• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review (1 Viewer)

dae33

Well-known member
I made a review of Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 some time ago and finished it with a short wish-list for future Cronus models. Some aspects from the list were improved in Meade MasterClass series, and all were noticeably improved in a new Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO.
Yes, the new 8x42 APO looks to me as the same design and a good improvement to Athlon Cronus\Meade MC design.

Let me share the list one more time with some comments, since it has not been clear enough:
-The weight of a pair of binoculars was decreased to 890 grams, compared to Cronus - 945gr, MMC - 905gr.
-The thread cap is totally flat now.
-The eye cups have 6 positions (5 steps out).
-The Image is bright, the view is brighter than in Meade MC 10x56, which is a little brighter than Athlon Cronus 8.5x42.
-The color reproduction is very good, almost neutral, and has a slight yellow hint. The view is less warm than in Meade MC 10x56.

The Banner Cloud is medium sized binoculars with dimensions 156х125х66мм at IPD=65mm and they weigh 890gr (31,34oz), and 1120gr (39,5oz) total (binoculars + caps + neck strap + case).

xVk0JayW_o.jpg


As you can see, the objectives are asymmetric to the eyepieces: there are 72mm between the centers of the binoculars barrels at IPD=65mm. Though the binoculars utilize Schmidt-Pechan prisms. This provides a slight 3D (three-dimensionality) effect to the view, better than, for example, Nikon M7 8x42 has.

T0DXARRP_o.jpg


The binoculars chill hands in cold weather because of the thin armor. The overall build quality and materials are comparable to Meade MasterClass, and simpler than Nikon M7 has. The inner side of the binoculars has a label with a serial number and production place - China.

D3Urr8Fh_o.jpg


The neck strap is a neoprene one, 52mm of width and 5mm of thickness. It is elastic enough for the binoculars' weight.

bM58eu7F_o.jpg


The supplied case is of normal quality, padded enough on the inside to protect the binoculars. The inner space fits just the binoculars size, there is almost no free space for the neck strap. The case dimensions are 195x160x85mm.

SEV9LZ4X_o.jpg


The focuser knob seems to be made of aluminium, 33mm in diameter and 28mm in height, could be rotated by two fingers. The upper part of the focuser knob with the binoculars name stands still, while the focuser travels, but can be turned round with a finger. The focuser action varies in different directions: it is light in CW direction, and has average stiffness in the CCW direction. There is no free play. The focuser becomes a little stiffer at +1° Celsius outside, but continues to operate well.

It CCW to infinity, the full focus travel is around 560 degrees. The close focus is 2,1m (6,9 ft), from it to 15m (16,5yd) distance is 370 degrees of focus travel, then 50 degrees towards 300m (328yd) and infinity. And 140 degrees of focus travel left. When focused on infinity I can observe up to 40 meters ahead.

The IPD is 56-74,5mm. The barrel's movement inward and onward is not very stiff.

OzlNcIuF_o.jpg


The eye cups are made of plastic and can be screwed off from eyepieces. They have the outer diameter (which touches the nose) of 48mm, middle diameter (which touches eyebrows) of 45,5mm and inner diameter of 35,5mm. The top surface is flat and made of rubber covering.

The eye cups have 5 steps out and can be left in intermediate positions. The out\in movement is stiff, may be too stiff for quick usage. When the eye cups are collapsed I can see the whole field of view with my thin rim glasses and almost full field (~90%) with sunglasses on. Only with unscrewed eye cups i can see the whole field with sunglasses on.

The photo below is for demonstration purposes only, the measurement was more precise.
knJQKLHb_o.jpg


I measured the eye relief (for off-axis beams) from the eye lens at 15,5mm. Very impressive for that AFOV, but the eye lens is recessed for 4mm inside the eye cup. So the available eye relief from the rim of the eye cup can be: 11,5 - 9 - 6 - 4 - 2 - 0mm depending on the eye cup position.

jQe6nIY8_o.jpg


The exit pupil is almost round, and has 5,3mm of diameter. First row: in the left photo there is the left barrel exit pupil, in the right photo there is the right barrel exit pupil; second row: in the left photo there is a straight light test by phone’s flashlight, the right photo shows edge vignetting.

