I don't think so. I have no problem seeing full fov with my glasses on, and have to retract one step with naked eyes.
-
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.
Perhaps another game changer (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter exup
- Start date
Binocollector
Well-known member
Because so far every single overhyped China bino proved to be a storm in a waterglass.
Besides, the question isn't, could they do it? They question is - could they have done it without some amount of reverse engineering? Could they have done it if someone else hadn't done it before? Because most of the time we only see copycat stuff made in China.
And the price of a Swarovski might be high but I very much doubt that's all just because of marketing costs.
Binocollector
Well-known member
I'm guessing that was a rhetorical question
?
As I see and have many chinese bino, I'm really skeptical about Chinese bino reviews.
below photo is some MIC bino I have right now.
Top left is Skyrover Apo 85mm which some chinese said to be almost similar as Swaro ATX 85 so I really put up a comparison between it.
Top right is MS apo 12x56 also sell in APM
I also compared it with Swaro NL 12x42
Bottom
very left is chinese 8x25 which strongly considered as same optically to pleasing 8x25.
also compared with Swaro 8x25 CL
next to it is 8x32 bw8 form Kunming united optics.
also compared with 8x32 of Zeiss conquest hd and swaro EL
next to 8x32 is pleasing 6.5x32.
also compared with Leica ultravid hd 7x42
and the very left is Shuntu Panorama ed 10x42.
you guys may heard of it as Chinese Swarovision. some chinse reviewers said it only lacks birghtness and color fidelity.
so I compared it with EL 10x32 (don't have 10x42 right now, and zeiss HT 10x42)
to go straight for conculsion,
it takes me maximum 20 (10 each for two optics each) seconds to find the difference between swarovski and other big three
except for only 6.5x32 porro which helds up well compared to leica uv 7x42.
may because of the prorro prism and small magnification which easier to control abberation and transmission.
and also because leica 7x42 is optically significent step below the Swaro best lines.
difference gap is pretty shrunked but still VERY visible not only for the reviewers but also for a normal light bino users such as birders and star watchers.
I also used digiscop photoes for reviews I write in Korean forum but only for reference. I rank them using my words and some points any systems I made up.
Frankly speaking, Im tired of or even angry of Chinese bluffing about their products.
they have very good price value especially prorro prisms that can be more easily made.
but for roof prism, I think they have only about 500$ (maybe up to 700 if really a good one) maximum price value more than Japan, European brands that made at similar era.
also mechanical comfort is still far below optical performance.
Chinese optic skills have grown very fast these days, but still they have to be more modest for their products.
and they have to give more effort of the quality control.
I have seen many various faults for my own eyes.
Personal Preferation of Contries and Brands is a big point for purchasing optics
BUT IT MUST NOT influance the review. even a small amount will contaminate the results.
I might can get hands on the 'Fake NL' that exup said. one company that I giving advice in terms of optical analysis and marketing techniques have some plan to import it to South Korea.
THEN I can compare it with REAL NL.
below photo is some MIC bino I have right now.
Top left is Skyrover Apo 85mm which some chinese said to be almost similar as Swaro ATX 85 so I really put up a comparison between it.
Top right is MS apo 12x56 also sell in APM
I also compared it with Swaro NL 12x42
Bottom
very left is chinese 8x25 which strongly considered as same optically to pleasing 8x25.
also compared with Swaro 8x25 CL
next to it is 8x32 bw8 form Kunming united optics.
also compared with 8x32 of Zeiss conquest hd and swaro EL
next to 8x32 is pleasing 6.5x32.
also compared with Leica ultravid hd 7x42
and the very left is Shuntu Panorama ed 10x42.
you guys may heard of it as Chinese Swarovision. some chinse reviewers said it only lacks birghtness and color fidelity.
so I compared it with EL 10x32 (don't have 10x42 right now, and zeiss HT 10x42)
to go straight for conculsion,
it takes me maximum 20 (10 each for two optics each) seconds to find the difference between swarovski and other big three
except for only 6.5x32 porro which helds up well compared to leica uv 7x42.
may because of the prorro prism and small magnification which easier to control abberation and transmission.
and also because leica 7x42 is optically significent step below the Swaro best lines.
difference gap is pretty shrunked but still VERY visible not only for the reviewers but also for a normal light bino users such as birders and star watchers.
