Swarovski NL 8x42 vs Skyrover apo 8x42 sharpness contrast microcontrast etc (3 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

Based on what you’re saying here, what makes you say in your earlier statement that the NL is much more transparent than the Banner Cloud ?

Transparency is different from resolution. Transparency is the quality of easily being seen through, and resolution is the number of pixels in an image. Higher resolution means you can see more detail in the image. Transparency gives you that feeling that the object you are looking at is magically 8x closer to you without any lenses in between you and the object. Some people might call transparency clarity in a binocular.

Alpha level binoculars are generally more transparent to me because of higher quality glass, better prisms and better coatings which creates less optical aberrations in the final image presented to your eye. In audio circles, they often talk about the transparency of sound that an audio device produces, which should be a clean, aberration free sound without static, and it means basically the same thing in optics.

 

[[email protected]]

That would make your ratings of binos pretty useless …
Did you really want to say that?

I said they "seem" sharper. In reality, you probably can't discern the difference in resolution unless you boost the image in binoculars of comparable quality. There are other factors that make the binocular "seem" sharper, like contrast and low CA.

 

[SuperDuty]

Transparency is different from resolution. Transparency is the quality of easily being seen through, and resolution is the number of pixels in an image. Higher resolution means you can see more detail in the image. Transparency gives you that feeling that the object you are looking at is magically 8x closer to you without any lenses in between you and the object. Some people might call transparency clarity in a binocular. Alpha level binoculars are generally more transparent to me because of higher quality glass, better prisms and better coatings which creates less optical aberrations in the final image presented to your eye.

I assume resolution is simply the ability to see fine details, like text or test charts, transparency would seem to have mostly to do with light transmission, contrast, and color rendition, I’m not exactly sure about a lot of the more technical things, I just know what my eyes like, probably the only way I’ll ever know if this new Chinese wonder binocular is good enough to make me get rid of my NL12X42 is to buy one and compare them myself.

 

[[email protected]]

I assume resolution is simply the ability to see fine details, like text or test charts, transparency would seem to have mostly to do with light transmission, contrast, and color rendition, I’m not exactly sure about a lot of the more technical things, I just know what my eyes like, probably the only way I’ll ever know if this new Chinese wonder binocular is good enough to make me get rid of my NL12X42 is to buy one and compare them myself.

I will bet you that Banner Cloud will not make you get rid of your NL 12x42. There is no comparison between a Swarovski NL and the Banner Cloud optically or build quality wise, no matter what any of the reviews have said. The Banner Cloud is a good $500 MIC binocular. The NL is one of the best binoculars made.

Resolution is the ability to see fine details. Transparency on the other hand has nothing to do with light transmission, contrast or color rendition. Transparency is the ability to see through something without any aberrations or optical artifacts hindering your view. Think of looking through a dirty window and then cleaning it till it is spotless and then looking through it again. By cleaning the window, you made it more transparent. You can now see through it better. An NL or SF has better glass and better coatings than a Banner Cloud, so it is like looking through a cleaner window with no aberrations or reflections.

Sometime compare the coatings on your NL with a less expensive binocular, and you will see how non-reflective they are. Swarovski applies at least 20 different coatings to their glass. The coatings on a Swarovski are beautiful. Compare the coatings on a Zeiss Conquest HD to a Zeiss SF and you will notice a big difference. The coatings on the SF are much better, being much more non-reflective. In the end, you get what you pay for. Below is a picture of a Zeiss SF on the top and a Zeiss Conquest HD on the bottom to show the difference in the quality of the coatings. The SF's coatings are way more non-reflective. From Scopeviews.

Zeiss 10x32 Victory SF Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

"Perhaps it also explains the exceptional T* coatings: Zeiss’ signature pink, but even darker. And it doesn’t stop there. Shining a bright light into the objectives, there isn’t a single reflection that isn’t dark pink, perhaps the first time I’ve seen such complete coatings. Here, T* means something different from T* on a Conquest HD, whose pink coatings are noticeably more reflective (see below). As an aside, I recently compared the 8x42 Conquest with the 8x42 SF and found a much more subtle difference in their objective coatings."

 

[dries1]

I would wait on pulling the trigger, enjoy the NLs.
I would wait until there is a US vendor, so if you get a bum sample it is easier to deal with.
Wait and see if they improve qaqc issues.

 

[SuperDuty]

I will bet you that Banner Cloud will not make you get rid of your NL 12x42. There is no comparison between a Swarovski NL and the Banner Cloud optically or build quality wise, no matter what any of the reviews have said. The Banner Cloud is a good $500 MIC binocular. The NL is one of the best binoculars made.

