Perhaps another game changer (9 Viewers)

[Binocollector]

Anything below ca. 17 to 18 mm doesn't work for me. Yes, that might be out of the norm but it's a deal breaker for the bino for me.
The handful of binos that worked for me with glasses so far:
Kowa BDII 6.5x32: 17mm ER
Kite Cervus HD 8x56: 20mm ER
Ddoptics Nighteagle Ergo DX 10x56: 21.5 mm ER
Ddoptics Lux HR 10x50 (barely): 18mm ER
Fuji HC 8x42: 18 mm ER
Meopta Meopro HD (old version - works barely, FoV slightly cut off): 18mm ER.

 

[Chris Pringle]

Anything below ca. 17 to 18 mm doesn't work for me. Yes, that might be out of the norm but it's a deal breaker for the bino for me.
The handful of binos that worked for me with glasses so far:
Kowa BDII 6.5x32: 17mm ER
Kite Cervus HD 8x56: 20mm ER
Ddoptics Nighteagle Ergo DX 10x56: 21.5 mm ER
Ddoptics Lux HR 10x50 (barely): 18mm ER
Fuji HC 8x42: 18 mm ER
Meopta Meopro HD (old version - works barely, FoV slightly cut off): 18mm ER.

Is ER vs. usable (effective) ER the source of the confusion here?

Please note that total ER (as measured on that thread) on the Sky Rover Banner Cloud is 18mm, exactly the same as the Fuji HC 8x42 you’ve got on your list.

Now, the “usable/effective” ER on the Fuji HC is 14.5mm vs. 13.5mm on the SRBC. Not sure why you’d discard that Sky Rover bino due to a mere 1mm difference in usable ER.

 

[Patudo]

18mm total vs 13.5mm usable is quite a difference. It would allow SR quite a bit of leeway to increase usable eye relief by redesigning eyecups, etc.

Incidentally, I don't think the eyecups being higher than the eyepiece lens (decreasing usable eye relief) is necessarily a bad thing, as it helps give the glass a bit of protection; just like recessing objective lenses deep inside the barrels helps protect them. My 8x32 FL has not much protection in this respect, as there is not much eyecup depth around them (see photo from scopeviews.co.uk).

1mm doesn't sound like much, but I certainly believe it can make a real difference. I wouldn't mind if eye relief of my 10x42 SE was 1mm shorter!

 

[Binocollector]

Is ER vs. usable (effective) ER the source of the confusion here?

Please note that total ER (as measured on that thread) on the Sky Rover Banner Cloud is 18mm, exactly the same as the Fuji HC 8x42 you’ve got on your list.

Now, the “usable/effective” ER on the Fuji HC is 14.5mm vs. 13.5mm on the SRBC. Not sure why you’d discard that Sky Rover bino due to a mere 1mm difference in usable ER.

There is no confusion. I'm aware of the distinction. But have you looked at the pics on CN and how deeply recessed those lenses are? "Usable" ER between that bino and the Fuji HC 8x42 could never ever be the same.
And, yes, 1 mm (from my own measurements it's more like 2 mm) might well make a difference for me between usable and truncated FoV. So why would I buy a new bino with 9.1° FoV when possibly a portion of that is lost?
I might still get one but I will only believe that it might work with my glasses once I tested it because in fact the Fuji HC barely works with glasses. The only ones where really not one tiny fraction of the FoV is lost for me, are the Kite Cervus HD with a whopping 21.5mm and the DDoptics Nighteagle Ergo DX with 20 mm. On both of these the lenses aren't much recessed but I'd have to measure it to give you an accurate number.

 

[Swedpat]

Whether the stated ER is correct or not(there are many cases when it's not), the usable ER is what makes sense.
While it has to be a small margin to avoid eyeglass lens to touch the eye lens or metal rim, with an optimal design it is not necessary to waste much more than 1mm of the ER.
Despite that, there are a lot of examples where 5 or more mm of ER is wasted.
Fujinon FMTRX 10x50 has 20mm ER, which I think is correct. The usable ER is measured to only 13mm, though. Here we can conclude the stated ER is completely irrelevant to even mention in the specification.
In some cases the wasted ER is mainly caused by an unnecessary high rubber eyecup edge. If this consists of solid rubber you can then increase the usable ER by simply cut of a bit of the eyecup. I have done this with 2 of my binoculars:
Bresser "Lidl-bargain" 10x50 and Vortex Bantam 6,5x32.
In other cases it's not possible, at least not that easy.

 

[Chris Pringle]

Looking at the Kite Cervus HD 8x56 (your fave), the ER = 20mm and usable ER = 14.5mm. So the glass must be really deep in the eyecup.

“So why would I buy a new bino with 9.1° FoV when possibly a portion of that is lost?”

Yes, not ideal. But even if a portion of the FOV is lost (say you get to see 8.0-8.5°), it might still give you the widest FOV (that your eyes can see) from any other bino with that magnification. Having said that, it would be nice to get input from eyeglass wearers but this product is way too new on the market.

I am being cautiously optimistic, but so far I have been taken aback by the capabilities of that Sky Rover bino. Every report that comes out is like Wow!

