Brief comparisons between Skyrover Banner Cloud VS Swarovski NL Pure (2 Viewers)

[jackjack]

few weeks ago, Korean bino seller sent me Sky rover banner cloud 8, 10x42 for analysis before they officially import and sell it.

(the sample were to be sent more then six month ago, but they say they have some trouble getting bino sample from Sky rover.)

(Limited Life time Warranty... for real?)




good looking accessories.
pouch bit resemble with leica's


have time to compare with Swarovski NL 8&10x42


I mainly focused on comparison between 10x42s

BC (banner cloud) 10x42 & NL 10x42


NL is bit longer but lot slimmer.
for mid ~ small size hands, BC can be thick enough to strain their hands. it is a very thick for 42mm bino.

eye cup is much bigger in Skyrover.
also, rim of the eyecup is thicker.

below is photo of three bino eyepeice.
Skyrover BC 10x42 (aprox 48mm)
Nikon EDG 8x42 (aprox 44mm)
Zeiss HT 10x42 (aprox 41mm)

considering EDG's eyecups are bit bigger than average, BC's eyecup is too big even to majority of asian users. which then to have flatter face.



optical comparison.

BC 10x42

NL 10x42


BC 10x42

NL 10x42


BC / NL


BC / NL


BC has silght, but acknowledgeably reddish yellow tint then NL.

BC, NL both have too big FOV...
so I decided to additionaly take 0.8 power digiscope to more accurate comparison

FOV is bit larger in BC

which is not a big surprise because Sky rover states BC 10x42's FOV to be 7.8 bigger then 7.6 of NL 10x42

apparent FOV is significantly larger then NIKON EDG 8x42 (top)which have 7.6 ~ 7.7 degree.


Which suprised me is BC's edge sharpness.

BC / NL


NL series is NOT practically edge to edge sharp like EL does.
about 2~3% of image fallout occurs in every 32 ~ 42 series of NL

but I can say Skyrover BC is practically edge to edge sharp.

so, astonishingly, Skyrover successed to make bigger sweet spot bino then Swaro with less then 1/5 price.

 

[jackjack]

Pincusion distortion is also better controlled in BC

BC / NL






But central sharpness and overall CA controll is significantly better in NL
(although NLs bit brighter)

central sharpness and CA
BC / NL

edge CA
BC / NL


NL has bigger gap of amount of CA between Center of the view and edge of the view then many other high level bino such as Nikon EDG, Zeiss SF (10x42) and Kowa Genesis.

it's mainly because of the large FOV.

Skyrover BC has similer characteristics of CA with NL.
green - pruple spectrum CA which is bit closer to yellow - blue spectrum then NL's CA

but it didn't control CA in center as well as NL

Another surprise is stray light performance.

BC (flare appears up to red line)


NL

it's harder to preform against stray light with bigger FOV.
NL is known to be week at this category, but BC preform significantly better in this category even with larger FOV, Shorter length, less budget.



Depth of focus is deeper in BC.

BC / NL


in combination with less focus rotation(1.5 turns while NL is about 1.9)

it have much faster focusing

I figured out BC have diffrent focus tension
between clockwise and anti clockwise turn. little bit more tension at anticlockwise (which is a far focus) and less tension at clockwise (close focus)
both 8x42 and 10x42 have same characteristics. so I think Skyrover make in on purpose.

 

[jackjack]

Conculsion.

(I post a link of Shuntu Panorama ED 10x42 review I posted. which can be usefull to understand following conclusions.)

Thread 'Brief review of Shuntu Panorama ED 10x42' Brief review of Shuntu Panorama ED 10x42


Skyrover banner cloud indeed delivers much more optical preformance at it's price point.

It is a 500$ bino, but optically, it prefroms good as 1000$ bino in almost every category. even not considering the massive FOV.

such as.
the Zeiss conquest. which one of the top preformer in 1000$ range only excels BC in central sharpness.
while BC leads in many categories such as wider FOV and better color fidelity.



better edge sharpness


and much better CA control


optically, Skyrover BC will well compete in 1000$ category even it's FOV is cut down to 65 degrees.
I think it can overrun Monarch HG and Zeiss conquest with out it's FOV
so, with is massive FOV, there will be very few bino that preform better in overall opticall preformance.

+ compared to Shuntu Panorama which called as chinese EL by some users, BC clearly beats in evey categories.
Brightness, Sharpness, CA controll, color fidelity...
panorama, maybe same OEM with Athlon cronus still preforms very well at 500$ class. but I think Skyrover is at least a step above

 

[jackjack]

Conculsion 2.

Lets talk about it's weakness.