Resolution is the ability to see fine details. Transparency on the other hand has nothing to do with light transmission, contrast or color rendition. Transparency is the ability to see through something without any aberrations or optical artifacts hindering your view. Think of looking through a dirty window and then cleaning it till it is spotless and then looking through it again. By cleaning the window, you made it more transparent. You can now see through it better. An NL or SF has better glass and better coatings than a Banner Cloud, so it is like looking through a cleaner window with no aberrations or reflections.

Sometime compare the coatings on your NL with a less expensive binocular, and you will see how non-reflective they are. Swarovski applies at least 20 different coatings to their glass. The coatings on a Swarovski are beautiful. Compare the coatings on a Zeiss Conquest HD to a Zeiss SF and you will notice a big difference. The coatings on the SF are much better, being much more non-reflective. In the end, you get what you pay for. Below is a picture of a Zeiss SF on the top and a Zeiss Conquest HD on the bottom to show the difference in the quality of the coatings. The SF's coatings are way more non-reflective. From Scopeviews.

Zeiss 10x32 Victory SF Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

"Perhaps it also explains the exceptional T* coatings: Zeiss’ signature pink, but even darker. And it doesn’t stop there. Shining a bright light into the objectives, there isn’t a single reflection that isn’t dark pink, perhaps the first time I’ve seen such complete coatings. Here, T* means something different from T* on a Conquest HD, whose pink coatings are noticeably more reflective (see below). As an aside, I recently compared the 8x42 Conquest with the 8x42 SF and found a much more subtle difference in their objective coatings."

View attachment 1577450

I had a pair of 10 x 42 SF, I was always bothered by the little bright Ruby red spot I could see anytime the sun was hitting the oculars from behind, they definitely had a superb view, they were very bright, but I prefer the EL/NL contrast and color. A fellow member came to my house last fall with a new pair of 8X42 SF with the black armor, we were thinking about doing a trade for my 10X42 Field Pro, after both of us swapping them back-and-forth under beautiful conditions, we both agreed that the EL 10X42 was a much better view, I saw considerably more CA in the SF than I did in my EL, and more than I saw in my 10X42 SF amazingly enough, I understand everybody’s eyes don’t see optics exactly the same, so I’m in no way disparaging anyone that sees things the opposite way.

 

[[email protected]]

I had a pair of 10 x 42 SF, I was always bothered by the little bright Ruby red spot I could see anytime the sun was hitting the oculars from behind, they definitely had a superb view, they were very bright, but I prefer the EL/NL contrast and color. A fellow member came to my house last fall with a new pair of 8X42 SF with the black armor, we were thinking about doing a trade for my 10X42 Field Pro, after both of us swapping them back-and-forth under beautiful conditions, we both agreed that the EL 10X42 was a much better view, I saw considerably more CA in the SF than I did in my EL, and more than I saw in my 10X42 SF amazingly enough, I understand everybody’s eyes don’t see optics exactly the same, so I’m in no way disparaging anyone that sees things the opposite way.

I saw something like the bright Ruby red spot in the 10x42 SF also, but it was more orange for me. Was it at the bottom of the FOV?

 

[[email protected]]

I would wait on pulling the trigger, enjoy the NLs.
I would wait until there is a US vendor, so if you get a bum sample it is easier to deal with.
Wait and see if they improve qaqc issues.

I wouldn't worry about the warranty if you want to try the Sky Rover Banner Cloud. In my communication with Sky Rover, they said they will stand behind their products. For what they are probably making them for in China, they would probably just send you a new binocular. That is what Zen Ray used to do. I complained about a Zen Ray 7x36 ED once with a wonky focuser, and Charles sent me a new one in a few days, no charge. Charles, if you are out there speak up!

 

[Owlbarred]

Pardon my frankness below.
Seems to me that the very premise of comparing a Skyrover to an NL is, on its face, a ludicrous endeavor akin to comparing a Fiat to a Lexus.
Several rungs have been recklessly jumped: a more appropriate initial comparison would be the Skyrover with at most, a sub-alpha(s), or better yet, binoculars in the same price range.

 

[[email protected]]

Pardon my frankness below.
Seems to me that the very premise of comparing a Skyrover to an NL is, on its face, a ludicrous endeavor akin to comparing a Fiat to a Lexus.
Several rungs have been recklessly jumped: a more appropriate initial comparison would be the Skyrover with a sub-alpha(s).

