Steve C
Well-known member
I must confess that when I started out on this path I really did think I would have had it all up long before now. So here it is, with apologies to those companies who provided the test binoculars and to anyone here on the forum who wanted to see this sooner than now. A couple of specimens showed up late due to shipment arrival times, by then I was too busy to fully concentrate efforts. Additionally, the world around here is on fire and there has not been many days with decent viewing conditions. Smoke has reduced visibility to less than a quarter of a mile at least part of most days, a mile visibility has been pretty good for the last couple of months. Health advisories in effect over 90% of the time.
Overview:
If anyone is expecting a shoot out sort of review with a big loser and a grand prize winner, you will not find that here. I titled my Maven B2 review with the “Has the $1,000 game changed?” In my view it has changed, and these binoculars carry forward the theme. A couple of these binoculars actually decrease the price level by several hundred dollars with little apparent decline in quality.
While the game has changed, I do not foresee these binoculars as killing off the top tier of optics. The reason for this is simple human nature. There will always be a certain segment of the population who will strive for the best of whatever bit of gear they seek to be as good as they can get it, cell phones, computers, or binoculars, anything you care to name. I see these new arrivals as seeking to advance the selection of top quality glass that will give up practically nothing against the top tier view for considerably less money. I do not think that we would see the likes of the Zeiss Conquest HD or the Nikon Monarch HG without these top tier producing brands being pushed by the increasing quality levels of the mid to upper mid tier glass. The entry of these new companies will introduce a new level of competition which we will all benefit from. If the alpha class dies I think it will be due to a decrease in innovation on their part, a lack of proactivity, or an inadequate response to a new level of competition. The alpha class will more or less have to commit suicide, and I think that is pretty unlikely.
I also do not think these represent much if anything in the way of something new, aside from a different business model. That and adoption of some modernized production short cuts. These are all based on that modern technological marvel, the Schmidt-Pechan prism system. So they share that with the majority of binoculars produced today, regardless of the price tag. This includes all of the top tier glass with the exception of the Zeiss HT, which along with the upper mid tier offering the Maven B2 use the Abbe-Koening system. The SP has been around since 1899, the AK since 1905.
Traditional brick and mortar stores are seemingly in some difficulty in competing with internet availability. What we see here to some extent is an extension of that phenomena. Like it or not that is how I tend to see it. Technology transfer has largely occurred and it is now much easier and far less expensive to make good optical instruments.
The binoculars under discussion here are the GPO Passion HD in 8x42, the Maven B1in both 8x and 10x42, the Tract Toric in both 8x and 10x 42, the Stryka S7, and the Stryka S9, both 8x42.
The short story here is that there is very little discernible optical difference between these binoculars. If focused on a resolution chart at the same distance each 8x version resolved the same degree as any other. The differences are going to boil down to cost, personal preferences, which will center on ergonomics, and apparent build quality. I say apparent build because while they look and feel different, they likely are more similar in construction than they are different. I’m not going to tear down somebody else’s binocular to evaluate construction. That is out of my pay grade as well. I’ll go through them one at a time focusing on the strengths and weaknesses (in my personal opinion only).
GPO Passion HD 8x42: This binocular has what most would likely pick as a superior build and finish. This has the smoothest over all feel to the finish, there being less tactile rubber armor. However, it is not slick or hard to grasp and hold. Frankly it has, to my way of thinking, the best eye cup assembly in the business, yes I include the top tier $2,000+ binoculars here. This obviously received a lot of thought and attention. The intermediate stops are definite, you can actually feel and hear them snap into place. They will stay put. It is the only one of the group to have a locking diopter mechanism, and the only one with a center focus located diopter adjustment.
The focus has been well thought out. Is is a soft, easy, smooth, movement and has no slack when changing direction. It is counter clockwise to infinity, moves through one and one half turns. It behaves as a relatively quick focusing binocular.
Any binocular will have its weakness. While there is practically nothing to point a finger at here, many will feel there should be a wider fov on the 8x model. While I certainly understand the sentiment (I freely admit to having a personal preference in an 8* fov in 8x), there is nothing in the overall image that will particularly seem to restrict the overall view. This may well cause some to pass it by on that basis alone. That is a shame as it may well cause the spec sheet conscious consumer to pass over what may well be their best choice. As I stated in my review, it gives the impression of being wider than the advertised 375’ (7.2*). The overall image here has very minimum distortion present in the view. Horizontal or vertical lines of man made structures show practically no bending across the view. The edge distortion is there, but practically unnoticeable. It has the feel and look of field flatteners, but none are used here. CA suppression is first rate.
