Is Banner Cloud(SRBC) 8 x 42 APO really that good!? (1 Viewer)

[adhoc]

A valuable, superbly informative review, which may tilt me to get the instrument.

Unfortunately, several comments in it are each irrelevant, ad hominem and wrong, obviously wrong to those who are regular readers of this forum. Then later there are comments which cannot but be taken to be political. A reader, once they get over the shock, can, I hope, like me, just "tune out" this material.

 

[tenex]

Please don't get triggered by that 'fool' thing, you just decide yourself who, if any, might be the fool, it is a good idea to never feel personally attacked by such kind of statements.

Hi Holger, this is surely good advice. And yet when someone can't write a simple binocular review without getting into not only sociopolitical criticism, but even personal sniping at various "vulgar fools and elitists", it's tempting to offer some advice to them also.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Hi Holger, this is surely good advice. And yet when someone can't write a simple binocular review without getting into not only sociopolitical criticism, but even personal sniping at various "vulgar fools and elitists", it's tempting to offer some advice to them also.

Yes, this is sometimes useful, too

Cheers,
Holger

 

[birdwatcheryes]

I received a Sky Rover Banner Cloud 10x42 last week and yes, I can confirm it is "that good" and much more. I predict that other binocular manufactures will probably start an effort to trash it as much as possible because they may be worried. Sky Rover has done something phenomenal with their optics that just does not even remotely match the price/quality expectations by all reasonable means but exceeds it in every possible way. If I was an alpha manufacturer I'd be worried too. Also, Sky Rover has promised to keep improving on it to make it as good as possible and it really appears they are deeply committed to this line of theirs.

 

[Binocollector]

And the shilling continues.

 

[etudiant]

Afaik, China produces the bulk of the roughly 1 billion smart phones sold annually, yet no one complains about 'cheap Chinese junk' iPhones, or other phones for that matter. So I think it silly to be viscerally certain that Chinese premium market binoculars must be second rate.
Rather it seems clear that optics production is an attractive target, the technology is well understood, the market priorities are clearly articulated and the existing market leaders are mostly focused on other businesses.
The SRBC is imho only the first of what are may eventually be several Chinese new entrant into this space. I see no reason they cannot be successful, they surely have a much better cost structure than the current leaders, so they can afford offering quality for less. This should not be surprising, nor should it provoke outrage if some early buyers are enthusiastic about their new purchase.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I was just wondering today whether in fact this does signal a new era for MIC bins. In spite of the thread (s) being politicized, some respectable reviewers have spoken very well of this effort. The release of latest MIJ conquests suggests to me that euro companies are being forced(?) to stay competitive by moving overseas? In fact I don’t even know what’s actually still made in Germany anymore? Is all Leica in Portugal or are the NV still MIG?
Am I correct that it’s only the Zeiss SFs that remain MIG?
Is ALL Swaro MIA?

 

[birdwatcheryes]

And the shilling continues.

Not shilling at all and if you look through a Sky Rover Banner Cloud you may be pleasantly surprised but I do understand you commenting on a binocular that you have not yet held in your hands or even looked through yet still have the vision and technical knowhow to come up with your deeply analytical response!

 

[dries1]

Looked both at the 8/10X42 view is OK, but a $500 binocular is still a $500 binocular, I cannot really comment on the build quality under the hood, however it is not likely the Chinese are going to give you a Cadillac for the price of a Pinto, not going to happen.

 

[etudiant]

Looked both at the 8/10X42 view is OK, but a $500 binocular is still a $500 binocular, I cannot really comment on the build quality under the hood, however it is not likely the Chinese are going to give you a Cadillac for the price of a Pinto, not going to happen.

If the Chinese are planning to develop a long term leadership franchise, it makes perfect sense to Cadillacs at Pinto prices.
Toyota underpriced the Lexus in its early years, which helped build its stellar reputation for cost effective quality.

 

[birdwatcheryes]

If the Chinese are planning to develop a long term leadership franchise, it makes perfect sense to Cadillacs at Pinto prices.
Toyota underpriced the Lexus in its early years, which helped build its stellar reputation for cost effective quality.

I think that's a pretty good strategy if any company can afford to do it as the product itself will do the talking.

 

[Conndomat]

I was just wondering today whether in fact this does signal a new era for MIC bins. In spite of the thread (s) being politicized, some respectable reviewers have spoken very well of this effort. The release of latest MIJ conquests suggests to me that euro companies are being forced(?) to stay competitive by moving overseas? In fact I don’t even know what’s actually still made in Germany anymore? Is all Leica in Portugal or are the NV still MIG?
Am I correct that it’s only the Zeiss SFs that remain MIG?
Is ALL Swaro MIA?