Exactly! I would compare the Sky Rover with a Nikon M7 and then if I didn't care about the bigger FOV, I would personally prefer the M7. Think about it a minute. You could not even cover the cost of the high quality glass and labor involved in the coatings in a Swarovski NL for the $500 that a Banner Cloud costs, much less the complete binocular.

 

[SuperDuty]

I saw something like the bright Ruby red spot in the 10x42 SF also, but it was more orange for me. Was it at the bottom of the FOV?

I think it was usually toward the bottom, I’m sure winged eyecups would have put a stop to it, but they wouldn’t have worked with my glasses.

 

[tenex]

if this new Chinese wonder binocular is good enough to make me get rid of my NL12X42

To what? How good would it need to be? I'm sure it's a nice $500 bin, but for mechanical reasons even more than optical I really don't understand why anyone who could consider an NL/SF would chose SRBC instead, and even less, why anyone with an NL would think of replacing it with SRBC. Besides, they have no 12x42, and if you wanted 12x50 you'd presumably have chosen that in the first place. But each to his own taste...

Conversations like this should really be moved to Other, because they're about Sky Rover, not Swarovski.

 

[SuperDuty]

All my questioning is basically being done to try and find out if these really are equal to the NL optically, I don’t foresee my 12X42 going anywhere, but when someone with the stellar reputation of Holger Merlitz says what he said, then I would like to know exactly what he’s getting at, are they truly equal, or subjectivity (almost) as good, If my comments aren’t appropriate for the Swarovski section, then please remove them, or move them. I’ve gone to the trouble in the past of getting in the Kowa Genesis, Zen Ray, Leupold McKinley, Nikon SF, and others to see if they truly are the Alpha Killers they were reported to be, they weren’t, I really doubt these are either, but I’ll keep an open mind.

 

[dries1]

I am keeping an open mind also, reminding myself what happened to Zenray. Additionally it is a $500 bin.

 

[jgraider]

Take my word for it, the Banner Cloud APO 8x42's are not alpha killers. But you can always order a pair and resell them pretty easily if they don't slay your NL 12x42. I don't think your NL has anything to worry about.

Uhhh.........really? You can offer some good insight at times though, I'll admit.

 

[SuperDuty]

Since we already have this dialogue started, maybe inappropriately in the wrong section, I’ll post this one last thing, anything from now on I’ll post in the Skyrover section.

 

[tenex]

when someone with the stellar reputation of Holger Merlitz says what he said, then I would like to know exactly what he’s getting at, are they truly equal

Do note that Holger did not even mention NL in his review of SRBC, and only briefly said it reminded him of EL which he didn't have on hand for direct comparison. He was apparently impressed, saying things like
"this is the first time that I handled a binocular made in China which in all practical aspects gave me the impression of being among the best that the market has to offer"
but this is a rather brief and excited review. I suspect that more emphasis should be placed on the first part of that remark than the second, meaning that this is the first Chinese bin one could even think of comparing with today's alphas, and that a more nuanced impression might emerge if he spent more time with one comparing more directly, and including mechanical as well as optical qualities. In fact this might be a good question to ask anyone, how their initial impression of SRBC may have developed with further experience.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Do note that Holger did not even mention NL in his review of SRBC, and only briefly said it reminded him of EL which he didn't have on hand for direct comparison. He was apparently impressed, saying things like
"this is the first time that I handled a binocular made in China which in all practical aspects gave me the impression of being among the best that the market has to offer"
but this is a rather brief and excited review. I suspect that more emphasis should be placed on the first part of that remark than the second, meaning that this is the first Chinese bin one could even think of comparing with today's alphas, and that a more nuanced impression might emerge if he spent more time with one comparing more directly, and including mechanical as well as optical qualities. In fact this might be a good question to ask anyone, how their initial impression of SRBC may have developed with further experience.

Exactly! These direct comparisons are necessary and they will surely come up over time. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter which one is 'better' (is it actually possible to decide whether a Zeiss SF or Swaro NL is the 'better' one, being as close in their qualities as they are?). Even if the SRBC would turn out to be the No. 4 among the top contenders, yet sufficiently close to the rest of the lot, then they were still competitive and belong into the same league. I have little doubt that they are indeed competitive, optically.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[agus_m]

Whether the SRBC is in fact at the same level as the NL Pure or Zeiss SF in terms of pure optical performance seems to be a controversial topic in this forum. Can we then safely say it crushes the subalphas such as the MHG, Conquest, SFL, etc?

 

[Ignatius]

Each person must decide that for themselves.