Tract Toric 8x42 Experience (1 Viewer)

[ailevin]

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.

Thanks Bruce. IPD is the killer spec for me, and a somewhat related issue is diameter of eyecups. I need 57 shading toward 56, 58 is definitely too large as a minimum.

Adding to your list, the Trinovid has a minimum IPD of 58mm; it was a no go for me when I tried it in a shop.

Alan

 

[BruceH]

Tell me how to measure it exactly and I'll do it.

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.

Using digital calipers I got 58-75mm.

Thanks JG for the measurement.

Spec 58 - 72, Range 14
Actual 58 - 75, Range 17

Looks like Tract is shorting themselves a little with the published spec. Their low number could be a little lower as 58mm is not low enough for some adults (as pointed out by Alan) and children.

I use an inexpensive non alpha caliber from the Tasco of tool suppliers, Harbor Freight.

http://www.harborfreight.com/6-inch-utility-caliper-7914.html

The markings do match up to a metric ruler that I have!

My method was to hold the binoculars with the objectives facing straight down over a white floor so I could easily see the exit pupils. The binocular was held as low as I could to reduce any parallax impact. I then lined up the two points of the caliber over the center of the exit pupils to get the measurement. The body of the caliber rested on the retracted eye cups and never touched the lenses.

 

[BruceH]

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.''
..........

Another good catch! Also see the post from CJ in the Alpha Death thread, second sentence.

"These 'miracle' bins are now even the first to market with a growing sweet spot! In the Tract thread Dennis said the sweet spot was 70% .... now it's a whopping ~90~95%! Ahh-maaaazing!"

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3510412&postcount=726

I always try to remember to fully quote a Denco post when replying because it seems things from that post sometimes gets edited after the fact.

Dennis will say the FOV seems bigger. Maybe the spec is understated and the true FOV is actually bigger. If so, that is on Tract, not the potential buyer. Someone who is creditable needs to actually measure the FOV of the 8X42. Steve C. has a post some where on how to do it. I believe a tripod or steady mount is required.

I did contact Tract and was told the 377 ft figure was from the manufacturer and not measured or confirmed by them (meaning Tract).

Thanks Bruce. IPD is the killer spec for me, and a somewhat related issue is diameter of eyecups. I need 57 shading toward 56, 58 is definitely too large as a minimum.

Adding to your list, the Trinovid has a minimum IPD of 58mm; it was a no go for me when I tried it in a shop.

Alan

I never noticed that about the new Trinovid HD. Looks like they are also limiting their market somewhat. If you can trust the Leica brochure, it says the prior 42mm Trinovid goes down to 55mm. Some appear to still be available in a 10X42 for $899 from Euro Optics.

Check out Zeiss. They are known for having a good IPD range for many of their products.

 

[jring]

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.

Hi,

ruler works fine for me. Under the quite safe assumption, that the eye lens edges form a circle, one can also use the left or right edge which will greatly improve accuracy since you don't have to guess where the middle of the lens is...

Joachim

 

[[email protected]]

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

That was said BEFORE I tried them. That is why members commenting on binocular until they actually try them is a waste of time. When I tried them I was blown away by them. That is what happens when you just go by specifications.

 

[james holdsworth]

That was said BEFORE I tried them. That is why members commenting on binocular until they actually try them is a waste of time. When I tried them I was blown away by them. That is what happens when you just go by specifications.

Laugh or cry...I don't know anymore3

 

[maico]

I never noticed that about the new Trinovid HD. Looks like they are also limiting their market somewhat. If you can trust the Leica brochure, it says the prior 42mm Trinovid goes down to 55mm. Some appear to still be available in a 10X42 for $899 from Euro Optics.

Check out Zeiss. They are known for having a good IPD range for many of their products.

My 2015 10x42 Trinovids measure down to 54mm according to my dial calipers

 

[maico]

It's the whole Audi R8 / Lambo Huracan thing...same product kitted up in different ways. I just wish Kamakura would sell all this stuff under their own label instead of selling the guts to some re-brander to slap on new rubber and call it something else.

I don't care what they say or what they try to call them - they are not Tracts and they are not Mavens [neither design or make binoculars] - they are Kamakura's

http://www.kamakura.se/produkter.php

 

[chill6x6]

FWIW i measured IPD of a few...

Maven B1- 54-74mm
Toric Tract- 60-75mm'
Leica Trinovid- 58-76mm
Zeiss Conquest HD- 56-76mm

My girlfriend has a smaller IPD. For her to even USE binoculars, this is always a consideration. The above spec COMPLETELY agree with her actually usage of the above binoculars. The Toric Tract was the ONLY binocular out of those four that she could not use due to the IPD not being small enough. She owns and uses the Trinovid with it all the way "in." So prob 58mm is pretty close to her IPD. Both the Conquest HD and B1 have a little room to spare for her usage.

 

[jgraider]

http://www.kamakura.se/produkter.php

Then Zeiss should label the Conquest HD a Kamakura, just to be fair then. They should have labeled their original Zeiss 85T FL 20-60mm spotter a Meopta, since Meopta made it for them, and their Conquest riflescopes should have had a Meopte label as well. What would Zeiss label a Terra?

Also, Leica had their previous generation spotting scopes made by Meopta, so they should have been labeled as such too.

Great idea....

 

[Troubador]

With all of these models there is a risk of thinking they are all the same and have all arisen in the same way. Close attention to what Pete Gamby has posted over the years should have made it clear that not all of these models can be rightfully described simply as 'Kamakuras'.