I also used digiscop photoes for reviews I write in Korean forum but only for reference. I rank them using my words and some points any systems I made up.
Frankly speaking, Im tired of or even angry of Chinese bluffing about their products.
they have very good price value especially prorro prisms that can be more easily made.
but for roof prism, I think they have only about 500$ (maybe up to 700 if really a good one) maximum price value more than Japan, European brands that made at similar era.
also mechanical comfort is still far below optical performance.
Chinese optic skills have grown very fast these days, but still they have to be more modest for their products.
and they have to give more effort of the quality control.
I have seen many various faults for my own eyes.
Personal Preferation of Contries and Brands is a big point for purchasing optics
BUT IT MUST NOT influance the review. even a small amount will contaminate the results.
I might can get hands on the 'Fake NL' that exup said. one company that I giving advice in terms of optical analysis and marketing techniques have some plan to import it to South Korea.
THEN I can compare it with REAL NL.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think a big factor is the glass.
Refractive index, dispersion, and so on are vitally important in the design of an optimum optical train.
Exotic glasses are difficult and expensive produce and some of them are very difficult to work, due to their other physical properties.
I have serious doubts that the Chinese can produce and figure glasses comparable to those produced by or available to the Teutonic Trinity, some of which are almost certain to be proprietary.
Refractive index, dispersion, and so on are vitally important in the design of an optimum optical train.
Exotic glasses are difficult and expensive produce and some of them are very difficult to work, due to their other physical properties.
I have serious doubts that the Chinese can produce and figure glasses comparable to those produced by or available to the Teutonic Trinity, some of which are almost certain to be proprietary.
Last edited:
Wasabrot
Well-known member
Of course when someone wants to spend 6k, Nikon will be preferred instead a Chinese product. But if a chinese manufacturer could make the same and sell it for 3k, some people may come interested. The WX is with IF and its weight limited in its use but a roof with CF and 8x42 half the price as the premium brand would of course see some sales.
With 1500k we are at the top level class of brands like Vortex which are produced in Japan and maybe also already in China?
Very interesting binocular. But the thread is closed. If this binocular is anything close to NL Pure it is a true bargain. One thing worth to mention with both this Sky Rover and NL Pure 8x42 is the FOV. They have twice the field area than Pentax ZD 8x43 ED, which is by a number of users considered as alpha optics except from the FOV. I am looking forward for a review by a knowledgeable reviewer of the new Sky Rover 8x42.
I think all the discussion about how this range compares to the NL series somewhat misses the point. All it really needs to do is to be the best binocular in its price range. The discussion on CN suggests it's priced at $459 plus airfreight. For UK customers that probably works out to a little more than a Nikon Monarch M7 8x42 (also made in the PRC). Is it superior enough to put aside the after sales support that Nikon provide? I have no idea, not having tried either. It would seem so ... but it'd certainly be interesting to have a look.
As to its objective qualities... we really shouldn't be surprised that Kunming is capable of making excellent binoculars. The questions are going to be quality control/consistency and mechanical quality/longer term durability. But those factors also depend on the price point they are aimed at. No one is going to expect a £500 class binocular to be built as tough as a Conquest or have the mechanical finesse of (say) a Noctivid.
I'd love to see range88 and jackjack doing a couple of joint sessions at great birding spots in the PRC and South Korea to try these binoculars in real world conditions (Poyanghu and Cheorwon-gun maybe!!!). I'm sure both of them are capable of being fully objective, and they certainly have experience of a wide range of optics and the ability to describe what they see.
