Quality Control issues in SRBC (1 Viewer)

[jackjack]

(I have one said the QC issue of SRBC. I have some proofs to show you)
Post in thread 'Is Banner Cloud(SRBC) 8 x 42 APO really that good!?' Is Banner Cloud(SRBC) 8 x 42 APO really that good!?


as there is a two companies that import SRBC 10x42 and 12x50 in my country,
I have gone throungh many diverse sample of SRBC.

7 sample on 10x42 and 8 sample on 12x50
some at the shop and some of other users that requested me inspection whether they have a good sample.

this is the sample variation I get through

appropriate sample / defected sample


the defective one have 45~50% !! of degradance then normal one.

it is the most commen and easy part to recognize QC issue of SRBC.

I came through approx 45 / 73 / 85 / 90 / 97 / 98~99 of edge in some tubes.
which sould be 99+ like swaro EL.

and heard that 1 8x42 have 85% sweetspot lot diffrent form over 99 I reviewed.

I have never experienced 45% differ in one tube even in 100~200$ MIC.

In terms of QC of edge sharpness, SRBC is worst over 250$ bin to control it among my experiences.


and central sharpness also differ.

normal one / better one


the cantral sharpest differ some time appeare on both tubes so, I can't conform the diffrence (thougt I felted it is less sharp) before I compare I with others.

the biggest differ in sharpness of SRBC tubes is like sharpness differ as similar as CHD and FL.
which can be a big differ to some.


and there is also slight miscolimation issue not enough to give eyestrain to feel the defectionn but enough to have slight degradance of sharpness when viewing with two tubes.

also, there are many issue. such as oil dropping on prism that one reviewer said hear, focus tension not even, bit loose hinge then other, eyecup loose or more tight then other....


even my sample is not perfect in edge sharpness it have about 1percent more decrease at one side of the edge on one tube.
amd bit uneven focuse tension at anticlockwise.
with just less stiff hinge tension then the best one.

I choose it because perfect edge and focuser one is less sharper


perfect edge = less sharp seem wrong too.

the 10x42 sample I reviewed first time have best edge and center sharpness between 7 10x42 I have seen.

though SRBC have severe QC issues, the worst Quality SRBC I've seen is even very good for the retailed price.
still better then Nikon MHG in optics.
(As I said on former review, overall optics in SRBC is better enough to beat Zeiss CHD even the AFOV is degraded to 65 degrees


But Skyrover have to take more care of their product before getting our of the factory.
because, now, we have to test our luck to avoid the sample that is worse then the review said...

maybe out of the hundreds of SRBC there could be one that is sharper on axis then NL?... 🤔 (Perhaps with coexistence with SRBC less sharper then monarch hg)...

maybe they have to rise the price more tohave more consistency on quality.

+ they made minor upgrades too

back of the pouch of
SRBCs


right pouch have additional ring for holding and adjusting on the belt
while left doesn't have it.

left one is the pouch of FIRST SRBC sample in Korea that sent to me at middle of this may and other is pouch of SRBC that widely sold in late July.

also, focus tension is deffrent from late July and mid August samples.

have compared 4 of late july and 11 of mid August sample (4 10x42 and all 12x50)

4 late july model have lower tension of the focus almost like there are no grease on it, making it much faster but less even and more finickier.

I think Skyrover minor upgraded their product according to fit opinion of the users... though they have to mind their QC first.

 

[Patudo]

though SRBC have severe QC issues, the worst Quality SRBC I've seen is even very good for the retailed price.
still better then Nikon MHG in optics.

I have to admit - that is impressive

 

[jackjack]

I have to admit - that is impressive

yes I have seen left 70~73%, right approx 85% sweetspotted SRBC, but it is still better then Zeiss CHD 10x42 except for edge sharpness.
and I still prefer left tube 45% decrease over nikon SE 12x50

after all, 20 percent of decrease of edge sharpness in SRBC is still make the sweetspot over 60 degree which many more expensive bino can't achieve.

 

[Scott98]

of course to get wide, flat field you must accept heavy weight. The 42mm BC's are 30% heavier than the MHG, as are the NL Pure.

It's interesting to me to read these endless reviews and comps....always trying to establish some kind of hierarchy. Things like focusers, eye placement, weight, are rarely mentioned. They make all the difference for a bird-watching binocular to me. They're prerequisites for buying and using them - it's pass/fail. Many - most - of these $2,000-3,000 binoculars never even make it out of the starting gate for me. They lose out to my 19-ounce 1980's $100 Nikon porros.

 

[Hermann]

jackjack:

Once again an excellent post! Thank you.

Hermann

 

[jackjack]

of course to get wide, flat field you must accept heavy weight. The 42mm BC's are 30% heavier than the MHG, as are the NL Pure.