A binocular needs to be evaluated on its holistic presentation. When one looks at this balance, the fov will assume a decrease in overall importance with this binocular. That may well be impossible for the specification obsessed, but I’d wager it to be largely accurate in this instance.
Maven B1 8x and 10x42: There is a degree of similarity in the appearance of the B1 and the GPO. The size, the build geometry, and the weight are essentially identical. The Maven has a radically different feel to the armor. It is completely covered in a very soft, pliable ...well, silicone leather for lack of a better term. While the GPO is not too slick due to lesser amounts of pliable armor, the B1 is not too tactile to be too slip resistant. If one chooses to go the customization route, the designer coverings are less tactile than the black and gray stock covering.
The eye cup assembly is better than many binoculars, but it less definite than the GPO. Expect the B1 assembly to stay put as well. The focus is a bit stiffer than the GPO and has a barely there slack in direction changing. This is a demo unit and while it looks new, has had some use. It is also counterclockwise to infinity and turns through one and one quarter turns. As with the GPO it performs as a relatively fast focusing binocular.
This one comes advertised with a 7.4* fov. As with the GPO it appears wider on first look than the stated fov. In this case, it is because it is wider than the spec sheet. It measures 425’, just bit over 8*.
There is a well done classical edge with this binocular. There is a minor amount of pincushion at the extreme edge with a narrow band of field curvature just inside of that. Distraction at the edge is non existent for normal human eyes. As with the GPO there is minimum distortion in the field. CA suppression is first rate.
This one is pretty easy to make unique to your tastes. The different coverings and other external items can be done in a nearly endless number of combinations.
The 8x and 10x versions are typical in that their distinction is only that typical of 8x vs 10x binoculars.
Stryka S9 8x42: This is the top end model for Stryka. There is no real difference in good light brightness among these binoculars. However the S9, for whatever reasons, is indeed the brightest of the lot in dim, poor light conditions. It is a definite difference, one that shows up in normal, hand held field usage. This one is worth a look if you do a lot of low light observing. This one features SK 15 prism glass. I can't say if this has much field difference for the average user or not, but is it marketed to be brighter. Perhaps this is the reason for the noted difference, maybe it is just a feature of the balance of the design components. I have had a lot of dim, poor light conditions here lately, and this difference has held up. I should note that as one gets on toward the very tail end of light at the end of the day, the difference is less readily apparent.
The S9 has an advertised 7.5* fov. This one matches the specification. It also has a classical edge performance. Like the B1 it has a bit of outer pincushion and some field curvature inside of that. There is an ever so slight tendency for this one to bend horizontal lines. It will not be noticed unless you go actively looking for it. It is only very slightly behind the GPO and the Maven here.
As with the above binoculars, the focus is counterclockwise to infinity. There is a focus travel of one and one quarter turn.
The weakness here is the eye cup assembly. They are OK, but certainly not in the League of the GPO, and inferior to the Maven. The stops are definite enough, but there is a greater tendency for the eye cup to slip from your preferred stop. The binocular has sort of a chubby feel. The arts and design people evidently carried the idea of a ridge line of greater armor thickness around the outer edges of the S9. Frankly I have long thought the idea of more armor directly equating to a higher degree of ruggedness is somewhat misleading. I also am not much of a fan of using ridges and various degrees of armor thickness to “enhance” a design.
Stryka S7 8x42: If your tastes lean towards a very compact 42 mm binocular, then this one is where you need to look. It has the added advantage of a wider than advertised fov. This is specified at 7.8* (408’) but measures 8.3* (435’). So you get it both compact and wide.
The eye cup assembly is better than it is on the more expensive S9. The stops are more definite, and there is less tendency for the setting to slip.
This one focuses clockwise to infinity, being different in that regard from all of the others. It is also of a Chinese source, again all of the others are Japanese. The focus travel is just over one and one quarter turns, medium in stiffness and free of slack.
Like the S9 and the others here it has a well done classical edge with nice sweet spot, minimal pincushion and field curvature. I did note some CA present in my initial review of this binocular. However at this point, I do not see CA.
Like the S9, the design people added some thicker armor for a design flair. For the reasons I am not a big fan of this approach, see comments above. Particularly here since it adds bulk to what is a nicely compact 42 mm binocular;
The image is overall, bright and sharp. It is also less money than the others above and represents a top choice in value for cost.
Tract Toric 8x and 10x42: To round this one out here is the Toric. It has been the subject of a lot of good press. Tract claims it is the best binocular on the Market for less than $700. I am not real inclined to dispute this claim, but I’d have to add the S7 to the mix here. Either are excellent choices if you need to land in this quality bracket for under $700.