1. Rolling ball effect.

wider fov & less pincusion distortion & better edge shrpness is the three main cause of rolling ball effect. and BC has all the causes compared to NL.
so rolling ball is more significant then NL, even bit more then EL.

2. Too flat view.

as you see the depth of focus comparison with NL, you can figure out that BC has much deeper focuse depth the NL.


as I have wrote in review of Shuntu Panorama, too deep depth of field along with almost Zero pincusion distortion can lead to over flatten view that have many disadvantages.
BC is bit improved then Panorama but still have the same problem.

first, the view gets very flat and compressed
and it make user harder to separate the target with other backgrounds that are in diffrent distance.

below is the digiscoped photo of the tower between tree and grass which are in diffrent distance.

Zeiss victory HT 10x42 can separate tower from surrounding udmsing it's focuser


in BC's photo, tree and grass is more in focus
it's not becuase BC has better edge sharpness the HT.


it means two disadvantages.

first, it will be harder to get focus through objects to separate the target your looking for. such as bird between the bushes.

more surroundings will get in focus in BC distrubing what you are intending to focus at.

second, you have deal with much deeper focus plane in same adjust of focus wheel.
in easy word, much rapid changes of the view in the same amount of touch.

Skyrover BC has focus rotation rather short and very fast focus.
it is not like butterly feel of Nikom EDG or leica noctivid but it feel like it is gliding.

so I have to be very careful not to focus pass the target while I was birding.

3. Eye placement (ergonomics)

as you see at the photo above, it has too big eyecups among 42mm.

It may be occurred because Skyrover put bigger eye peice to extend FOV and Eyerelif.

I think if Skyrover make there eyecup small as NL with same specs, the price will be higher then now.

now Skyrover BC has big eyecups big enough to bother many user's eye placement and less eyerelif then NL.

(they are both stated 18mm but NL has more real Eyerelief.
I can see NL's full view with using 1 click stop left. I barly fit BC's full view with my glasses on and eyecup fully pressed down.)

the BC 's eyecup is even big for many asians.
I can fit NL's eye cup right on my eyesockets but BC is too big that I have to press it inder the eyebrows.
so it can be very distrubing to western people.

 

[jackjack]

REAL CONCLUSION.

Skyrover BC has fantastic Optical quality at it's price.

everything optically is at the range of 1000$ class.
sharpness is still below Zeiss conquest and more gap between EL and NL. but can be able to play in that league.
almost every of the categories in optics is best in MIC roof.

BUT
Still, it have disadvantages lot of MIC bino have. 'ease of use'
because of it's obsession of wide and flat view, you get a really really really flat view that have 3D rendering feel of much smaller diameter lenses, rolling ball effect , very finicky focusing and uncomfortable eye placements.

like Shuntu Panorama, it is the bino that shine better in Advertisements photo and studio rather then reall usage.

Swaro NL is not only praised because it have large FOV.
it is praised because it delivers COMFORTABLE wide FOV

digiscoped photo may be not be inferior then NL, but in real use, you will fill more difference.

to me, view from NL 10x42 is that you are absorbed at 76 degree FOV,
in BC, it feels more like picture like many feels in comaprison of swaro to other bino such as zeiss and leica.

because of that, FOV of NL feel bit more immersive then BC even it have bit smaller FOV and worse edge sharpness.

I will definitely not say Skyrover BC is NL killer. like some chinese say.

there are still much to do to at lease compete with best binocular in the market with limited budget.

but I want to change thprword to 'slayer of the midland'

BC has some severe disadvantages but due to is fantastic optics it still preform as well as or even better then many 1000$ optics.

what is important is it's price is half the price of it's severe competitors.

if Skyrover give there effort on quality control and warranty, many of the 'Branded' mid ~ mid highclass bino that MSRP in 500~1000 will have very limited chance against Skyrover BC


I recommend this bino star watchers, and optic purists.

it's really an experience to feel 70+ fov at night sky. and it's great edge sharpness will be best fit for astronomy.
and also, we didn't have to focus dynamically at night sky....

I can't recommend this strongly to birders.
especially ones like to bird in close distance suce as forests and mountains. rather then lake, seas, meadows.

in close distance birding while very dynamic focus is required, good focusing mechanism sometimes over come optic quality.
giving more satisfaction it's optics can't give.

BC will do opposite.

 

[jackjack]

diffrence between Banner Cloud 8x42 vs NL 8x42 is also very similer.
BC is bit wider, better off axis sharpness, better stray light control...
NL leads in every category that 10x42 NL leads.

fundamentally, BC 8x42 and 10x42 doesn't have that much diffrence.

