Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
I have no doubt that the SRBC are significantly better (optically) than any of the subalphas and rather closing up towards the alphas.
Cheers,
Holger
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Swarovski NL 8x42 vs Skyrover apo 8x42 sharpness contrast microcontrast etc (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter blake69
- Start date
I have no doubt that the SRBC are significantly better (optically) than any of the subalphas and rather closing up towards the alphas.
Cheers,
Holger
tenex
reality-based
I was about to thank you for the kindness of agreeing "exactly" with my watering down of your opinion even as you restated it for clarity, but now you seem to be moderating it yourself. I think we have a strange situation in which comparison is necessary but ranking is problematic.
Some (many?) here already saw little difference now in "pure optical performance" between subalphas and alphas, or indeed between the $500 range and $1000. So any question of crushing, killing, or slaying will be highly subjective. (Alpha makers were already "in trouble" in this sense, but seem to survive for now.) A larger FOV doesn't seem equally important to everyone, nor does edge sharpness (whatever its ring issues), despite being admirable technical accomplishments, so someone might even choose another $500 bin over SRBC for other reasons.
What then drives all the hype and need for expert opinions: fear of missing out on... what exactly? A cheaper bin that in some respects may be nearly as good as today's alphas? Is there even anything new about this situation?
SuperDuty
Well-known member
If you’re talking SF compared to NL, that’s something I’ve done firsthand, to my eyes the NL wins that comparison easily, I’ve compared the 8X42 and 10X42 SF against the 8X42 and 12X42 NL, I’m talking optics only, not ergonomics, and yes, it most definitely does matter to me a great deal when I’m putting out $2000 or $3000 for a pair of binoculars. 😊
At the same time here there are many that see an "obvious" difference between the ~1000$ class and ~3000. I even read from someone here that the SFL is a clear "step up" from a CHD or MHG.
The expression that I used "to crush" is a bit exaggerated, but for people that value wide AFOV and edge sharpness, this instrument seems to be too good to be true. I believe that to have a wide field of view that is at the same time very well corrected up to the edge is a big achievement. All subalphas seem to not have eyepiece designs that are sophisticated enough to reach good edge clarity, at moderate FOVs. The only binos that seemed to grasp this goal were the highest end, Nikon EDG, Zeiss SF, Swaro EL, with rather moderate FOVs (except NL Pure). The SRBC does all of this, but stretching the FOV much further.
I don't doubt that the Chinese manufacturers are capable of building something like this, but I wonder why among the binocular series from the top four brands, the only binos that are able to reach such impressive characteristics are the NL Pures, relatively recently.
A2GG
Beth
I don’t care how good this Chinese binocular is. I’m sticking with my two Euro binos because they have qualities I prefer and they just fit me well. I don’t feel like I overpaid or was ripped off paying 1,000 bucks each. Leica and Swarovski have a history and reputation of excellence. They are reliable and have exceptional build quality and as a result function very well. They’re thoughtfully designed and have good ergonomics. The optics are very satisfying and pleasing to me and they have the right type of color balance I prefer (this is important to me). so, no I don’t feel like I paid too much for them because I feel they’re worth every penny. I don’t feel a need to buy a super-alpha for 3,000 bucks and I also don’t feel the need to go looking for the best ‘bang for buck’ binocular there is. I’m just finally happy with what I have and appreciate their qualities. that’s my 2 cents on the ‘Asian vs Euro’ debate.
Whatever you have enjoy it and whatever you’re looking for I hope you find it.
Whatever you have enjoy it and whatever you’re looking for I hope you find it.
I think it doesn‘t „crush“ anything! It is optically very good. How good exactly will be further confirmed over time; regarding other areas than the optics, things are currently less clear, based on my own experience and on what I hear.
Last edited:
They see, or they think they see?
I wonder sometimes how things were to turn out if we could do blind tests, where people wouldn‘t know which of the binos in the test group are the alphas …..
I beg to disagree. Binos not considered „alpha“ like a Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 or Canon 10x42 and others have a well corrected image all across the field.
A lot of the major optics reviewers like the Cornell Study uses strategies to avoid brand biases. Cornell uses a two-letter code on the test binoculars instead of referring to them by brand. Some reviews are blind, and it seems they always ferret out the alpha models from the MIC models.
The Cornell Lab Review: Affordable Full-Size 8x42 Binoculars
We reviewed more than two dozen pairs of 8x42 binoculars—a popular, versatile choice for most kinds of birdwatching. Here's what we learned.
Last edited:
We all must be reminded, that we are all individuals having different views, attitudes and most importantly our eyes see/perceive the physical view of the world not always the same. Factor in the differences in our physical facial characteristics and we will always have these discussions here …. My binocular is better than yours !