The inner side of the barrels are blackened properly, there is no noticeable light haze around the exit pupils. The binoculars work pretty well towards the Sun direction, with just a little glare in the lower part of the field. This is also achieved because of the knife-edge baffle, used in the binoculars behind the objective.
HnFMnmjv_o.jpg


I checked other binoculars and found out that Meade MC 10x56 has the same knife-edge baffle, while Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 does not. In the photo below Cronus is on the left, Banner Cloud is in the center, Meade MC is on the right.

NMIaoo60_o.jpg


The inner diameter of the Banner Cloud objective rings looks like 41,8mm, and I measured the effective aperture at 41,5mm. So the magnification could be 41,5/5,3=7,83x.
The first lens of the objective is recessed for 9,5mm inside the barrel. There are some baffle threads on the lens rings before the objective and behind it.

fm7SBISB_o.jpg


The objective design is a triplet (3 lenses in 2 groups): a cemented doublet + a single lens. The coatings are with reflections of green, yellow and violet colors and low intensity. All the reflections of light inside are colored, which confirms the good FMC is used. The light transmission could be around 90-91%, the view is very bright.

QP9N1doa_o.jpg


Here is a comparison of objective coatings of Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 (left, most bright reflections), Banner Cloud 8x42 APO (center, reflections are lowest in intensity) and Meade MC 10x56 (right, average reflections intensity).

vI17XoaR_o.jpg


As I wrote at the beginning of the review, the color reproduction of the Banner Cloud is very good, almost neutral, and has just a slight yellow hint. Similar color reproduction can be seen in the modern (one year old) Nikon M7 8x42.

The apparent brightness of the image in the Banner Cloud is very good as well, comparable to Nikon M7 8x42, and slightly brighter than in Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 from old production (during daytime usage). As I can see, the prisms used are of a normal size, not small ones, and the vignetting of the edges is not high.

The flare suppression is quite good, better in the Banner Cloud than in Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 or Nikon M7 8x42: there is just small veiling glare when observing towards the Sun direction. But the other part of the view stays with good contrast and colors saturation.
There are some small spikes of low intensity on bright street lights during night city observations, but no ghosting on the optics.

The colors are vivid enough, a little more saturated in the Banner Cloud than in Nikon M7 8x42, but a little less saturated than in Vixen SG 6.5x32. The contrast is good. The overall image quality (contrast and transparency) is slightly better in the Banner Cloud than in Nikon M7 8x42, while Vixen SG 6.5x32 has a little better view to my eyes.

The sharpness on axis is good in the Banner Cloud, comparable to Nikon E 8x30 (multi). Nikon EII 8x30 or Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 are a little sharper, this can be noticed in handheld use.

Assuming all above Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO could be just a good pair of binoculars of the middle $400-500 price tag. But there are three features which make them stand out.

First of all it is an ultra wide field indeed.
The TVOF of the Banner Cloud is wider than 9°, and is slightly wider than in Vixen SG 6.5x32. I measured TVOF indoors at 9.3° or 162/1000m, but need more time to confirm it under clear skies by stars angle.
The AFOV is measured at 68,6°.

The second feature is the Chromatic Aberration (CA) correction, which is very good on the axis. Better corrected in the Banner Cloud, than in Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 or Nikon M7 8x42. You will hardly see CA on the axis over a bird’s silhouette in the bright sky at any distance, or against tree branches towards the Sun direction.
The center one fourth or even maybe one third of the field of view are almost CA free. More out CA becomes visible, it increases towards the edges, where it has less than a medium level. The colors of CA are classic ones: yellow and blue.

The third feature is a field flattener, which is used in the ocular construction. This is something unusual for middle price binoculars. Athlon, Meade, Oberwerk are the only ones that come to my mind, whose binoculars utilize field flatteners in that price tag.

The field of view of the Banner Cloud is corrected in a very good way (similar to Cronus\MMC and a little better in the Banner Cloud): the edges correction is better than in Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 and noticeably better in the Banner Cloud than in Nikon M7 8x42. During day or night terrestrial observations you won’t notice any softness outward. Actually, the field is so wide that it could be corrected worse, but I won't notice any softness outward anyway. On a dull day Nikon M7 8x42 has got only around 6,3° of good field, while the Banner Cloud has 9,3°!
On precise testing with a 4x booster (or by stars) I can see that the image degradation starts from the center and grows slowly towards the edges. The worst picture is at 70% of radius, then becomes better towards edges, where it is almost as good as on the axis. It is needed just 5-10 degrees of the focuser travel to focus away the field curvature at the edge, where there is also a small trace of astigmatism.