 

[Chris Pringle]

Whether the stated ER is correct or not(there are many cases when it's not), the usable ER is what makes sense.
While it has to be a small margin to avoid eyeglass lens to touch the eye lens or metal rim, with an optimal design it is not necessary to waste much more than 1mm of the ER.
Despite that, there are a lot of examples where 5 or more mm of ER is wasted.
Fujinon FMTRX 10x50 has 20mm ER, which I think is correct. The usable ER is measured to only 13mm, though. Here we can conclude the stated ER is completely irrelevant to even mention in the specification.
In some cases the wasted ER is mainly caused by an unnecessary high rubber eyecup edge. If this consists of solid rubber you can then increase the usable ER by simply cut of a bit of the eyecup. I have done this with 2 of my binoculars:
Bresser "Lidl-bargain" 10x50 and Vortex Bantam 6,5x32.
In other cases it's not possible, at least not that easy.

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a good “usable ER” for the average eyeglass wearer?

 

[Swedpat]

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a good “usable ER” for the average eyeglass wearer?

I think around 15mm is pretty close to the average useable ER in order to provide an open unvignetted image of the entire FOV.

 

[Conndomat]

Fujinon FMTRX 10x50 has 20mm ER, which I think is correct. The usable ER is measured to only 13mm, though. Here we can conclude the stated ER is completely irrelevant to even mention in the specification.

I don't understand?

IMO this rumor has spread to CN. widespread (I won't name the author) and has subsequently proven to be wrong.

The Fujinon is one of the most comfortable binoculars I have ever used due to its long EP position.

Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

I think around 15mm is pretty close to the average useable ER in order to provide an open unvignetted image of the entire FOV.

For many short-sighted glasses wearers, 15mm is likely. but not enough for everyone!

Farsighted glasses wearers usually need 16mm>

It's not for nothing that the premium brands with their Alphas all have EP beyond 16mm!

Andreas

 

[Chris Pringle]

For many short-sighted glasses wearers, 15mm is likely. but not enough for everyone!

Farsighted glasses wearers usually need 16mm>

It's not for nothing that the premium brands with their Alphas all have EP beyond 16mm!

Andreas

My question was for the “average” eyeglass wearer. I feel that Swedpat answered the question well and to the best of his knowledge. It is obvious that there will be individuals who will fall outside of that “average”.

 

[Binocollector]

Looking at the Kite Cervus HD 8x56 (your fave), the ER = 20mm and usable ER = 14.5mm. So the glass must be really deep in the eyecup.

I very much doubt that measurement.
Just measured it myself and the lense is recessed about 3 mm -- so the usable ER is 17 mm not 14.5. Not sure what Pinac measured there but it's wrong. Maybe they changed the design.

 

[dries1]

Seems like there are a few folks who really want to like this new sky rover glass. Perhaps they should step up and order one themselves to see how the view is with their glasses.

 

[Canip]

I very much doubt that measurement.
Just measured it myself and the lense is recessed about 3 mm -- so the usable ER is 17 mm not 14.5. Not sure what Pinac measured there but it's wrong. Maybe they changed the design.

No design change - I simply messed up. You are right and I was wrong - usable ER is 16mm as I just re-measured. Thank you for spotting that! Will correct my website.
Canip

 

[Binocollector]

No design change - I simply messed up. You are right and I was wrong - usable ER is 16mm as I just re-measured. Thank you for spotting that! Will correct my website.
Canip

I almost started questioning my own eyes .
I used the Fuji HC 8x42 again and in fact -- the ER is not quite sufficient for me. There is still some slight loss of FoV.
I might still get one of these Banner Clouds if they become available through a European seller. I am not ordering in China and paying 19% tax and shipping.
That IMHO makes the price not that great after all despite the impressive specifications.

 

[Patudo]

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a good “usable ER” for the average eyeglass wearer?

Good question. In the past 15mm (stated) seemed to be a kind of industry standard, but eye relief has definitely gotten longer in current binoculars. I think 15mm effective eye relief probably covers most glasses wearers, although some might need more (but could mitigate this by choosing glasses that sit closer to their face). But the binoculars I mentioned in my post #40 upthread do show that it's possible for a binocular design to have shorter ER than that and still be commercially successful.

back to the SRBC - maybe this will be the APM equivalent in the birding world - that is to say something that performs close to an industry standard (APM to Fujinon) that it becomes a legit mainstream choice. Time will tell I suppose. Of course a good few folks already bird quite happily with PRC-made binos (Hawke etc). Mr Ludes must be rubbing his hands... 😸

 

[Swedpat]

Here is an example of two of my eyeglasses.
The model above allows my eye to come approximately 2mm closer to the eye lens.
This has made the change from not satisfying to fully satisfying with a few binoculars for me.
It can be worth to check out if a change of eyeglasses(or getting an extra pair) can make the required difference for getting satisfying full FOV with binoculars.

 

[wllmspd]

Neil English seems to have got a pair himself, will be very interesting to have another review of these coming soon….

Peter

 

[dries1]

The thread on CN re the bc bino has gone awry, lol, fitting really, how much more info can squeezed out. Time for those cheap scates on CN to pony up the cash and get one so their questions can actually be answered.

 

[oldfortyfive]

Here is an example of two of my eyeglasses.
The model above allows my eye to come approximately 2mm closer to the eye lens.
This has made the change from not satisfying to fully satisfying with a few binoculars for me.
It can be worth to check out if a change of eyeglasses(or getting an extra pair) can make the required difference for getting satisfying full FOV with binoculars.

View attachment 1563068

I also switched frame styles to make binoculars easier to use. Made a huge difference. My optician had never heard of this issue.