It's interesting to me to read these endless reviews and comps....always trying to establish some kind of hierarchy. Things like focusers, eye placement, weight, are rarely mentioned. They make all the difference for a bird-watching binocular to me. They're prerequisites for buying and using them - it's pass/fail. Many - most - of these $2,000-3,000 binoculars never even make it out of the starting gate for me. They lose out to my 19-ounce 1980's $100 Nikon porros.

I have already mentioned SRBC's failure in birding bino(such as ease of view, focusing, ergonomics)in former 10x42 comparison with NL

 

[Bentley03]

Disappointing to read elsewhere on this forum that another member (based in Australia) has been unfortunate with his recently purchased 10x42 SRBC, which has immediately been returned.

It's a huge gamble ordering one of these binoculars direct from the manufacturer in China. Sample variation makes it a complete lottery. I have now received five copies, one of each format and a second 10x42. Fortunately, all five are VERY 'fit for purpose', so personally I'm a satisfied customer. But, each copy has it's own character and quirks, I can tell them all apart with my eyes closed (really, I have actually done this). Focus wheel tension varies from loose to stiff, hinge tension varies, some eyecups twist up smoothly with well defined stops, while others are very stiff or very vague. The internals revealed nothing untoward (like Canip's drops of oil on the prisms). Collimation, as jackjack found with samples he's tested, may be a fraction out on one or two of mine (I'm very sensitive to even the slightest misalignment), and I do sense differences between the optics of the two 10x42's.

So, ordering a SRBC is quite definitely a voyage into the unknown, due to sample variation and quality control.

Incidentally, I'm thrilled with mine, all of them, for me the gamble has paid off.

 

[Hermann]

It's a huge gamble ordering one of these binoculars direct from the manufacturer in China. Sample variation makes it a complete lottery. [snip]

So, ordering a SRBC is quite definitely a voyage into the unknown, due to sample variation and quality control.

I usually follow three simple rules:

1. Never buy a binocular that's new on the market, especially not if it's not from a reliable manufacturer who'd deal with any problems should they arise. Wait until all (potential) problems have been sorted out.
2. Be careful even with new binoculars from long-established manufacturers. Only buy a new model if its manufacturer has a really good track record for any repairs.
3. Be especially suspicious of complex roof prism binoculars. There are far too many things that can go wrong, both with the optics and especially the mechanics.

I make one exception: If a binocular is relatively cheap (say below € 300) and has a simple construction (like a traditional porro), I may buy it early. After all, if the worst comes to the worst it's not that huge a loss.

Hermann

 

[Bentley03]

I usually follow three simple rules:

1. Never buy a binocular that's new on the market, especially not if it's not from a reliable manufacturer who'd deal with any problems should they arise. Wait until all (potential) problems have been sorted out.
2. Be careful even with new binoculars from long-established manufacturers. Only buy a new model if its manufacturer has a really good track record for any repairs.
3. Be especially suspicious of complex roof prism binoculars. There are far too many things that can go wrong, both with the optics and especially the mechanics.

I make one exception: If a binocular is relatively cheap (say below € 300) and has a simple construction (like a traditional porro), I may buy it early. After all, if the worst comes to the worst it's that huge a loss.

Hermann

Very, very wise words, Hermann. I should be old enough to know better. Or, maybe I can claim my risk threshold is £500? 😉😇

Nah, you're 100% correct in your approach.

 

[jackjack]

Disappointing to read elsewhere on this forum that another member (based in Australia) has been unfortunate with his recently purchased 10x42 SRBC, which has immediately been returned.

It's a huge gamble ordering one of these binoculars direct from the manufacturer in China. Sample variation makes it a complete lottery. I have now received five copies, one of each format and a second 10x42. Fortunately, all five are VERY 'fit for purpose', so personally I'm a satisfied customer. But, each copy has it's own character and quirks, I can tell them all apart with my eyes closed (really, I have actually done this). Focus wheel tension varies from loose to stiff, hinge tension varies, some eyecups twist up smoothly with well defined stops, while others are very stiff or very vague. The internals revealed nothing untoward (like Canip's drops of oil on the prisms). Collimation, as jackjack found with samples he's tested, may be a fraction out on one or two of mine (I'm very sensitive to even the slightest misalignment), and I do sense differences between the optics of the two 10x42's.

So, ordering a SRBC is quite definitely a voyage into the unknown, due to sample variation and quality control.

Incidentally, I'm thrilled with mine, all of them, for me the gamble has paid off

I have seen 8 10x42 and 7 12x50 and 1 8x42
the count will get higer as time flows because there are much more BC in Korea.

none of BC's are exactly same. and hardware issue such as eyecup, focuser, hinge is least you can got.

Korean have using many MIC bino for many years.

