Brief review of Shuntu Panorama ED 10x42 (1 Viewer)

[jackjack]

Shuntu Panorama ED. one of the priciest 42mm bino which sells at Ali express, is MIC field flattener bino that many manias think of as Clone of the bino complanies in western such as HAWK and Athlone.

some call it as good as twice of It's price, even calling it Chinese Swarovision.
those flattering comments made me curious enough to get my hand on 10x42 of that bino.



it's a fairly small bino for it weight (over 900g stated)

compared to other 42mm bino I have

bit longer then edg but much slimmer.

I put it's comparison against Swarovision EL 10x32



1. panorama 10x42


 el


panorama / el


2. panorama
el


panorama/ el

pincusion distortion is lower in panorama then el

3. panorama



el


Panorama has Red color pallet EL has very flat colors much kore blue and green then Panorama


panorama / el


panorama/ el


panorama has significantly higer amout of CA at the edge of the view.
(little more in center of the image then el too)


depth of focus is much deeper in panorama then el

panorama / el


Shuntu Panorama 10x42

 PROS

1. edge sharpness is among the best between all binoculars I seen.

invisible blurriness at edges. seems even more flatter edge then el because of the depth of field.

2. even better control of pincusion distortion then el

can even see barrel distortionat the edge of the view in real viewing.

(but it also leads to main Cons. I'll explain later.)

3. Nice central sharpness at the price under 500$.
still not as good as high level bino such as Swaro EL, NL, Zeiss conquest, sfl, ht.
but seems to have very nice center sharpness at it's price point.

4. good CA control for Its price point

not as good as EL, Nl but better central CA control then Zeiss conquest and victory HT.
edge CA is significantly higher. even enough to distrubing the view it one is sensitive to CA.
but overall center - edge CA is still satisfying at it's price point.

5. nice handling.

barrel is well tapered to my fingers.

[I'll right the CONS and conclusions at the following thread. much more to say then PROS.]

 

[Rg548]

Well that looks closer than perhaps it should !!

 

[Patudo]

I have to admit, and I would imagine the digiscopes don't tell the whole story, the two sets of images seem to me as though the Panorama compares very well. Be interesting to read your follow-up comments.

 

[Paultricounty]

It’s very difficult to see qualitative differences when we’re looking through a camera, then posting the image and then looking on an iPad or computer screen, as apposed to the human eye doing side-by-side comparisons.

 

[jackjack]

CONclusions.

CONS

1. first and the worst disadvantage Panorama has.

The barrel Distortion.

Yes, you can film and also see barrel distortion on Shuntu Panorama easily.

(Digiscoped the same apartment wall with

Zeiss HT 10x42 / EL 10x32 / Panorama 10x42


you can see building wall thet seen through Panorama's view curve backwards compared to HT and EL.
you can also seen thin in your real eyes. If you move the bino looking straight objects such as building walls and telephone pole, Panorama's distortion began to curve backwards about 85 ~90% of the edges.

as you know, very little pincusion distortion can cause rolling ball effect.
many experience it from EL. such as Optika Exotica at his youtube reivew. sayung EL is over flattened.
Panorama is more then overflattened. it's reversed flattend I'd like to say.

of course the rolling ball is worst among all of the 10 power bino I ever seen.
Including 10x42 SF, EL, NL, Komz BPO, Nikon SE, monarch HG, Leica NV and more)

not only the enhancement of rolling ball, barrel distortion also cause much less rendering so spaces due to it's compressed view.



below is the center image size of thress bino compared above


HT


EL


Panorama


ht / el / Panorama

apparent magnification looks similar beacuse they are all 10 power binocular


but lets get to the edges

you can see the size of red symbol and green letter at the left edge differ due to the distortion amount.

It cam also bee seen with your real eyes too. put the same letter in center of the both high same power pincusion bino (such as victory ht, leica ultravid) and low pincusion bino (such as EL, leica NV) and move it to the edge of the FOV of those binos.
you can see the difference when the letter get to the edge of the two different group of binos.

When you look at very low pincusioned bino such as EL and barrel like Panorama, you can see the letter shrink when it gets to the bottom of the fov.

as I say on the AX visio reviews.
that makes the surrounding of the view more compressed then other binos. like looking at convex mirror.