While somewhat similar in appearance to the GPO and Maven, it is smaller than either one, but larger than the S7.
Like all but the S7, it has a counterclockwise to infinity focus travel. Typical of the rest, there is a travel distance of one and a quarter turns.
The armor is a light gray color and is of a similar feel to the B1. The main difference is the outer ege of the armor is a fine pebble finish to the smoother grain finish of the rest of the armor.
This is another one with a wider than listed fov. It is specified at 377’, or 7.2*. It measures 8*.
The image is nice and bright with another well done classical edge. Minimal pincushion and curvature. Horizontal lines bend hardly at all.
CA and glare are well controlled.
The weakness here is the eye cups and the diopter. Honestly the eye cups won’t be an issue for most people. They are somewhat loose on top of the ocular tube and they extend a bit above the ocular lens when fully retracted. While they seem to be fine for me with reading glasses they may not be the choice for those with more definite needs in eye cup distance from the lens. The diopter is just a bit loose for my taste. An O-ring under the dial should fix any issues. A couple of O-rings under the eye cup should take out the wobble.
Like the B1, the difference between the 8x and 10x Toric is simply whatever can be associated with the typical magnification difference. Like 10x get that. Like 8x, get that.
Summary: The image on all of these is bright, sharp, clear, with excellent contrast, color rendition, and quite neutral color balance. In good light I don’t think I can say which is best. I also doubt the vast majority of viewers would be able to tell these apart from each other based on the quality of the image. They all offer the sort of view that tends to make the viewer forget there is a binocular providing the view we are seeing.
What we have here is a group of binoculars that will seriously challenge the alpha tier of binoculars. I’m not going to tell you they are better, or even the equal of the top end. But what I will say is that these will push the top tier to the limit. They might be a step behind at the finish, but almost nobody will even notice a difference. When you get down to it, if you can’t see what you need to see with one of these, your problem is not with the binocular. I would easily take one of these on a trip to anywhere. Some may need the added feeling of quality the get from an expensive binocular, but me, I’d rather use the money for an day or two more on the trip. These or an alpha? Get what you can afford. Can’t swing the alpha? Quit worrying about it.
OK, these are new companies. Some people seem aghast at the very idea. Not all new endeavors will fail. These are all started by people with wide experience in the optics industry. Unlike some new ventures none of these seem to be either under financed, or understaffed. If you need the security blanket yo see in old brand names, that is fine. The gripe about new companies is the second oldest optics argument on the internet. The case for the old guard is the oldest optics argument. If there is an argument to be made, it is lost if that is the main point of contention. Personally I welcome the competition. Something to keep the old guard on their toes and off their laurels.
Overview:
If anyone is expecting a shoot out sort of review with a big loser and a grand prize winner, you will not find that here. I titled my Maven B2 review with the “Has the $1,000 game changed?” In my view it has changed, and these binoculars carry forward the theme. A couple of these binoculars actually decrease the price level by several hundred dollars with little apparent decline in quality.
While the game has changed, I do not foresee these binoculars as killing off the top tier of optics. The reason for this is simple human nature. There will always be a certain segment of the population who will strive for the best of whatever bit of gear they seek to be as good as they can get it, cell phones, computers, or binoculars, anything you care to name. I see these new arrivals as seeking to advance the selection of top quality glass that will give up practically nothing against the top tier view for considerably less money. I do not think that we would see the likes of the Zeiss Conquest HD or the Nikon Monarch HG without these top tier producing brands being pushed by the increasing quality levels of the mid to upper mid tier glass. The entry of these new companies will introduce a new level of competition which we will all benefit from. If the alpha class dies I think it will be due to a decrease in innovation on their part, a lack of proactivity, or an inadequate response to a new level of competition. The alpha class will more or less have to commit suicide, and I think that is pretty unlikely.
I also do not think these represent much if anything in the way of something new, aside from a different business model. That and adoption of some modernized production short cuts. These are all based on that modern technological marvel, the Schmidt-Pechan prism system. So they share that with the majority of binoculars produced today, regardless of the price tag. This includes all of the top tier glass with the exception of the Zeiss HT, which along with the upper mid tier offering the Maven B2 use the Abbe-Koening system. The SP has been around since 1899, the AK since 1905.
Traditional brick and mortar stores are seemingly in some difficulty in competing with internet availability. What we see here to some extent is an extension of that phenomena. Like it or not that is how I tend to see it. Technology transfer has largely occurred and it is now much easier and far less expensive to make good optical instruments.
The binoculars under discussion here are the GPO Passion HD in 8x42, the Maven B1in both 8x and 10x42, the Tract Toric in both 8x and 10x 42, the Stryka S7, and the Stryka S9, both 8x42.
