Nikons the least. It was difficult to decide which was the sharpest. All three were good but the most dramatic difference between them was contrast. I could see much more detail with the Bushnells than the other two and the Nikons came a poor third.
Of course price is a consideration. In the UK the Olympus can be found for about £63, the Nikons about £80 and the Bushnells £195. For my individual tastes the Bushnells were clearly the best of the three, the Olympus the best value, and if waterproof is important the Nikons the only choice of that three. Take your pick.
Dennis, you have often said you strongly disliked the Bushnells. I would have put money on you having the same view on the Tracker as to my eyes they were pretty similar in most respects.... if not quite as good.( How does that work?
) Just shows the importance of personal preference I guess.
David