Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review (5 Viewers)

[Conndomat]

And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.

Somehow it's the other way around, with a booster you can see that the SF is slightly sharper, that Noctivid has the slightly higher contrast IMO.

I definitely can see sharpness difference between some different binoculars handheld without a resolution chart. With same or different magnification.

I used to think so too, until I examined various binoculars more closely.

There can be various factors why one binocular appears sharper than another, including a subjectively perceived higher contrast.

I bet that no one can see a difference in sharpness between an SF, Noctivid and NL using a handheld, even with a three-booster on a tripod the differences are marginal.

Andreas

 

[Patudo]

My thanks to the OP for putting together this review, which seems to have been read by some surprising folks . It's all I can do to take a photo of my binoculars sometimes, so going to the trouble to take multiple photos and note down/write up your observations is appreciated. I wouldn't be too fussed by comments about the lack of detailed resolution testing etc - fine if you're a professional reviewer, but the late Troubadour and many others posted reviews that were essentially totally subjective that plenty of folks found interesting and useful. (That said, since you already have a 4x booster, some comparitive tests with a couple of the other binoculars you mention - eg Nikon 8x30 EII and E, Nikon M7 - would be very interesting... )

It looks as though Nikon and other brands/rebranders that compete in the $500 category may need to think real hard about what they offer. It might not be a NL or SF "killer" (I can't imagine anyone with real experience really thought that), but killing something like a Terra is a different thing. The likes of Opticron/Hawke/Vanguard/APM etc have to be giving some thought to taking up rebadged versions (maybe with tweaks to eg the eyecups) surely.

PS. I guess the hundreds of people who asked questions about the WX/NL/SF should have gone out and bought them too?

 

[Conndomat]

I wouldn't be too fussed by comments about the lack of detailed resolution testing etc - fine if you're a professional reviewer, but the late Troubadour and many others posted reviews that were essentially totally subjective that plenty of folks found interesting and useful.

I think that's not the point!

I also find reviews of binoculars that have not been tested “professionally” interesting and overall the report on the banner is very nice.

It becomes problematic when you present a subjective impression as factually proven.

In order to be able to make really clear statements here, you have to fix the binoculars and, if possible, work with a booster.

There are studies that show that 8x binoculars of the same quality cannot really be checked for sharpness using a handheld device, the blur factor is simply too high.

I think here you should differentiate between subjectively perceived sharpness and precisely checked sharpness.

Ultimately, it should be pointed out that there can be different ratings here due to the variation in the series; although this is rarer for high-quality binoculars, it does happen.

In principle, you would have to test several models of a series in order to really be able to make an empirical statement.

Basically, any slightly higher quality binoculars should have sufficient sharpness on axis so that they do not stand out negatively when used handheld.

Andreas

 

[Patudo]

Agreed, resolution and perceived sharpness are not the same. One can be measured (which a professional review should do, but shouldn't really be expected from non-professionals, IMO), the other is subjective.

The funny thing is that actual measured resolution probably impresses commentators on this forum more (and if done with tripod and booster, really gets the oohs and aahs), whereas in actual birding use the perception of sharpness is probably more important.

 

[Conndomat]

The funny thing is that actual measured resolution probably impresses commentators on this forum more (and if done with tripod and booster, really gets the oohs and aahs), whereas in actual birding use the perception of sharpness is probably more important.

IMO, sharpness performance is often given too much importance!

Of course, binoculars should be sharp enough so that they are not noticeable when used handheld, but on the other hand, the sharpness performance should always be in context with other parameters.

Andreas

 

[Swedpat]

I used to think so too, until I examined various binoculars more closely.

There can be various factors why one binocular appears sharper than another, including a subjectively perceived higher contrast.

I bet that no one can see a difference in sharpness between an SF, Noctivid and NL using a handheld, even with a three-booster on a tripod the differences are marginal.

Andreas

I don't doubt you are right when comparing these alpha binoculars. But I can see difference between binoculars of a bit different class.
And when comparing cheaper roofs to porros in same price range, porros are usually noticeably sharper.

 

[dae33]

The funny thing is that actual measured resolution probably impresses commentators on this forum more (and if done with tripod and booster, really gets the oohs and aahs), whereas in actual birding use the perception of sharpness is probably more important.

This is exactly the same as what i think about a resolution test, but i can make a try. Share an example of a professional binoculars review with a reliable resolution test please.

 

[jackjack]

Thank you.


Why? I believe most people (and me as well) use binoculars in handheld mode much more often than a tripod mounted. And it's ok to describe a perceived sharpness in that case. I use a word "sharpness" to describe acutance, not a resolution. In case of a resolution test i fully agree, the test should be performed with a tripod mounted binoculars and with an additional booster. A photo test by a DSLR could be even preferable.



And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.

I don't own the NL 8x42, so can't make a direct comparison. May be will have a chance to do it in a month or so.
Concerning Canip question about the smell, the Banner Cloud had some plastic smell from a rubber covering for a while at the beginning. It is a binoculars for the price and not more, in terms of build quality and used materials.

Thank you.


Why? I believe most people (and me as well) use binoculars in handheld mode much more often than a tripod mounted. And it's ok to describe a perceived sharpness in that case. I use a word "sharpness" to describe acutance, not a resolution. In case of a resolution test i fully agree, the test should be performed with a tripod mounted binoculars and with an additional booster. A photo test by a DSLR could be even preferable.



And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.