It happens much on EL even though EL has much more pincushion distortion the Panorama
so the Panorama's view is so compressed than it doesn’t feel like 42mm bino with almost 65 afov.

in real viewing Zeiss victory ht. which have a smaller afov (63) feels much immersive then Panorama.

the BARREL not only damage the feel of view but also real focus mechanism.

as the photo of the depth of field comparison with el which I have posted above, panorama have much more depth of field on the each tubes because of the reverse - flat view.
and it's focus only rotates about 1 1/3 turns. significantly less then 2 turns on 10x32 EL.

that mean you have to focus more cautiously to separate the colose objects that have diffrent perspectives.
such as when you focus a magpie beneath two branches, Panorama has more hard thim separating three branches from the magpie because it's field is too deep for it's short rotation of focus ring.
plus, it's metal focus ring have very strong tension and also stiffen at cold weather, it is really frustrating to get clear focus on the birds under branches then using other bino such as victory ht.
not only because of the focus mechanism (victory ht's focus is still not the best in the market.)
but also because of it's field structure.

it can also influence the apparent resolution.in real uses.
because of the statics, many might influence the opposite feel of the pulling oye - the - objective you are looking for - feeling which usally provided by porro prisms.

so, I think Panorama most shines when you use it for digiscoping...
like the photo I showed above, it's edge sharpness, distortion, and depth of field of the each lenses is worth to have a top place in the market.

but, as you know, we don't use bino only for digiscope...
I want to say that Shuntu Panorama will be one of the most overrated bino if you get information only of digiscoping or reviews that only saying this bino is flat as (or flatter then) EL. it's a fact but lot of backlash is lying under as I said.

 

[jackjack]

Other 'Minor' cons.

1. suffer from stray light issues. then average 10x42.

shuntu panorama 10x42



zeiss ht 10x42


yes, HT is one of the bino that preform well against stray light then average.
but the difference will be steeper then comparing other binos such as Alpen teton 10x42, Zeiss conquset 10x42, Swaro EL 10x42

2. Eye cup issue.

Panorama's eyecup has only one click stop


compared to the Zeiss victory ht 10x42 thich have less eye relief stated. (16mm) (panorama 19.3 stated.)
the fully extended eyecup of the panorama is much shorter then ht.
which can cause much more blackouts to some.


Panorama has 3.3mm more stated eye relief, so is it more comfortable to use with glasses the HT? NO

panorama's ocular lenses are place much deeper then HT. damaging the real eye relief when viewed with glasses.
so HT is more comfortable to glass wearers to.


3. The exit pupils

the left / right exit pupiles of Panorama



left exit pupil compared to other binos.

top

EL / HT / EDG (more expensive)

bottom

Panorama / BW8 , Kowa yf (both cheaper then panorama)


as you see from the photo, panorama has significantly truncated exit pupils.
(the shape of the two pupils are alomst symmetrical)
that amout on truncation will be enough to damage the low light ability. and really does.
Panorama is dark bino at night even at it's price point.

4. Diopter

it have a bit odd diopter design. center diopter thet adjusted by pushing the square realease button while rotating the diopter under the focus wheel.


seems, sounds nice but in real use the square buttens can be push and turnd in many unintentional occasions such as adjusting a focus wheel, tumbling inside the bag....
all I have experienced in week of use.

(just put it in the right side like ordinary binos....)

5. Neck strap

Useless. totaly useless.


Straps.
Shuntu Panorama / Zeiss HT





I WON'T take a risk of hanging 900g bino on the strap like this.

(I use cheap nikon strap for review and birding which feel much stable then original one.)

I named these CONs 'Minor' because in real uses, the first CON might bother you much more then other CONs combined.
I did.

 

[jackjack]

+ Color RED

Shuntu have significant reddish coloring to my eyes
so color of blue and green is much less vibrant then red and brown

for example

1. Shuntu Panorama


Zeiss Victory HT

which as a greenish color tone (with bit of yellow) in apposite of Panorama's red tone, it have duller red, brown but more blue and green.





2. Shuntu Panorama



Zeiss Victory HT



the color of the photos may not be the same to human eyes.
but I use these photoes that it may been exaggerated a bit, but the color diffrence I seen in my real eyes feels very similer to the diffrence in photos.
when I look at the fallen leaves and naked branches which mainly red and brown color, Panorama even feels more satuated then EL and EDG

but when I see blue sky and green pine needles, Panorama shows more dusty feel sky and less lively pine needles.