BC 8x42

10x42


8x42

10x42

8x42


10x42


1. eyepoint bit easier (smaller FOV

2. bit easier focusing

3. bit more rolling ball (because of 8x42's larger real FOV)

4. 8x42 has bit more yellowish tint.
color fidelity is lower but significantly better color satuation

8 / 10


8/10


5. CA is obviously better in 8x42

8/10



6. stray light bit better in 8x42

top 8 / bottom 10


It's obvious that lower magnification is easier to control abberation. so 8x42 is bit better then 10x42 in many categories.

there are many high power bino that significantly fall below then their same lower power bino but BC managed to get close.

personally I don't prefer 9+ real FOV in bino. I feel that I get too many information of the field distrubing what I was looking for.

so, just in my preference, 10 power have a chance

 

[Canip]

Depth of field is deeper in BC.

???

 

[Canip]

too deep depth of field

???

 

[Patudo]

Thanks again @jackjack for taking the trouble to put this together. I have to admit that just taking the photos and downloading them would be too much of an effort for me, let alone trying to do detailed comparisons for the benefit of an audience who may or may not appreciate it.

A couple of quick thoughts on points you mentioned:

eyecup size/diameter - agree this can be relevant if observing with the binoculars straight to your eyes, but for the many of us that are saddled with glasses, that shouldn't be an issue. Eyecup diameter doesn't seem to be voiced as a downside by those who use the 10x50 Fujinon or even the Nikon SE models, which also have quite wide eyepieces (I'll measure mine tomorrow). Also, I'm not sure I agree that the smaller the eyecup the more comfortable (when observing without glasses) - very slim binoculars like the 7x35 Trinovid Classic aka Retrovid, and pocket models, can seem constricting (I appreciate these are much slimmer than x42s). My favourite eyecups for use without glasses are the old Zeiss rubber ones that flare outwards - it's unfortunate these are not offered as an option by the OEMs.

deep depth of field - whether apparent or real, I would actually consider this an advantage - deeper depth of field (real or perceived) is something that eg. 7x42 binoculars are regularly praised for, and I'd agree with that sentiment. A binocular like this probably could use slightly slower focus gearing - fast focusers may let you get on birds more quickly when you have to hopscotch between different distances, but they can also be fiddly.
PS. it looks like you have some very good observing viewpoints. The tower on the hill in your post #1 reminds me of the Torre Collserola near Barcelona. Those high buildings in your post #6 would make very good hunting positions for peregrine falcons... next time my mother visits Seoul (she visited a friend in the south of ROK a couple of years ago...) maybe I should travel with her!

 

[jackjack]

Thanks again @jackjack for taking the trouble to put this together. I have to admit that just taking the photos and downloading them would be too much of an effort for me, let alone trying to do detailed comparisons for the benefit of an audience who may or may not appreciate it.

A couple of quick thoughts on points you mentioned:

eyecup size/diameter - agree this can be relevant if observing with the binoculars straight to your eyes, but for the many of us that are saddled with glasses, that shouldn't be an issue. Eyecup diameter doesn't seem to be voiced as a downside by those who use the 10x50 Fujinon or even the Nikon SE models, which also have quite wide eyepieces (I'll measure mine tomorrow). Also, I'm not sure I agree that the smaller the eyecup the more comfortable (when observing without glasses) - very slim binoculars like the 7x35 Trinovid Classic aka Retrovid, and pocket models, can seem constricting (I appreciate these are much slimmer than x42s). My favourite eyecups for use without glasses are the old Zeiss rubber ones that flare outwards - it's unfortunate these are not offered as an option by the OEMs.

deep depth of field - whether apparent or real, I would actually consider this an advantage - deeper depth of field (real or perceived) is something that eg. 7x42 binoculars are regularly praised for, and I'd agree with that sentiment. A binocular like this probably could use slightly slower focus gearing - fast focusers may let you get on birds more quickly when you have to hopscotch between different distances, but they can also be fiddly.
PS. it looks like you have some very good observing viewpoints. The tower on the hill in your post #1 reminds me of the Torre Collserola near Barcelona. Those high buildings in your post #6 would make very good hunting positions for peregrine falcons... next time my mother visits Seoul (she visited a friend in the south of ROK a couple of years ago...) maybe I should travel with her!

1. Smaller eyecup is not better.
I have trouble having ease of view using leica UV 8x32 because of the small eyecup.
I prefer size of EDG or bit smaller
BC is rather too large so it didn't fit well on my face.
I think Skyrover are short on the budget to downsize the eyepeice.

