I don't know anybody who has done exactly that yet. The high opinions we are getting about the SVbony scopes are very intriguing, but I would like to see exactly the same tests applied to them that we've seen applied to high end scopes here, like photos of high magnification star tests and resolution measurements using a standard chart like the USAF 1951. Neil's test is the closest we've had, but the photos he's posted are of limited usefulness because we don't know if, on our computer screens, their image scale subtends the equivalent of 20x or 100x at the eyepiece, or how they have been affected by the limitations of the camera sensor or how uploading has degraded them.Has anyone compared the ED/APO versions of SVBony spotting scopes against high-end spotting scopes (Swaro, Kowa, Zeiss)? I am curious how much image quality gain you get by paying 5-10x the price. From my experience you can only get minor increase in CA control since, I can hardly see any CA in my scopes. I can also change my eyepieces to get same AFOV or better as the expensive scopes. That would only leave resolution (across enter FOV), brightness and contrast improvements possible. I also find changing my eyepieces can make a difference here. In most cases I am limited by atmospheric condition and not by the resolution of my scope. I am curious how they compare measured on resolution charts under bright and dark conditions.
I didn’t realize that the Nikon Monarch 82ED spotting scope was made in China. It is an interesting spotting scope, since it hits above it’s price point in optical performance. It is unusual for a scope to include a field flattener in their lens elements at this price point. This gives their scope even sharpness across the field of view. It seems that the Japanese and German/Austrian manufacturers cannot compete with the Chinese manufacturers at this price range and bellow any longer. I can soon see that Chinese optics manufacturing will compete and surpass the current high-end manufacturers in the near future (at least they will in price).I don't know anybody who has done exactly that yet. The high opinions we are getting about the SVbony scopes are very intriguing, but I would like to see exactly the same tests applied to them that we've seen applied to high end scopes here, like photos of high magnification star tests and resolution measurements using a standard chart like the USAF 1951. Neil's test is the closest we've had, but the photos he's posted are of limited usefulness because we don't know if, on our computer screens, their image scale subtends the equivalent of 20x or 100x at the eyepiece, or how they have been affected by the limitations of the camera sensor or how uploading has degraded them.
I know from personal experience that the $1600 Chinese made Nikon Monarch 82ED is in the same class optically as the most expensive scopes out there. Is it possible that some sub $1000 scopes could also be that good? Let's see the hard evidence.
I don't know if I can be much help Henry, but I had one sample of the SV406P that I can provide some observations on. The 16-48x65mm ED version.The high opinions we are getting about the SVbony scopes are very intriguing, but I would like to see exactly the same tests applied to them that we've seen applied to high end scopes here, like photos of high magnification star tests and resolution measurements using a standard chart like the USAF 1951.
That's good to know about the focuser on that 80mm. The coarse focuser on my 65mm was a bit stiff, but the fine focus was OK.My dual focuser works very well on my SVBony SV46P 20-60x 80mm spotting scope. I like it better than my helical focuser on my SVBony SA401 20-60x 85mm spotting scope. The SV46P actually seemed to be slightly under corrected at close range and improves at further distance. The main reason I like the dual focuser, is that the dual focusers doesn't shake the spotting scope so much when I adjust fine focus at 60x. The helical focuser is just fine and would actually be quicker to get to focus, if I didn't have to bother about spotting scope shaking at high power. For moving targets and at 20x, the helical focus is quicker to focus.
I should clarify and state that the 65mm SVBONY was OK in my mind for a ~$200 scope. If I didn't already own a scope(s) I might have kept it. Overall it seemed better than some of the low budget scopes that I have owned and used. For example, I had also tried a 65mm Athlon that seemed worse and was double the price.You may have a quality control issue with your SV406p 65mm spotting scope. I have heard other say that the SV406P 20-60x 80mm spotting scope is actually sharper than the SV46P at 60x long range. My SV46P is sharp and shows good contrast. It is not as good as the SA401, but I like the look of the colours in the SV46P a bit better. My main problem with long range testing, is that the atmospheric conditions are usually not good enough to get sharp focus. This is true even for my 200mm" telescope. I need to use lucky imaging to punch through the atmospheric distortions. I am really interested to hear a comparison of these SVBony scopes against the alpha scopes with real objective metrics.
Great second part to your earlier review on your website!This image was captured in the wee small hours of August 8 showing the last quarter Moon using the SA405 spotting scope and SC001 imaging camera:
View attachment 1525048
At 02:45 local time, Jupiter was also located just a few degrees southeast of the Moon and I took the opportunity to observe the planet with the SA 405 scope and 4mm Plossl eyepiece delivering 121x. I can report an excellent result. The image of the planet was fine and sharp, showing two prominent bands (SEB & NEB) and a couple of more subtle bands at higher and lower latitudes. Just a trace of CA seen on the planet's limb. The four Galilean satellites were also resolved as stellar-like point sources- two on either side of the planet. Overall, very pleased with its high-power capabilities, especially with the planet's sub-optimal altitude in my local sky at this time.