For Zeiss, binoculars are just a small side business, it's like a farmer who owns many hectares of land and sells a few buckets of apples from his orchard, the big turnover is made from the huge corn fields.
The Zeiss SF and HT are still manufactured in Germany!

Leica Portugal has been around for more than 40 years, it is not a new invention, the factory meets the same standards as in Wetzlar, and the Noctivids are now also manufactured in Portugal. To what extent Leica will still be one of the premium manufacturers of conventional binoculars in the future is questionable, IMO I think Leica will increasingly focus on the market of electronic optics.

For Swarovski binoculars are still a core business, although not the most important, IMO binoculars are still manufactured in Austria, except for the new "children's glass", which is produced in China.

I think the premium manufacturers really don't care much about the competition to SRBC, here in Europe hardly anybody has this on the screen, even in Astroforums it is not discussed, I think at the moment the binoculars are being hyped extremely, especially on CN, what to think of the model will be seen in a few years and how the binoculars market will develop in the future is questionable anyway, I think there will be more and more electronic features, good that I will die soon...

Andreas

 

[birdwatcheryes]

Looked both at the 8/10X42 view is OK, but a $500 binocular is still a $500 binocular, I cannot really comment on the build quality under the hood, however it is not likely the Chinese are going to give you a Cadillac for the price of a Pinto, not going to happen.

But it "did" happen, that's why there is so much buzz and it's really hard to believe you looked through a 8/10x42 based on your comments. Several binocular owners in my family and many friends with very high end binoculars and it's safe to say that everyone and I mean everyone was stunned looking though the Sky Rover Banner Cloud. My guess is that Sky Rover is selling them at cost or even below cost to get the word out and when enough people are aware of the incredible optics then prices will rise accordingly.

 

[dries1]

But it "did" happen, that's why there is so much buzz and it's really hard to believe you looked through a 8/10x42 based on your comments. Several binocular owners in my family and many friends with very high end binoculars and it's safe to say that everyone and I mean everyone was stunned looking though the Sky Rover Banner Cloud. My guess is that Sky Rover is selling them at cost or even below cost to get the word out and when enough people are aware of the incredible optics then prices will rise accordingly.

How many binoculars have you viewed through?, just curious. Hard to believe?, my fellow optic fanatic has them, his son wants to dissemble one, to see what is inside, curious one that. I have viewed through many a binocular, premium through antiques, so there is that. I am not really amazed anymore.

 

[birdwatcheryes]

How many binoculars have you viewed through?, just curious. Hard to believe?, my fellow optic fanatic has them, his son wants to dissemble one, to see what is inside, curious one that. I have viewed through many a binocular, premium through antiques, so there is that. I am not really amazed anymore.

Still own and have owned many but besides that, joined a birdwatcher club and have looked through the best of them and did some comparisons yesterday with the NL Pure. In short it was a little shocking to everyone involved that the Sky Rover Banner Clouded equaled and in some instances bested the NL Pure. This is a huge achievement that cannot be understated. NL Pure feels much better in the hand and has a much more fluid focus wheel, but the Sky Rover optics was cleaner right to the very edge and handled stray light better. Contrast and brightness were pretty much equal between the two and although the Sky Rover has a wider field of view they both looked the same as nobody could really tell the difference. Sharpness appeared equal as well and only an optical booster would be able to tell which one would be sharper which none of us had. NL Pure had a slight edge in sky colors as the blue was better rendered than the Sky Rover.

 

[dries1]

Like I said I am not amazed anymore, after years and years of looking through binoculars, and I never belonged to a Bird club. The binoculars I tend to favor are not wide field, except the WX 10X50 on the night sky. I also enjoy the E II 8X30. I own the NL in 8X42, had others but kept the 8X42. In my case there is also no need for the SRBC.

 

[birdwatcheryes]

If I owned the binoculars you own then I can see no need to get the SRBC but for me it ended up being a huge advantage getting one and getting my foot in the door of something special at a price that probably won't last all too much longer.

 

[dries1]

If I owned the binoculars you own then I can see no need to get the SRBC but for me it ended up being a huge advantage getting one and getting my foot in the door of something special at a price that probably won't last all too much longer.

Fair enough.