2. the focus depth thing is diffrent from other circumstances

It's not like the depth getting deeper with lower magnification or length between two lenses (porro prism)
like shuntu panorama, BC's focal plane fill like it is squashed.
as if I am looking at the monocular not a binocular.
(of course not THAT flat because it is still a binocular.)

making it's view similar like fisheye lense highly damaging the perspective and making high rolling ball effect.
and making view feel little bit smaller then It should be.

Swaro EL is famous for it but BC is step above.

so that's why focusing get harder. the more depth are getting focus in same focul plane so harder to get focus on close object to slightly further objects.
If skyrover make their focuser slower it can ease it.

I don't know why MIC flattener bino not only flattening off axis sharpness but also distortion.

Swaro does it on EL, to make some buzz, and unflatten a bit in NL.

I think Chinese don't get that lessen yet or don't jave technics to do it in low price.

it's focus will work well if you are looking bird with no obstacles getting along. like what I said at the end.

 

[jackjack]

???

???

 

[jackjack]

Thanks again @jackjack for taking the trouble to put this together. I have to admit that just taking the photos and downloading them would be too much of an effort for me, let alone trying to do detailed comparisons for the benefit of an audience who may or may not appreciate it.

A couple of quick thoughts on points you mentioned:

eyecup size/diameter - agree this can be relevant if observing with the binoculars straight to your eyes, but for the many of us that are saddled with glasses, that shouldn't be an issue. Eyecup diameter doesn't seem to be voiced as a downside by those who use the 10x50 Fujinon or even the Nikon SE models, which also have quite wide eyepieces (I'll measure mine tomorrow). Also, I'm not sure I agree that the smaller the eyecup the more comfortable (when observing without glasses) - very slim binoculars like the 7x35 Trinovid Classic aka Retrovid, and pocket models, can seem constricting (I appreciate these are much slimmer than x42s). My favourite eyecups for use without glasses are the old Zeiss rubber ones that flare outwards - it's unfortunate these are not offered as an option by the OEMs.

deep depth of field - whether apparent or real, I would actually consider this an advantage - deeper depth of field (real or perceived) is something that eg. 7x42 binoculars are regularly praised for, and I'd agree with that sentiment. A binocular like this probably could use slightly slower focus gearing - fast focusers may let you get on birds more quickly when you have to hopscotch between different distances, but they can also be fiddly.
PS. it looks like you have some very good observing viewpoints. The tower on the hill in your post #1 reminds me of the Torre Collserola near Barcelona. Those high buildings in your post #6 would make very good hunting positions for peregrine falcons... next time my mother visits Seoul (she visited a friend in the south of ROK a couple of years ago...) maybe I should travel with her!

the tower is call Nam San tower an it is one of the famous landmark in Seoul. many foreign traveler go up their for the view.
and building is part of Gang nam (yes from Gangnam style of PSY) one of the busiest place in Korea.

l live near the small mountain that can have a good view at it.

and indeed it is a good place for bird of prey to hunt.
though I didn't see any peregrine falcon at that place, I have see some hobby and chinse sparrowhawk at summer and buzzards at winter.

 

[kimsrk]

I don't know about brief but great stuff. These look like the punch way above their price point.

Just out of curiosity, which mount do you use for digi-scoping? Do you also use a tripod?

Steve

 

[Hermann]

???

Depth of field depends only on the magnification.

Hermann

 

[Canip]

Depth of field depends only on the magnification.

True (at least that’s by far the biggest factor), and this has been discussed over and over again.
I sometimes wonder why people like Holger Merlitz, Neil English and Bill Cook go through the trouble of writing intelligent books when people are not willing to read and learn…

 

[jackjack]

Depth of field depends only on the magnification.

Hermann

it's 'depth of focus' I mistaken the wrong english word

 

[Canip]

Okay.

But can you then say what the terms

• depth of field
• depth of focus
• focus speed

mean to you in your comparisons?

 

[jackjack]

Okay.

But can you then say what the terms

• depth of field
• depth of focus
• focus speed

mean to you in your comparisons?

depth of focus is the right word.

focus speed is full rotation of focuser.
BC has only 1.5 rotation while NL is about 1.8

 

[Viraj]

Thank you so much for your nice and detailed review @jackjack I really enjoyed it as much as your other reviews. You provided all the details I was looking forward to seen in a review about SRBC. The comparison with NL was the best part. I highly appreciate your good work. Looking forward to seeing more content from you.

 

[agus_m]

Very nice review, so many aspects covered. I get the impression that the swaro and BC for each magnification have similar real field of view, but different apparent FOV. BC being a bit smaller and hence less "immersion" and more rolling ball effect. Having a slightly smaller apparent field of view might make it easier for the BC to correct the entire field, up to the very edge.