The short story here is that there is very little discernible optical difference between these binoculars. If focused on a resolution chart at the same distance each 8x version resolved the same degree as any other. The differences are going to boil down to cost, personal preferences, which will center on ergonomics, and apparent build quality. I say apparent build because while they look and feel different, they likely are more similar in construction than they are different. I’m not going to tear down somebody else’s binocular to evaluate construction. That is out of my pay grade as well. I’ll go through them one at a time focusing on the strengths and weaknesses (in my personal opinion only).
GPO Passion HD 8x42: This binocular has what most would likely pick as a superior build and finish. This has the smoothest over all feel to the finish, there being less tactile rubber armor. However, it is not slick or hard to grasp and hold. Frankly it has, to my way of thinking, the best eye cup assembly in the business, yes I include the top tier $2,000+ binoculars here. This obviously received a lot of thought and attention. The intermediate stops are definite, you can actually feel and hear them snap into place. They will stay put. It is the only one of the group to have a locking diopter mechanism, and the only one with a center focus located diopter adjustment.
The focus has been well thought out. Is is a soft, easy, smooth, movement and has no slack when changing direction. It is counter clockwise to infinity, moves through one and one half turns. It behaves as a relatively quick focusing binocular.
Any binocular will have its weakness. While there is practically nothing to point a finger at here, many will feel there should be a wider fov on the 8x model. While I certainly understand the sentiment (I freely admit to having a personal preference in an 8* fov in 8x), there is nothing in the overall image that will particularly seem to restrict the overall view. This may well cause some to pass it by on that basis alone. That is a shame as it may well cause the spec sheet conscious consumer to pass over what may well be their best choice. As I stated in my review, it gives the impression of being wider than the advertised 375’ (7.2*). The overall image here has very minimum distortion present in the view. Horizontal or vertical lines of man made structures show practically no bending across the view. The edge distortion is there, but practically unnoticeable. It has the feel and look of field flatteners, but none are used here. CA suppression is first rate.
A binocular needs to be evaluated on its holistic presentation. When one looks at this balance, the fov will assume a decrease in overall importance with this binocular. That may well be impossible for the specification obsessed, but I’d wager it to be largely accurate in this instance.
Maven B1 8x and 10x42: There is a degree of similarity in the appearance of the B1 and the GPO. The size, the build geometry, and the weight are essentially identical. The Maven has a radically different feel to the armor. It is completely covered in a very soft, pliable ...well, silicone leather for lack of a better term. While the GPO is not too slick due to lesser amounts of pliable armor, the B1 is not too tactile to be too slip resistant. If one chooses to go the customization route, the designer coverings are less tactile than the black and gray stock covering.
The eye cup assembly is better than many binoculars, but it less definite than the GPO. Expect the B1 assembly to stay put as well. The focus is a bit stiffer than the GPO and has a barely there slack in direction changing. This is a demo unit and while it looks new, has had some use. It is also counterclockwise to infinity and turns through one and one quarter turns. As with the GPO it performs as a relatively fast focusing binocular.
This one comes advertised with a 7.4* fov. As with the GPO it appears wider on first look than the stated fov. In this case, it is because it is wider than the spec sheet. It measures 425’, just bit over 8*.
There is a well done classical edge with this binocular. There is a minor amount of pincushion at the extreme edge with a narrow band of field curvature just inside of that. Distraction at the edge is non existent for normal human eyes. As with the GPO there is minimum distortion in the field. CA suppression is first rate.
This one is pretty easy to make unique to your tastes. The different coverings and other external items can be done in a nearly endless number of combinations.
The 8x and 10x versions are typical in that their distinction is only that typical of 8x vs 10x binoculars.
Stryka S9 8x42: This is the top end model for Stryka. There is no real difference in good light brightness among these binoculars. However the S9, for whatever reasons, is indeed the brightest of the lot in dim, poor light conditions. It is a definite difference, one that shows up in normal, hand held field usage. This one is worth a look if you do a lot of low light observing. This one features SK 15 prism glass. I can't say if this has much field difference for the average user or not, but is it marketed to be brighter. Perhaps this is the reason for the noted difference, maybe it is just a feature of the balance of the design components. I have had a lot of dim, poor light conditions here lately, and this difference has held up. I should note that as one gets on toward the very tail end of light at the end of the day, the difference is less readily apparent.
The S9 has an advertised 7.5* fov. This one matches the specification. It also has a classical edge performance. Like the B1 it has a bit of outer pincushion and some field curvature inside of that. There is an ever so slight tendency for this one to bend horizontal lines. It will not be noticed unless you go actively looking for it. It is only very slightly behind the GPO and the Maven here.