As to its objective qualities... we really shouldn't be surprised that Kunming is capable of making excellent binoculars. The questions are going to be quality control/consistency and mechanical quality/longer term durability. But those factors also depend on the price point they are aimed at. No one is going to expect a £500 class binocular to be built as tough as a Conquest or have the mechanical finesse of (say) a Noctivid.
I'd love to see range88 and jackjack doing a couple of joint sessions at great birding spots in the PRC and South Korea to try these binoculars in real world conditions (Poyanghu and Cheorwon-gun maybe!!!). I'm sure both of them are capable of being fully objective, and they certainly have experience of a wide range of optics and the ability to describe what they see.
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Excellent points. I personally won't buy a roof prism binocular from a Chinese manufacturer until it's clear they stand up to prolonged and rough use in the field. Porros are another matter. They are much easier to "get right", and from what I've seen so far (I've got two APM 6x30s and will get a 6x32 in the near future) these are very well built. And there's not much that can go wrong with a "simple" porro.
Hermann
pat mitchel
Well-known member
Swedpat; there's another thread started on the CN bino forum on the sky rover
It's interesting that you think the APMs are well built (they do look pretty decent in photos - glad to see that impression being confirmed by a knowledgeable user) - yet models like the Oberwerk "SE", if some user comments are accurate, has good optics but not so good mechanicals. I wonder how much it'd cost to get the "SE" up to the level of the APMs mechanically?
Out of pure curiosity, what would you consider "prolonged and rough use in the field" to be - what level of mishandling, and over what sort of time period? I have to admit I am very easy on my binoculars, I often don't even focus very much during a typical stint. I can live with less than ultimate ruggedness if the binocular is outstanding optically (not saying the SRBC is - not till I get to look through it anyway).
--------------------------
just a couple other general thoughts/wonderings:
reverse engineering and other forms of copying have been around for ages - Japanese binocular manufacturers (the PRC of the 50s/60s) did that with U.S. and some German designs.
I wonder how many folks refused to buy East German Zeiss, or Soviet KOMZ etc binoculars because they were made by an "evil empire"? I do know that the CZJ binoculars were the first quality optics a lot of UK birders got their hands on, and those that did often ended up upgrading to Zeiss West, Leica etc.
Last edited:
Robust… a few drops from a meter up onto a hard surface would be a good, as would accidentally dropping into shallow water… the sort of “worst” that might normally be expected. We’re not talking drag behind a truck and blast with a shotgun levels of abuse. Many porros lack armour (well most the ones I have), so I fear that a really hard knock might have negative consequences.
Peter
Peter
Hermann
Well-known member
I don't know the Oberwerk. I find it too heavy to get my interested - and I've got the Nikon SE. The APM isn't on the same level of, for instance, the old Zeiss West Porros. However, it's pretty well made, very clean, and the focuser is smooth without any play. I've seen alphas that were worse. I used my APMs quite a lot, including on two trips to the Alps. Worked just fine, in all sorts of weather.
By "prolonged use" I mean extensive use in the field, over a period of at least a year. Say something like 20 hours a week for a year. Quite a few people I know use their bins a lot more. Some of them daily. I find many modern roofs have got quite complex, perhaps too complex. Just think of the focuser. There are plenty of things that can go wrong, and even the so-called "alpha manufacturers" had their fair share of problems over the past decade. With a Chinese roof in particular I'd want to see how reliable it is before I buy it. Because, let's face it: You probably won't have very good service if something goes wrong after a couple of years.
"Rough use": Well, I know a lot of people here use their binoculars only occasionally and in nice and dry weather. I OTOH want to know how the binocular does in difficult conditions, rain, sleet, cold, salt spray and driving sand at the coast. What happens if it gets a (slight) knock on a tree or on a rock in the mountains. These things happen in the field. I think that's normal use, not "mishandling". Such binoculars not opera glasses, they're made to be used in the field. Or at least they should be. Oh, and I want to see what happens to the armour. Self-destructing armour anyone?.
BTW, I may be a bit of a cynic, but I wouldn't even buy an "alpha" roof immediately after it's been introduced to the market. No way. Been there, done that. Not again.