Here is the photo of an artificial star at the edge of a field of view of Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO (left) and Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 (right) for comparison.
ayPSEtJQ_o.jpg


During stargazing the field of the view is full of almost pin-point stars from edge to edge! It is a really beautiful and wide view. Stars only dim at the very edge.

The Banner Cloud has a flat field design (same as in Cronus\MMC), but with a slight 3D effect, as I mentioned earlier. So let’s proceed to the distortion.
The tangent distortion is a pincushion (positive), of a very low level: straight lines stay straight over the field of view.
The angular distortion is a barrel (negative) from the first look, of a low level. But it has a more complex form, a mustache. Since the angular distortion is higher than the tangent, there is some field curvature during panning and a small Rolling Balls effect. I feel it in the Banner Cloud less than in Athlon Cronus 8.5x42 and much less than in Meade MC 10x56.

To summarize, the view through Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO is really a joy, because:
-the view is bright, there is no noticeable darkening of the image;
-the view is almost neutral in color reproduction, with no noticeable warm\cold hint;
-there is no noticeable field curvature while panning;
-there is no noticeable color fringing, except the very edges;
-there is almost no edge softness.

Downsides of the Banner Cloud: it’s a heavy pair of binoculars; the fit and finish look more like of binoculars of the $300 price tag; it has a slight Rolling Balls effect; as was discussed on CN it could have some warranty issues

I’m personally not a big fan of a flat field design for daytime observations, though it is very good for stargazing, but like these binoculars. However, new Porro binoculars Moon-Star APO 8x32 or Zeiss SFL 8x40 seem better to me in that aspect, while they have poorer edge correction. But for the price the Banner Cloud is good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, thanks a lot for your review. I think it puts some of the posts about the Sky Rover both here and on CN into perspective. What seems clear to me is that it's not an "NL killer" ... :cool:

Some comments/questions:

Let me share the list one more time with some comments, since it has not been clear enough:
-The weight of a pair of binoculars was decreased to 890 grams, compared to Cronus - 945gr, MMC - 905gr.
It's still a pretty heavy for an 8x42 though. The weight is understandable, sure, because of the WA eyepieces, but it may well be on the heavy side for many users.
The focuser action varies in different directions: it is light in CW direction, and has average stiffness in the CCW direction.
That's probably acceptable to most, it is, however, by no means ideal nowadays.
I measured the eye relief (for off-axis beams) from the eye lens at 15,5mm. Very impressive for that AFOV, but the eye lens is recessed for 4mm inside the eye cup. So the available eye relief from the rim of the eye cup can be: 11,5 - 9 - 6 - 4 - 2 - 0mm depending on the eye cup position.
11,5mm with the eyecups down is not enough for a great many people who need to wear glasses. Not even if they have glasses optimized for using binoculars. That's certainly a weakness of the Sky Rover.
The sharpness on axis is good in the Banner Cloud, comparable to Nikon E 8x30 (multi). Nikon EII 8x30 or Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 are a little sharper, this can be noticed in handheld use.
The Nikon EII and the Conquest HD 10x32 are sharper on axis? Did you do any resolution tests? Because if this is true the Sky Rover is out as far as I'm concerned.
I’m personally not a big fan of a flat field design for daytime observations, though it is very good for stargazing, but like these binoculars. However, new Porro binoculars Moon-Star APO 8x32 or Zeiss SFL 8x40 seem better to me in that aspect, while they have poorer edge correction.
I find this statement isn't very clear. Can you please go a bit more into the details of why the Moon Star and the SFL are better?

Hermann
 
Effective eye relief is about 13.5mm as measured by Miloss1977 on cloudynights. With the eye cup off, which is designed to do so, you can get about 2mm more.
 
Effective eye relief is about 13.5mm as measured by Miloss1977 on cloudynights. With the eye cup off, which is designed to do so, you can get about 2mm more.
If eye relief were 13.5mm i'd be able to see the whole field of a view with sunglasses on, but i don't.

The Nikon EII and the Conquest HD 10x32 are sharper on axis? Did you do any resolution tests? Because if this is true the Sky Rover is out as far as I'm concerned.
Are you asking about sharpness or resolution?
I can make a resolution test with a DSLR, but it will take some time. In my reviews i use sharpness to describe how crisp is the view.