 

[has530]

Even before the uptick in compulsive (often geo)politically divisive statements on that site I had come to the conclusion it was not a great source of accurate optics reviews. Along with some already pointed out parroted flaws and misconceptions about optics stated on that site as fact, I have found that I personally disagree with many of the binocular reviews. After finding the site and reading glowing reviews of SVBONY binoculars I bought a pair and found them thoroughly disappointing. This pattern happened a few more times comparing my impressions to his and I decided that either the reviewer had very poor vision, or alternative motives for hawking cheap Chinese junk. I do not have any problem inherently with cheap Chinese optics to classify all of them as junk. My most used 8x42 and one of my favorite binoculars is a Bushnell Legend M, made in China and paid less than $200 for it; my first purchase here on this forum! I also have a Nikon Monarch Fieldscope ED which is also made in China and superb. I am merely pragmatic about what is possible within a given manufacturing budget. There is an engineering concept called geometric dimensioning and tolerancing that relates and communicates engineering tolerances. The tighter the GD&T, the higher the cost, often exponentially so. In some cases design specifications cannot be met with available tooling and materials (see
China's struggle to produce a ballpoint pen). Consistently producing homogeneous high-quality optical glass is hard. Machining it into precision lenses with consistent surface polish is also challenging. Producing moving parts like hinges and focusers that can precisely move over each other repeatedly with the right tension while not degrading over time is hard. It is obviously not impossible as many fine optical instruments have been made for a very long time. However doing so consistently takes time and money. China has shown they can do it with the monarch field scope and a number of camera lenses, but it seems in sport optics, Chinese manufacturing is chosen as part of the race to the bottom.

I guess the point of this stream of consciousness rambling is that a $500 binocular cannot consistently beat products costing multiple times more. They have shortcomings, weather optically, mechanically, in the materials, or all of the above. If their users are satisfied with them (as I am with my Bushnell's), then great for them! It is up to the consumer what level of quality is the best fit for them personally.

 

[birdwatcheryes]

Even before the uptick in compulsive (often geo)politically divisive statements on that site I had come to the conclusion it was not a great source of accurate optics reviews. Along with some already pointed out parroted flaws and misconceptions about optics stated on that site as fact, I have found that I personally disagree with many of the binocular reviews. After finding the site and reading glowing reviews of SVBONY binoculars I bought a pair and found them thoroughly disappointing. This pattern happened a few more times comparing my impressions to his and I decided that either the reviewer had very poor vision, or alternative motives for hawking cheap Chinese junk. I do not have any problem inherently with cheap Chinese optics to classify all of them as junk. My most used 8x42 and one of my favorite binoculars is a Bushnell Legend M, made in China and paid less than $200 for it; my first purchase here on this forum! I also have a Nikon Monarch Fieldscope ED which is also made in China and superb. I am merely pragmatic about what is possible within a given manufacturing budget. There is an engineering concept called geometric dimensioning and tolerancing that relates and communicates engineering tolerances. The tighter the GD&T, the higher the cost, often exponentially so. In some cases design specifications cannot be met with available tooling and materials (see
China's struggle to produce a ballpoint pen). Consistently producing homogeneous high-quality optical glass is hard. Machining it into precision lenses with consistent surface polish is also challenging. Producing moving parts like hinges and focusers that can precisely move over each other repeatedly with the right tension while not degrading over time is hard. It is obviously not impossible as many fine optical instruments have been made for a very long time. However doing so consistently takes time and money. China has shown they can do it with the monarch field scope and a number of camera lenses, but it seems in sport optics, Chinese manufacturing is chosen as part of the race to the bottom.

I guess the point of this stream of consciousness rambling is that a $500 binocular cannot consistently beat products costing multiple times more. They have shortcomings, weather optically, mechanically, in the materials, or all of the above. If their users are satisfied with them (as I am with my Bushnell's), then great for them! It is up to the consumer what level of quality is the best fit for them personally.

Agree with many points you mention but to be fair, the SRBC optics is something you see on multi thousand dollar binoculars. We are not all making this up and I think this is why there is so much controversy. I didn't believe it either and thought "oh well there goes $500" with the expectation of a nice paper weight and less money in my pocket. Then it arrived at my door and I honestly never expected it to be at this level of excellence. Like I said before, I suspect Sky Rover has severely reduced the initial price to let the product itself shine and then price it according to its merits later on. They won't be the first or the last to exercise this type of marketing strategy. They've been around since 2003 and make binoculars and telescopes for APM, Orion, Celestron and so many others and can probably easily afford this type of marketing long term.