Hermann
Agree that a binocular intended for the birding market needs to (at minimum) meet those criteria (which should be emailed to Sky Rover!). I use my binoculars more lightly than most birders (though perhaps require more in certain areas of optical performance), but poor weather and bumps against trees etc should certainly be expected as part of normal birding duties. (NB. how's your Canon 8x20 IS holding up?)
"Rough" use, to me, means harder use than that - say in mountain environments, where heavy thumps can be expected and there will be regular exposure to harsh weather. That kind of treatment, I'm not so sure birding binoculars need to be designed to withstand (although if they can, that's certainly a plus). Commercially speaking - which any business needs to think about - I agree there would be some demand for something like a Zeiss "SFH" (Heavy) built as robustly as the old 7x50 marine, or an NL made like the GA series Habichts - but would such models be worth the cost of production?
I haven't seen the "SE" myself (any UK owner visiting London would be welcome to do some comparisons with my Nikon!) either, and to be fair, most of the negative commentary I've seen re: issues with their mechanicals is from hopster's posts in this thread (see link). If those issues are in fact more widespread, it does seem a shame that a binocular with what appears to be good optics is handicapped by inadequate mechanicals. Oberwerk need to get this right IMO. They don't need to be made like a Zeiss West porro (that's a really high bar to set!!!). But it ought to be possible to achieve the same build quality as an APM.
"Rough" use, to me, means harder use than that - say in mountain environments, where heavy thumps can be expected and there will be regular exposure to harsh weather. That kind of treatment, I'm not so sure birding binoculars need to be designed to withstand (although if they can, that's certainly a plus). Commercially speaking - which any business needs to think about - I agree there would be some demand for something like a Zeiss "SFH" (Heavy) built as robustly as the old 7x50 marine, or an NL made like the GA series Habichts - but would such models be worth the cost of production?
I haven't seen the "SE" myself (any UK owner visiting London would be welcome to do some comparisons with my Nikon!) either, and to be fair, most of the negative commentary I've seen re: issues with their mechanicals is from hopster's posts in this thread (see link). If those issues are in fact more widespread, it does seem a shame that a binocular with what appears to be good optics is handicapped by inadequate mechanicals. Oberwerk need to get this right IMO. They don't need to be made like a Zeiss West porro (that's a really high bar to set!!!). But it ought to be possible to achieve the same build quality as an APM.
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
The Canon is quite clearly a fair weather binocular. I use it as such, for instance on walks. No problems at all so far, and I use it quite a lot. But it's of course in a different category than, say, the Canon 10x42 IS.
Hermann
Binocollector
Well-known member
The measurements taken by the gent from Brooklyn who has posted about them on CN suggest effective eye relief of about 13.5mm. I don't see too many ER-related complaints for these binoculars (effective eye relief figures ripped from Canip's site: https://binocular.ch/the-pinac-collection/#collection):
Trinovid BA 10x42 12mm
Dialyt 7x42 12mm
Kowa 8.5x44 12.5mm
Meostar 10x42 HD 13mm
Ultravid 10x42 HD+ 13mm
SLC 10x42 WB 13.5mm
Conquest 10x42 HD 14mm
Retrovid 10x40 14mm
I've used some of these myself with no issues, and indeed think that binoculars with excessively long eye relief (eg Nikon SE) can have issues with blackouts if the binocular can't be moved further away from your eye via glasses that stand further off, or longer eyecups.
Trinovid BA 10x42 12mm
Dialyt 7x42 12mm
Kowa 8.5x44 12.5mm
Meostar 10x42 HD 13mm
Ultravid 10x42 HD+ 13mm
SLC 10x42 WB 13.5mm
Conquest 10x42 HD 14mm
Retrovid 10x40 14mm
I've used some of these myself with no issues, and indeed think that binoculars with excessively long eye relief (eg Nikon SE) can have issues with blackouts if the binocular can't be moved further away from your eye via glasses that stand further off, or longer eyecups.