Owlbarred
Well-known member
Well said, all of it. Add to your comments: Customer service (repair), quality control, and durability of the SRBC are unknowns at this time.
Reminds me of folks who eagerly bought the 3-cylinder Triumph Trident motorcycles in the late 60s-mid 70s after excellent short-term road test reviews in various magazines. Good handling and great exhaust note (perhaps the best ever) but horribly plagued with reliability and maintenance issues... and tons of buyers remorse.
Having said that, I do hope the SRBCs are that rare exception to the mantra "You get what you pay for." If so, it's a huge leap forward given its low price.
Last edited:
Like others, I'm not comfortable with "crush".
For instance, I have the "subalpha" SFL. I prefer it to the SF I own too. Only my NL Pure gives me a better view but I use it less because the SFL weight and size are a big plus.
Others have expressed different or similar opinions so we are at a level where we are talking nuances and personal preferences, not wrestling.
tenex
reality-based
Well, SFs are arguably competitive, but I too find this an interesting question. It reminds me of the recent conversation (from CN) about Swaro not being fundamentally "innovative"... what was left to innovate, by the time they came along? Binoculars have been around for so long, and some earlier designs seem remarkably competitive with today's. Every real innovation I can think of except phase correction occurred before WW2, most before WW1. Indeed, I think manufacturers have on the whole been incredibly conservative (lazy?) rather than innovative, especially the alphas given the prices they charge. It's not hard to deliver a wide field if edge sharpness isn't required (think of those 7x35s from the 1970s), and hardly rocket science to achieve both, or nearly so. And yet we've lived with an industry standard of 60° AFOV, with some models not even meeting that, especially at lower magnifications. Why should it have taken so long to produce something like NL?
I suppose that says it all.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I’m so surprised about how many people are so excited about another inexpensive/cheap optic from China. It’s like every body is ready to jump out a windows to send their money to China without a thought, other than to a save some money, even when there are tried and true other options. It’s like buying goods from Nazi Germany in the late 1930’s.
Good quality optics (and other goods) from China have been discussed here for a while, even before Covid. Myself and many others believe, that if this trend of manufacturers selling out and consumers continuing to send their money, most if not all high end optics will be made in China in the very near future. And with it will be all the ramifications of enriching a country like China
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s more just on this website, I can assure you that this Gung ho consensus about buying China is not prevalent on many other sporting equipment forums.
Good quality optics (and other goods) from China have been discussed here for a while, even before Covid. Myself and many others believe, that if this trend of manufacturers selling out and consumers continuing to send their money, most if not all high end optics will be made in China in the very near future. And with it will be all the ramifications of enriching a country like China
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s more just on this website, I can assure you that this Gung ho consensus about buying China is not prevalent on many other sporting equipment forums.
This is Godwin's law and proof you have really no point.
This is probably the most accurate review of the Banner Cloud APO 8x42 that I have read after using the binoculars. They are compared to a Nikon M7 which they should be compared to, not a Swarovski NL. Some quotes from the review.
www.birdforum.net
Bad Points
"The binoculars chill hands in cold weather because of the thin armor. The overall build quality and materials are comparable to Meade Master Class, and simpler than Nikon M7 has. "
"The focuser action varies in different directions: it is light in the CW direction, and has average stiffness in the CCW direction."
"The eye cups are made of plastic and can be screwed off from eyepieces. They have the outer diameter (which touches the nose) of 48mm, middle diameter (which touches eyebrows) of 45,5mm and inner diameter of 35,5mm. The top surface is flat and made of rubber covering."
"When the eye cups are collapsed, I can see the whole field of view with my thin rim glasses and almost full field (~90%) with sunglasses on. Only with unscrewed eye cups, can I see the whole field with sunglasses on."
"Assuming all above Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO could be just a good pair of binoculars of the middle $400-500 price tag. But there are three features which make them stand out."
"Downsides of the Banner Cloud: it’s a heavy pair of binoculars; the fit and finish look more like of binoculars of the $300 price tag; it has a slight Rolling Ball effect; as was discussed on CN, it could have some warranty issues"
Good Points
"To summarize, the view through Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO is really a joy, because:
-the view is bright, there is no noticeable darkening of the image;
-the view is almost neutral in color reproduction, with no noticeable warm\cold hint;
-there is no noticeable field curvature while panning;
-there is no noticeable color fringing, except the very edges;
-there is almost no edge softness."
Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review
I made a review of Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 some time ago and finished it with a short wish-list for future Cronus models. Some aspects from the list were improved in Meade MasterClass series, and all were noticeably improved in a new Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO. Yes, the new 8x42 APO looks to me as...
www.birdforum.net
Bad Points
"The binoculars chill hands in cold weather because of the thin armor. The overall build quality and materials are comparable to Meade Master Class, and simpler than Nikon M7 has. "
"The focuser action varies in different directions: it is light in the CW direction, and has average stiffness in the CCW direction."