As with the above binoculars, the focus is counterclockwise to infinity. There is a focus travel of one and one quarter turn.
The weakness here is the eye cup assembly. They are OK, but certainly not in the League of the GPO, and inferior to the Maven. The stops are definite enough, but there is a greater tendency for the eye cup to slip from your preferred stop. The binocular has sort of a chubby feel. The arts and design people evidently carried the idea of a ridge line of greater armor thickness around the outer edges of the S9. Frankly I have long thought the idea of more armor directly equating to a higher degree of ruggedness is somewhat misleading. I also am not much of a fan of using ridges and various degrees of armor thickness to “enhance” a design.
Stryka S7 8x42: If your tastes lean towards a very compact 42 mm binocular, then this one is where you need to look. It has the added advantage of a wider than advertised fov. This is specified at 7.8* (408’) but measures 8.3* (435’). So you get it both compact and wide.
The eye cup assembly is better than it is on the more expensive S9. The stops are more definite, and there is less tendency for the setting to slip.
This one focuses clockwise to infinity, being different in that regard from all of the others. It is also of a Chinese source, again all of the others are Japanese. The focus travel is just over one and one quarter turns, medium in stiffness and free of slack.
Like the S9 and the others here it has a well done classical edge with nice sweet spot, minimal pincushion and field curvature. I did note some CA present in my initial review of this binocular. However at this point, I do not see CA.
Like the S9, the design people added some thicker armor for a design flair. For the reasons I am not a big fan of this approach, see comments above. Particularly here since it adds bulk to what is a nicely compact 42 mm binocular;
The image is overall, bright and sharp. It is also less money than the others above and represents a top choice in value for cost.
Tract Toric 8x and 10x42: To round this one out here is the Toric. It has been the subject of a lot of good press. Tract claims it is the best binocular on the Market for less than $700. I am not real inclined to dispute this claim, but I’d have to add the S7 to the mix here. Either are excellent choices if you need to land in this quality bracket for under $700.
While somewhat similar in appearance to the GPO and Maven, it is smaller than either one, but larger than the S7.
Like all but the S7, it has a counterclockwise to infinity focus travel. Typical of the rest, there is a travel distance of one and a quarter turns.
The armor is a light gray color and is of a similar feel to the B1. The main difference is the outer ege of the armor is a fine pebble finish to the smoother grain finish of the rest of the armor.
This is another one with a wider than listed fov. It is specified at 377’, or 7.2*. It measures 8*.
The image is nice and bright with another well done classical edge. Minimal pincushion and curvature. Horizontal lines bend hardly at all.
CA and glare are well controlled.
The weakness here is the eye cups and the diopter. Honestly the eye cups won’t be an issue for most people. They are somewhat loose on top of the ocular tube and they extend a bit above the ocular lens when fully retracted. While they seem to be fine for me with reading glasses they may not be the choice for those with more definite needs in eye cup distance from the lens. The diopter is just a bit loose for my taste. An O-ring under the dial should fix any issues. A couple of O-rings under the eye cup should take out the wobble.
Like the B1, the difference between the 8x and 10x Toric is simply whatever can be associated with the typical magnification difference. Like 10x get that. Like 8x, get that.
Summary: The image on all of these is bright, sharp, clear, with excellent contrast, color rendition, and quite neutral color balance. In good light I don’t think I can say which is best. I also doubt the vast majority of viewers would be able to tell these apart from each other based on the quality of the image. They all offer the sort of view that tends to make the viewer forget there is a binocular providing the view we are seeing.
What we have here is a group of binoculars that will seriously challenge the alpha tier of binoculars. I’m not going to tell you they are better, or even the equal of the top end. But what I will say is that these will push the top tier to the limit. They might be a step behind at the finish, but almost nobody will even notice a difference. When you get down to it, if you can’t see what you need to see with one of these, your problem is not with the binocular. I would easily take one of these on a trip to anywhere. Some may need the added feeling of quality the get from an expensive binocular, but me, I’d rather use the money for an day or two more on the trip. These or an alpha? Get what you can afford. Can’t swing the alpha? Quit worrying about it.
OK, these are new companies. Some people seem aghast at the very idea. Not all new endeavors will fail. These are all started by people with wide experience in the optics industry. Unlike some new ventures none of these seem to be either under financed, or understaffed. If you need the security blanket yo see in old brand names, that is fine. The gripe about new companies is the second oldest optics argument on the internet. The case for the old guard is the oldest optics argument. If there is an argument to be made, it is lost if that is the main point of contention. Personally I welcome the competition. Something to keep the old guard on their toes and off their laurels.