I also used many MIC you know (SV202, SA205, shuntu panorama) and might not know(BW series, Sicong ares)

because there are no Korean brand (such as Nikon in japan, Vortex in USA, Opticron in UK)
and china is geometrically close.

Here is the one and the best proverb that Korean made about MIC bino.

'If you want biggest satisfication with buying MIC bins, buy when it was cheapest or buy after seeing the product for real.'

 

[Patudo]

I have now received five copies, one of each format and a second 10x42. Fortunately, all five are VERY 'fit for purpose',

If your experience is representative, the odds don't seem that bad...

buy when it was cheapest or buy after seeing the product for real.'

That's probably true with most binoculars, not just MIC...

 

[Bentley03]

If your experience is representative, the odds don't seem that bad...

Yes, from my own experience, the odds of bagging an acceptable copy are pretty good. I was in two minds about ordering a 10x50, but by then I'd established a good line of communication with their customer services team, received an incentive to purchase, and upon ordering, two videos. The first was of the instrument being manually checked, the second was of the instrument on the collimator, showing the reading. This was done in response to me asking them to do a thorough check of the binocular before sending, because I intended to give it to my eldest and his partner, who are both keen astronomers. Needless to say, that 10x50 is an extremely good copy, and has already impressed on a recent trip to Ireland.

 

[Roller890]

I wanted to weigh in here (first time posting, literally years reading!)... I bought an SRBC 8x42 direct from Sky Rover a week ago after reading jackjack and other's great reviews of these. I bought a pair of 10x42 NLs a month earlier at the new lower price and figured I'd see whether these could actually beat my 8.5x42 EL WBs for the difference. Unfortunately, I've had a disappointing experience; bottom line, there are some major ergonomic issues here for people with high-bridged noses that causes problems with IPD, but as I kept troubleshooting I started to suspect some larger optical QA issues as well.

At first the expansive view and color/contrast seemed great, but I quickly got the feeling that I couldn't achieve critical focus... and that the view seemed quite nervous. At first I thought that this was a matter of setting the diopter correctly, but no matter how many times I fiddled with it, I'd put them back up to my eyes and they would look off in one tube again. I started to realize that I may not be looking through on axis in one tube, introducing aberrations in one eye because I'm peering through the periphery of the view... That's where I realized these SRBCs simply don't fit my face... close, but just off. The eyecups are so massive that although I can see a picture through both eyes, one tube is always not quite sharp... I think I'm not able to get the IPD tight enough before the eyecups start pinching the bridge of my nose.

Seeing some of the 3D printed eyepieces being made for these, I figured I'd put them on a tripod and remove the eyecups completely. This is where it got interesting. Now I can set the IPD correctly, and the view certainly improved. However, it seemed that even the slightest movement of my eyes off the central axis would immediately disturb things and introduce a reduction in sharpness again... as though the eye box for sharp viewing was incredibly small. With over 5mm exit pupils and supposedly flat fields that should be sharp to the edges, it just seemed like something was off. Granted, even my new 10x NLs seem to be a bit pickier in terms of eye placement, but once you get them dialed in they are easy on the eyes. Trying to keep my eyes centered enough in these SRBCs to get a good view started introducing eye strain. In the end, the view through both Swarovskis was much more relaxed and comfortable, as was the view of my (Made in China) Kowa BDII 6.5x32s in comparison. Something is not right.

I've described the issues to SR support and requested a return. We'll see what they say, but I'm sure I'll be out shipping costs. I'd recommend folks consider the QA issues on these before buying... but also the ergonomics. Even if the optics lived up to their promise, these binoculars showed me how important ergonomics can be, and the eyecups in particular are not well thought out. Other aspects of the build quality seem consistent with the $300 price point as stated above... I prefer the texturing on the armor of my Kowas, but the focus knob and diopter experience is very similar.

 

[SuperDuty]

I wanted to weigh in here (first time posting, literally years reading!)... I bought an SRBC 8x42 direct from Sky Rover a week ago after reading jackjack and other's great reviews of these. I bought a pair of 10x42 NLs a month earlier at the new lower price and figured I'd see whether these could actually beat my 8.5x42 EL WBs for the difference. Unfortunately, I've had a disappointing experience; bottom line, there are some major ergonomic issues here for people with high-bridged noses that causes problems with IPD, but as I kept troubleshooting I started to suspect some larger optical QA issues as well.

At first the expansive view and color/contrast seemed great, but I quickly got the feeling that I couldn't achieve critical focus... and that the view seemed quite nervous. At first I thought that this was a matter of setting the diopter correctly, but no matter how many times I fiddled with it, I'd put them back up to my eyes and they would look off in one tube again. I started to realize that I may not be looking through on axis in one tube, introducing aberrations in one eye because I'm peering through the periphery of the view... That's where I realized these SRBCs simply don't fit my face... close, but just off. The eyecups are so massive that although I can see a picture through both eyes, one tube is always not quite sharp... I think I'm not able to get the IPD tight enough before the eyecups start pinching the bridge of my nose.