I know I have to be careful to use photo to describing bino, especially colors.
but if the photo that have been taken at the same spot with nearly the same time share similar feels and diffrences that have experienced in real eyes,
it's obvious to use it as a little reference of the review. but have to mention the real feel like this thread. not just posting the photo alone to explain the whole review.

 

[Rg548]

Interesting write up, although I'm not convinced with regard to the Victory HT's.
I have looked through some HT8x42's, not the 10's....
They were brutally sharp, crystal clear, and quite an optical experience.

 

[jackjack]

Interesting write up, although I'm not convinced with regard to the Victory HT's.
I have looked through some HT8x42's, not the 10's....
They were brutally sharp, crystal clear, and quite an optical experience.

what term of regards that don't matched with you?
I have compared both 8x42 and 10x42 HT. and 8x42 is much better to my eyes.
sharpness and color fidelity is much better in 8x42.
10x42 looks too yellow, green compared to 8x42's really crystal clear view (I don't use 'crystal clear' word at many bino. but HT 8x42 highly deserves the word)

and sharpness gap is wider then I thought with avarage gap of 8 / 10 powers at that price range

(but I got 10x42 because it was the only available at used when I purchased it.....)

victory HT 8x42 is my favorite zeiss bino (between 7x42, 10x40 dialyt, both 32, 7x42, 10x56 tfl, 10x54 ht, both 40 sfl and 42 sf)and also my favorite 8x42 bino.

I would be happy to trade my 10x42 HT to 8x42 even I pay couple hundred bucks more.

 

[Paultricounty]

Interesting write up, although I'm not convinced with regard to the Victory HT's.
I have looked through some HT8x42's, not the 10's....
They were brutally sharp, crystal clear, and quite an optical experience.

Absolutely agree , and it’s the same in the 10’s I’ve used.

 

[Patudo]

@jackjack - Appreciate your taking the time and trouble to do the photos and write these posts up! I'd hate to have to analyze my binoculars (including comparisons with others) in the way you've done, with photos etc, and write something up for other folks to scrutinise. That's too much like work!

I've noted before that using binoscopes to illustrate image quality is fraught with difficulties - BUT at the same time, lots of bino reviewers, with some credibility in that area (scopeviews and Tobias to some extent), do that too. I think so long as we are all aware of the limitations of binoscoping, it's fine. Binoscopes can probably give you a reasonable impression of things like pincushion and, I suppose, edge performance. I would be more hesitant to use binoscopes as a gauge of resolution/apparent sharpness, actual or perceived brightness, and even colour rendition (though I suppose if white balance in your camera was carefully controlled to ensure consistency between binoscopes it would be acceptable).

Looking at your list of cons:

aspects that give rise to immediate concern:

- stray light issue noted in your post #6 - this would concern me and if it consistently showed up in testing/use would be something worth mentioning to the manufacturer.

aspects I'd need to try the binocular to see how I got on with it:

- distortion profile, which at least from what I saw in your binoscopes, I did not seem to mind

- rolling ball (I didn't notice this in any of the Swarovski SVs I've tried, but if the Panorama has the worst rolling ball of anything you've tried, it might become apparent to me)

- what you mention about needing to focus more cautiously (I have a definite preference for a slower rather than faster focuser).

- ease of use with glasses - it's such an individual thing that I'd need to try them myself in order to make a judgement on.

I don't mind colour rendition that emphasizes reds (I wouldn't say it's as appealing to me as to many of the Leica crowd, but it's not a negative). The exit pupil may not be as perfectly round as the others, but I don't know if it is so truncated as to make the kind of difference in low light that you have noted: I don't doubt your findings that it's not as bright as the others, but wonder if there is another reason (coatings etc).

All things considered, and assuming the binoscopes you've chosen reflect what you see through the different binoculars (and I'm sure you have tried to ensure that they do), I can honestly say the images taken through the "Shuntu Panorama" (even the ones in your "CONclusions") look fine to me: certainly good enough to interest me in giving it a careful look over/through if it was at an optics fair or similar event.


I think where many/most PRC-made binoculars fall behind is mechanical quality/consistency and design refinement. Interestingly the APM range (primarily astro) seems better than many birding products in the first respect, so the ability to make solid, well built products is there. The second point (design refinement) is illustrated quite well by the Panorama's eyecups and diopter but could be quite easily solved by bringing in input from experienced users.

PS. a comparison between the Panorama and models at similar price points more familiar to Western users eg. Nikon M7? and comparable models from eg Vortex or Opticron would be really interesting.