Zeiss's Conquest HD optics were designed by Zeiss, the exteriors of these were designed by KISKA, and it is strongly rumoured by many in Europe that the components are manufactured by Kamakura Japan and assembled in Germany. Lets get over the question of 'made in whereverland' and just concentrate on the above. It doesn't seem accurate to me to call this a Kamakura since their role has been to produce according to designs provided by others.

Same with the scopes designed by Zeiss and Leica and made by Meopta. For me, if they weren't a Meopta concept or designed by Meopta then they aren't a Meopta.

Others may take a different view. This is mine.

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

Good post. Also, with the HD's, the glass is Schott [Zeiss Group], the coatings are T [Zeiss] and the optical design in-house.

I have no problem with someone like Zeiss building a prototype, then farming out the mass production to someone else. Now, if Zeiss just buys a Kamakura design and slaps a new skin on, then I would say it is no longer a Zeiss and this would lower my respect for the brand. As far as I know, even the lowly Terra's are Schott glass, Zeiss FMC and Zeiss optical design, even if not all models could be considered a success.

One tends to forget that many of the standard specs in today's binoculars, no matter the make, owe some heritage to the old brands, like Zeiss and Leica.

I'm interested in the origin of the Terra 8x25 though - is it a Zeiss design or is it a rebadge of an existing binocular?

 

[jgraider]

With all of these models there is a risk of thinking they are all the same and have all arisen in the same way. Close attention to what Pete Gamby has posted over the years should have made it clear that not all of these models can be rightfully described simply as 'Kamakuras'.

Zeiss's Conquest HD optics were designed by Zeiss, the exteriors of these were designed by KISKA, and it is strongly rumoured by many in Europe that the components are manufactured by Kamakura Japan and assembled in Germany. Lets get over the question of 'made in whereverland' and just concentrate on the above. It doesn't seem accurate to me to call this a Kamakura since their role has been to produce according to designs provided by others.

Same with the scopes designed by Zeiss and Leica and made by Meopta. For me, if they weren't a Meopta concept or designed by Meopta then they aren't a Meopta.

Others may take a different view. This is mine.

Lee

Understood Lee, and James I understand your point as well. However, The Toric was made to Tract's specific spec by Kamakura. Show me another Tract Toric clone, or show me where all the Toric did was add different armoring to an existing design.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...My girlfriend has a smaller IPD. For her to even USE binoculars, this is always a consideration. ...She owns and uses the Trinovid with it all the way "in." So prob 58mm is pretty close to her IPD. Both the Conquest HD and B1 have a little room to spare for her usage.

Everyone has even more narrow IPD at close distances, so if your girlfriend becomes interested in butterflies through binoculars, she may want something that adjusts even smaller. Zeiss is the consistent industry leader as its top-end x42 bins from the FL onward have 54 mm minimum, and its top end x32 models go to 52 mm. For a while, Zeiss and Leica were the only companies to offer a top-end roof that would fit down to 52 mm (Leica x32 Ultravid also goes to 52 mm). For a long time, 56 mm was the industry de facto standard for single hinged roofs and for reverse-porro compacts. These days, a few companies do better at least with some models, but many (esp. those made in China, including the Zeiss x42 Terra) do worse than that, and are generally 58 mm. As someone who knows a number of women and many children who have IPD under 56 mm, I have long been mystified why companies don't do better with this spec. Most porros of the past went well below 56 mm, but some Chinese models only go to 58 mm. I'm guessing that average IPD of the Chinese, or of Chinese designers, is on the wide side.

I have found that published specs of minimum IPD are almost always accurate. Some double-hinged pocket roofs specs are wrong and the bins go way lower than what is published.

--AP

 

[maico]

Show me another Tract Toric clone, or show me where all the Toric did was add different armoring to an existing design.

This one perhaps which has the same KK ADR chassis and 7.2 degrees ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4Mhl6xbV4&feature=youtu.be

 

[maico]

FWIW i measured IPD of a few...


Leica Trinovid- 58-76mm


My girlfriend has a smaller IPD. For her to even USE binoculars, this is always a consideration. The above spec COMPLETELY agree with her actually usage of the above binoculars. The Toric Tract was the ONLY binocular out of those four that she could not use due to the IPD not being small enough. She owns and uses the Trinovid with it all the way "in." So prob 58mm is pretty close to her IPD. Both the Conquest HD and B1 have a little room to spare for her usage.

Try removing the objective cap straps for less than 58mm on the trinovid

 

[jgraider]

maico, they sure look similar don't they? Are the specs the same?

 

[Alexis Powell]

Try removing the objective cap straps for less than 58mm on the trinovid

I'd be surprised if that works. Leica gives 58 mm as minimum IPD for the x42 Trinovid HD, and I've not known them to be wrong about minimum IPD spec. If memory serves, the old Trinovid BA and BN went down to 56 mm.

--AP

 

[BruceH]

maico, they sure look similar don't they? Are the specs the same?

Here is a thread on the new lmagic BGA VHD. Post 11 has some specs on FOV.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=337693

 

[maico]

I'd be surprised if that works. Leica gives 58 mm as minimum IPD for the x42 Trinovid HD, and I've not known them to be wrong about minimum IPD spec. If memory serves, the old Trinovid BA and BN went down to 56 mm.

--AP

The straps add 2mm to the minimum IPD on my 2012-2015 Trinovid 10x42 which I measure as 54mm without, 56mm with.
The Leica handbook specs for these and the 8x42 are listed as 55-75mm, and I would imagine, more than enough to cover just about all adults.