Seeing some of the 3D printed eyepieces being made for these, I figured I'd put them on a tripod and remove the eyecups completely. This is where it got interesting. Now I can set the IPD correctly, and the view certainly improved. However, it seemed that even the slightest movement of my eyes off the central axis would immediately disturb things and introduce a reduction in sharpness again... as though the eye box for sharp viewing was incredibly small. With over 5mm exit pupils and supposedly flat fields that should be sharp to the edges, it just seemed like something was off. Granted, even my new 10x NLs seem to be a bit pickier in terms of eye placement, but once you get them dialed in they are easy on the eyes. Trying to keep my eyes centered enough in these SRBCs to get a good view started introducing eye strain. In the end, the view through both Swarovskis was much more relaxed and comfortable, as was the view of my (Made in China) Kowa BDII 6.5x32s in comparison. Something is not right.

I've described the issues to SR support and requested a return. We'll see what they say, but I'm sure I'll be out shipping costs. I'd recommend folks consider the QA issues on these before buying... but also the ergonomics. Even if the optics lived up to their promise, these binoculars showed me how important ergonomics can be, and the eyecups in particular are not well thought out. Other aspects of the build quality seem consistent with the $300 price point as stated above... I prefer the texturing on the armor of my Kowas, but the focus knob and diopter experience is very similar.

How did they compare in optics to the NL, assuming you could tell with the eyecup issue.

 

[Roller890]

How did they compare in optics to the NL, assuming you could tell with the eyecup issue.

I certainly am not the astute reviewer that some others are here, and comparing 8x to 10x NLs is tricky. If these SRBCs are lemons, and something is wrong beyond fitment issues, it may not be a fair comparison. However, the specs don't lie, the SRBCs have a massive field of view that creates an expansive image circle. As with the NLs, it seems to require the eye to be real close to the ocular lens to be able to see the field stops.

I found that glare was indeed better controlled than the NLs, although I don't find it to be a major issue in the NLs. Center sharpness is similar, perhaps just a bit worse. I feel like the NLs do give the overall perception of a crisper view, perhaps more brightness and contrast, more neutral color?

While birding, I did find the out of focus backgrounds in the SRBCs to have a distracting or nervous quality, especially apparent while actively focusing. I think jackjack had some digiscoped examples of the difference in image compression, and that may be what I'm seeing here. I found it distracting, and the NLs seem much more natural.

Were it not for my IPD issues and assuming there is some optical issue preventing me from getting a sharp and relaxed view, I would say these SRBCs are optically quite close to the NLs, but lack their refinement. I believe jackjack said the compression issue meant they were not well suited to birdwatching, and I would agree... They are clearly targeted to the astronomy market afterall.

 

[jackjack]

I certainly am not the astute reviewer that some others are here, and comparing 8x to 10x NLs is tricky. If these SRBCs are lemons, and something is wrong beyond fitment issues, it may not be a fair comparison. However, the specs don't lie, the SRBCs have a massive field of view that creates an expansive image circle. As with the NLs, it seems to require the eye to be real close to the ocular lens to be able to see the field stops.

I found that glare was indeed better controlled than the NLs, although I don't find it to be a major issue in the NLs. Center sharpness is similar, perhaps just a bit worse. I feel like the NLs do give the overall perception of a crisper view, perhaps more brightness and contrast, more neutral color?

While birding, I did find the out of focus backgrounds in the SRBCs to have a distracting or nervous quality, especially apparent while actively focusing. I think jackjack had some digiscoped examples of the difference in image compression, and that may be what I'm seeing here. I found it distracting, and the NLs seem much more natural.

Were it not for my IPD issues and assuming there is some optical issue preventing me from getting a sharp and relaxed view, I would say these SRBCs are optically quite close to the NLs, but lack their refinement. I believe jackjack said the compression issue meant they were not well suited to birdwatching, and I would agree... They are clearly targeted to the astronomy market afterall.

I have tested 8x42, 10x42 SRBC with 8x42, 10x42 NL and in terms of birding I share similar experiences with you.
and.
comparison result of 8x42 SRBC and NL is same as in my review of 10x42 comparison with NL.

 

[Yarkho]

Jackjack, is this review published anywhere? I have come to appreciate your reviews quite a bit.

 

[jackjack]

Jackjack, is this review published anywhere? I have come to appreciate your reviews quite a bit.

no, only in BF and Korean forum. BF version is an English mode with more intutive narrations (because I am not native to English)

 

[Yarkho]

I have at least found a brief comparison of the NL and SRBC 10x42 by you. And was glad to see that my eyes do not deceive me, that the NL has a bit of curved field at the edges.