I don't own the NL 8x42, so can't make a direct comparison. May be will have a chance to do it in a month or so.
Concerning Canip question about the smell, the Banner Cloud had some plastic smell from a rubber covering for a while at the beginning. It is a binoculars for the price and not more, in terms of build quality and used materials.

have compared NV vs NL 8x42



and SF VS NL 8x42



didn't compare three all but compared with same references nl 8x42 and el 8x32

between NV, SF, NL

NL is bit sharper then NV and hand down sharper then SF
VERY acknowledgeable in all of the method I do for the review.

so central sharpness is

SF << NV < NL.

sf has best 3D rendering and brightness.
and green, black, yellow color is best satuated because it's significant yellow - green hue.

so color fidelity is worst in SF but SF 8x42 has better fidelity then 10x42 SF. NV 8x42 is more transparent then I thought.

CA in center is much better then NV and very similar with NL. (SF is brighter then NL so, it can be obvious to think that SF controls CA better in center then NL.)
but much more CA in edge.

edge sharpness percnetage is about 92% in sf, 96% in NL, 85% in NV to my eyes.

SF has highest pincusion distortion. so panning is more comfortable then NL

eye placement is lot better in NL then SF and NV.
SF, NV has bit shorter eyecup for it's real eyerelif.
(especially NV 8x42)

x3 digiscoped of the SF 8x42 / NL 8x42.

take only one each of 12 photos taken.
there is a bench to fix my elbows and window frame to support my hand and bino.
and you guys will know the digiscoping skills seeing a digiscoped birds I have taken.

have taken over 300000 shot approx with Samsung S21
also do birding only with digiscope.
I know how to take, and use digiscope at least more then most of other users.

As I said before. Camera is not always right but not always wrong.



SF 8x42 / EL 8x32 (old Swarovision pre field pro)


YES it can be a sample variation
YES it can be just a uneven work by camera
YES it can be just one's wrong thought that every one can have diffrent feel.

BUT I said it because it is confident experience for me in these comparisons.
In my own eyes, diffrence gap in bigger.

after seeing all the buzz going on my previous thread of the bino comparison, I'm not planning to post other specific threads about this.

 

[dae33]

As i see no more comment, i assume my review is to be a most professional one
You've asked about a resolution test, and here it is. A smartphone was paced in 8 meters with a resolution test.



A screenshot with a DSLR through the Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO is on the left, a screenshot with a DSLR through the Nikon M7 8x42 is on the right. This is a fully synthetic test, as we do not have such a contrast image in reality. Visually, the resolution is comparable in both binoculars, but with a slight margin to the Banner Cloud.

I made some visual testing during daytime (in a cloudy weather) also, on a building wall in 85 meters. I set some binoculars on a tripod and tested them for a sharpness and resolution.
So, the sharpness (acutance) is best in:
1) Nikon P7 8x30,
2) Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO,
3) Nikon E 8x30,
4) Nikon M7 8x42.

The resolution is best in:
1) Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO, very similar, but slightly worse in Nikon M7 8x42,
2) Nikon P7 8x30 and Nikon E 8x30.

I don't see much difference between two x30 binoculars, neither between two x42 binoculars in resolution even with a x4 booster. Though i can differentiate them in sharpness (crispness). Two binoculars of x42 differ in resolution from x30 for sure, but this can be seen in a tripod mounted mode only.

 

[dries1]

To the average customer looking at the big three reviewed above is like below. Any individual who is going to pay $$$$ for one of them needs to try them for their own eyes, not base it on any info from these reviews. Just my opinion.

 

[NDhunter]

I wonder who is behind this company. Lots of talk and noise, another China made clone.
I remember well, how Zenray got its start, and finish.
Does anyone know about that ?
Jerry

 

[jgraider]

Plagerized from another site........

Sky Rover is a subdivision of United Optics. Binoculars, spotting scopes and telescopes are designed and fabricated there at the United Optics plant near Kunming (which I have just recently visited). There is no relation to the former Zen-Ray, whose binoculars were made at the Shunho plant, also in Kunming.

Cheers,

Holger

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Plagerized from another site........

During the time when I lived in China, from 2005 to 2016, I occasionally received binocular samples from UO for field testing. After I had collected my experiences with these samples, I sent them reports in which I complained about various issues that I had encountered, and among the most frequent complaints were problems with stray light in difficult (or not so difficult) light conditions due to incomplete baffling and/or prism leaks. In the last of these reviews, which were among the few that actually got published on my website, the Sky Rover 10x50 MS scored on a similar level as the Fujinon FMTR-SX in terms of stray light. Yet far from being perfect, but on an acceptable level. Meanwhile, the new Banner Cloud binoculars suppress stray light on a truly excellent level. Some parts of this learning curve I have probably experienced first hand, but more recently, they have reached a level of glare resistance that actually exceeds that of Swarovski binoculars in difficult light.

Swarovski binoculars I have field tested a couple of times. These are outstanding binoculars, but in terms of stray light they have always scored a little bit lower than similar high end models from Zeiss or Leica. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to improve over time, and with the latest 8x32 NL Pure these problems remained unsolved. I hope that this fact doesn't reflect an attitude as expressed by FatBoy Slim on his T-shirt. Time will tell who is going to plagiarize whom if the developments continue like that for another couple of years.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[dries1]

Where are the lens and prisms on the bc binocular manufactured?

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Where are the lens and prisms on the bc binocular manufactured?

All inside China

 

[dries1]

Thanks, so no Japanese affiliation.