 

[Rg548]

Here is a report on the Zeiss HT from 'Greatest Binoculars'


The 8x42 HT is a Zeiss masterpiece and optically the best of the classic curved field 8x42 designs - which I came to prefer over the modern flat field binoculars. It is an outstanding binocular that embodies the legendary Zeiss brand better than the SF, as it is the most recent model in a long series of evolving designs. No other binocular in the comparative review has Abbe König prisms. Apart from edge sharpness the HT is optically as close to perfect as I ever had a binocular, with spectacularly sharp, contrasty, bright and naturally coloured images. I´m astonished how quiet, almost free from flares the view is even under difficult light conditions. If highest image quality and a most natural view is paramount, the HT surpasses the other five 8x42s I tested.


Quite a write up !!!

 

[Canip]

Or another write-up on the HT 8x42 that would be more in line with my own views:

Encounters with Zeiss 8x42 HT and SF

I recently spent a week birding on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. While there I ran into a birder who uses nothing but Zeiss optics for birding. She has a very nice collection of Zeiss binoculars going back to the Dialyts, including an 8x42 HT and an 8x42 SF. I was able to spend a little...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Patudo]

Apropos of the HT (maybe these posts should go to a HT specific thread...) I recall reading the HT had the same optical design as the FL, with only glass and coatings improved - but when I looked for sources here, couldn't find any. Can anyone confirm the optical designs of the two are the same, or similar?

On Saturday morning, wanting a wider FOV and a more settled image, I switched from my usual 10x42 SE to the 8x42 FL - which is excellent in its own right, but after being accustomed to the flat field SE I found the FL unexpectedly finicky the first hour or two. I don't have the knowledge/terminology to properly describe what was giving me trouble, but I might have been struggling with the perspective the field curvature of the FL gives you. Towards the end of the three hour stint I had figured out "how to see through" the FL, but it took a bit of getting used to. Having used both flat field binoculars (Fieldpro, SE) and those without, though I would (and do) happily use the latter, if I had to express a preference for one of the two designs, I'd have to pick the former. But we all have our individual likes and dislikes, etc.

 

[jackjack]

Here is a report on the Zeiss HT from 'Greatest Binoculars'


The 8x42 HT is a Zeiss masterpiece and optically the best of the classic curved field 8x42 designs - which I came to prefer over the modern flat field binoculars. It is an outstanding binocular that embodies the legendary Zeiss brand better than the SF, as it is the most recent model in a long series of evolving designs. No other binocular in the comparative review has Abbe König prisms. Apart from edge sharpness the HT is optically as close to perfect as I ever had a binocular, with spectacularly sharp, contrasty, bright and naturally coloured images. I´m astonished how quiet, almost free from flares the view is even under difficult light conditions. If highest image quality and a most natural view is paramount, the HT surpasses the other five 8x42s I tested.


Quite a write up !!!

I didn't always 100% agree with that review BUT, that paragraph with HT 8x42 is very similar to my thoughts.
I have compared HT to other 8x42 ABEE prism over 1000$ and see that ZEISS has done better then I thought.

In my own thought,
I think zeiss have to make upgrade HT (maybe more transmission, more fidelity?) rather then Flattener binos.

 

[jackjack]

Apropos of the HT (maybe these posts should go to a HT specific thread...) I recall reading the HT had the same optical design as the FL, with only glass and coatings improved - but when I looked for sources here, couldn't find any. Can anyone confirm the optical designs of the two are the same, or similar?

On Saturday morning, wanting a wider FOV and a more settled image, I switched from my usual 10x42 SE to the 8x42 FL - which is excellent in its own right, but after being accustomed to the flat field SE I found the FL unexpectedly finicky the first hour or two. I don't have the knowledge/terminology to properly describe what was giving me trouble using the correct terminology, but I might have been struggling with the perspective the field curvature of the FL gives you. Towards the end of the three hour stint I had figured out "how to see through" the FL, but it took a bit of getting used to. Having used both flat field binoculars (Fieldpro, SE) and those without, though I would (and do) happily use the latter, if I had to express a preference for one of the two designs, I'd have to pick the former. But we all have our individual likes and dislikes, etc.