"The eye cups are made of plastic and can be screwed off from eyepieces. They have the outer diameter (which touches the nose) of 48mm, middle diameter (which touches eyebrows) of 45,5mm and inner diameter of 35,5mm. The top surface is flat and made of rubber covering."
"When the eye cups are collapsed, I can see the whole field of view with my thin rim glasses and almost full field (~90%) with sunglasses on. Only with unscrewed eye cups, can I see the whole field with sunglasses on."
"Assuming all above Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO could be just a good pair of binoculars of the middle $400-500 price tag. But there are three features which make them stand out."
"Downsides of the Banner Cloud: it’s a heavy pair of binoculars; the fit and finish look more like of binoculars of the $300 price tag; it has a slight Rolling Ball effect; as was discussed on CN, it could have some warranty issues"
Good Points
"To summarize, the view through Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO is really a joy, because:
-the view is bright, there is no noticeable darkening of the image;
-the view is almost neutral in color reproduction, with no noticeable warm\cold hint;
-there is no noticeable field curvature while panning;
-there is no noticeable color fringing, except the very edges;
-there is almost no edge softness."
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
No, it’s an analogy that you clearly didn’t understand. And it seems whatever point was being made went way over your head.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
This was a good review. I’m a little surprised of the differing opinion in this review and some others in relation to Holger and Neil’s. There seems to be a huge difference between some placing the BC in the $500 Nikon M7 level and $3000 alpha level.This is probably the most accurate review of the Banner Cloud APO 8x42 that I have read after using the binoculars. They are compared to a Nikon M7 which they should be compared to, not a Swarovski NL. Some quotes from the review.
If the Banner Cloud APO 8x42 was even close to the NL, I would have kept them for $500. I sold mine the next day, so that should tell you something. They did sell pretty quickly. Some of these gushing reviews tempt you to try these binoculars like I did, but I am warning you, don't waste your money.
Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review
I made a review of Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 some time ago and finished it with a short wish-list for future Cronus models. Some aspects from the list were improved in Meade MasterClass series, and all were noticeably improved in a new Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO. Yes, the new 8x42 APO looks to me as...
Bad Points
"The binoculars chill hands in cold weather because of the thin armor. The overall build quality and materials are comparable to Meade Master Class, and simpler than Nikon M7 has. "
"The focuser action varies in different directions: it is light in the CW direction, and has average stiffness in the CCW direction."
"The eye cups are made of plastic and can be screwed off from eyepieces. They have the outer diameter (which touches the nose) of 48mm, middle diameter (which touches eyebrows) of 45,5mm and inner diameter of 35,5mm. The top surface is flat and made of rubber covering."
"When the eye cups are collapsed, I can see the whole field of view with my thin rim glasses and almost full field (~90%) with sunglasses on. Only with unscrewed eye cups, can I see the whole field with sunglasses on."
"Assuming all above Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO could be just a good pair of binoculars of the middle $400-500 price tag. But there are three features which make them stand out."
"Downsides of the Banner Cloud: it’s a heavy pair of binoculars; the fit and finish look more like of binoculars of the $300 price tag; it has a slight Rolling Ball effect; as was discussed on CN, it could have some warranty issues"
Good Points
"To summarize, the view through Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO is really a joy, because:
-the view is bright, there is no noticeable darkening of the image;
-the view is almost neutral in color reproduction, with no noticeable warm\cold hint;
-there is no noticeable field curvature while panning;
-there is no noticeable color fringing, except the very edges;
-there is almost no edge softness."
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
Opinions always differ, not only on what's best value for money but even how close a budget bin comes to a more expensive one, which sounds simple or objective but really isn't. It depends entirely on what points are given greater weight, suffers from differences in perception and difficulty in measuring some properties accurately, etc. I can understand an initial reaction to SRBC being surprisingly good, and Neil's gushing review further seemed to have a personal axe to grind. Surely the buzz will diminish soon.
I like to avoid MIC myself when I can, but that's really just an affectation, not a moral principle. Arguments against buying from China suffer from two problems. The more obvious is that being forty years too late makes them seem superfluous now. The second may be more troubling: recalling that it was largely a desire to thwart the industrial development of Germany in the early 1900s that led to two World Wars. That may be the analogy that matters.
I like to avoid MIC myself when I can, but that's really just an affectation, not a moral principle. Arguments against buying from China suffer from two problems. The more obvious is that being forty years too late makes them seem superfluous now. The second may be more troubling: recalling that it was largely a desire to thwart the industrial development of Germany in the early 1900s that led to two World Wars. That may be the analogy that matters.
Similar threads