It's little awkward to see the thread about Chinese bino thurn out to be HT thread...
maybe many have some good memories for the specific optics


sadly, I didn't have experience on 8x42, 10x42 tfl.
but I have done a review about 10x56 tfl, 10x54 ht.

in short, they both have significant up and down.
HT 54 have some significant improvements but also have flaws comparing to TFL 56

 

[henry link]

I recall reading the HT had the same optical design as the FL, with only glass and coatings improved - but when I looked for sources here, couldn't find any. Can anyone confirm the optical designs of the two are the same, or similar?

I can confirm that. I compared the reflection patterns of a single small light source returning from the objective and eyepiece ends of an 8x42 FL and an 8x42 HT. When carefully compared at the same angles the reflections returning from the optical systems were identical indicating the same number of lenses with the same curves and spacings in both.

Encounters with Zeiss 8x42 HT and SF

 

[John A Roberts]

And by way of illustration, two cutaway units:

a) FL 8x42 from Cley Spy at: A birder's best friend. A short history of bioculars
b) HT x42 from Jan in post #29 at: Vortex Viper UHD beats Zeiss SF and Leica Noctivid!




The lens numbers, shapes, groupings and spacings are very much the same. But likely the engineers did some optical tweaking of the precise lens dimensions when going from the FL to the HT.


John

 

[Patudo]

Thanks guys (especially Henry)! I find the negativity towards the flat field concept expressed by eg Tobias quite interesting - I don't share it myself, but it's interesting to get a sense of what others see.

@jackjack - the second photo in your post #5 (HT binoscope) shows very distinct inward bending of the straight lines especially the roof of the building at the top of the image. Do you perceive that when using the HT yourself? I ask because when I tried the HT myself (albeit some time ago) I didn't notice it, not do I when using the apparently very similar 8x42 FL. I don't doubt it's there, I just don't perceive it. When I look at the full-size version of the same photo, the pincushion (hope I'm using the right word for it!) is still there, but much less apparent.

My impression of the 10x42 HT was a very bright binocular, slightly but noticeably more so than the 10x42 SF I tried on the same occasion (on a sunny day, too). This doesn't show in the scopes - but I thought the images in Tobias's site (now offline!) did not show this well also.

After looking at more binoscopes I'm even more of the opinion that although they can be interesting and indeed useful in some respects, the saying that "the camera never lies" is not quite correct!

 

[jackjack]

Thanks guys (especially Henry)! I find the negativity towards the flat field concept expressed by eg Tobias quite interesting - I don't share it myself, but it's interesting to get a sense of what others see.

@jackjack - the second photo in your post #5 (HT binoscope) shows very distinct inward bending of the straight lines especially the roof of the building at the top of the image. Do you perceive that when using the HT yourself? I ask because when I tried the HT myself (albeit some time ago) I didn't notice it, not do I using the apparently very similar 8x42 FL. I don't doubt it's there, I just don't perceive it. When I look at the full-size version of the same photo, the pincushion (hope I'm using the right word for it!) is still there, but much less apparent.

My impression of the 10x42 HT was a very bright binocular, slightly but noticeably more so than the 10x42 SF I tried on the same occasion (on a sunny day, too). This doesn't show in the scopes - but I thought the images in Tobias's site (now offline!) did not show this well also.

After looking at more binoscopes I'm even more of the opinion that although they can be interesting and indeed useful in some respects, the saying that "the camera never lies" is not quite correct!

Yes I can definitely felt the distortion diffrence. HT and Ultravid is sometime tiring when panning against straight object such as apartments.
forest of apartments is the easiest way to know distortion. Ideal in Korea. the land of apartments...

it's more exaggerated in camera but it's still viewable in real eyes.

(victory HT 10x42 Digiscoping on the one of the wealthiest apartments in Korea.)



also, barrel distortion is quite identifiable in same circumstances.

MIC 8x42 with has the worst Barrel distortionI have ever seen


when I explain bino to manias, birders, sellers, I use similar ways not only digiscoping but also the real - eye test that can make many (not all)to feel the similar feel I got.

camera lense lies a lot. especially when AFOV differs highly.

but If used carefully, it is easiest way to indirectly show difference.
because all bino does it to show the view to users.
I know seeing for real is the best. it is same in all reviews of all things.

there is a South Korean proverb that have same meaning
'백문이 불여일견'
'one seeing is worth more then one hundred hearing'

but not anyone can see every bino they want, thats what reviewers work for.
I choose to use CAREFULLY taken digiscoped photos to back up my result that I feel with my own eyes.
not doing the opposite.