So the Nikon EII 8x30 and the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 are sharper (crisper) on axis, than the Sky Rover 8x42 APO or the Athlon Cronus 8.5x42. But the EII and the Conquest HD are sharpest binoculars on the market to my opinion.
For example, the Nikon EII 8x30 are sharper on axis than the Swarovski NL 8x42. The Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 are sharper on axis than the Zeiss Victory FL 10x56. But no one worries about NL or FL)
I know only two other binoculars the Vixen Ascot 8x30 and the Bausch Legacy 7x35 - they are razor sharp, and sharper (crisper) on axis than the EII and the Conquest HD.

I find this statement isn't very clear. Can you please go a bit more into the details of why the Moon Star and the SFL are better?
The Moon-Star 8x32 APO have nice 3D view because of Porro prisms. The Moon-Star and the SFL are better in "space rendering", they have more immersive image, cause they have some field curvature and pincushion distortion, unlike the Banner Cloud with a flat field design.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that was a great review!
The flat field at that FoV is impressive.
There are a few flat-field binos at around that price but not with such a wide FoV. Like the -- probably Kenko-made because they were also available under the Sightron label -- Lux HR (DDoptics)/Perl EscapED in different magnifications. I have the 10x50 and 10x42 -- I think they have around 6° FoV or maybe slightly more.
The flat-field bino with probably the sharpest view that I own is still the humble Komz BPO 7x30 with strong yellow tint however -- and with only 8.5° FoV.
The older Canon 8x32WP also is a flat-field design. I own one and it is still excellent for a 20 year old design but has only 7.5° FoV.
I will probably get one of the Banner Clouds once it becomes available from a European seller.
 
Hello,

very nice report!(y)

However, I don't agree with this at all:
The sharpness on axis is good in the Banner Cloud, comparable to Nikon E 8x30 (multi). Nikon EII 8x30 or Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 are a little sharper, this can be noticed in handheld use.
Comparing binoculars for sharpness by holding them in handheld should actually be forbidden!
In order to achieve a reasonably accurate result, they should at least be tested on a tripod and with test boards, better yet with 3-4x boosters.!

The Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 are sharper on axis than the Zeiss Victory FL 10x56.
I own exactly these two binoculars and cannot agree with your result, the Conquest are sharp, but the Zeiss FL 10x56 is even sharper on the axis.
Many people say that the Noctivid 8x42 is sharper than the Zeiss SF 8x42, but on a tripod and especially with a booster the result is different, in fact the Zeiss is a touch sharper.

And how do you compare an 8x with a 10x binoculars in terms of sharpness, that's apples and oranges, especially since the handheld wobble factor is even greater with the 10x.

It really makes no sense to test binoculars for sharpness using a handheld, even most mid-range binoculars have very good sharpness. You should really place the glasses next to each other on a tripod. Even then, differences in sharpness between binoculars of the same rank are very difficult to detect. A booster can be used here bring clarity.

By the way, sharpness is not necessarily a criterion for a special quality, getting a very good focus point on the axis is not that difficult from a technical point of view and some binoculars that are maximized overall on sharpness and omit other parameters tend to have a digital impression that makes the image unnatural .

Andreas
 
Last edited:
Hi dae33,

Thank you for the very detailed review.

My initial impressions:

- The FoV is massive for a bino at this price point - they advertise it at 9.1° and you’ve confirmed it at 9.3°? Wow!

- For the visual image to remain bright, natural in colors, sharp, no noticeable field curvature and no color fringing (CA) virtually all the way to the field stop is actually quite an optical feat. A big challenge to keep everything so well controlled.

- Respect your measurement on effective Eye Relief even though others may differ based on their repeated measurements. Don’t know what gives.

- Since so many comparisons have been made with NL, I bet it would be super interesting for many to see a serious review (like yours) between these two binoculars. As you opined in a previous comment, the NL’s don’t have the sharpest image on the axis either and no one worries or makes a point on that. So, it makes the reader even more curious about how do these two compare.

- At $/€ 500, this bino sure offers a lot for the money, especially with that ultra wide FoV and well-balanced features. The only other alternative available entails biting the bullet and raiding the piggy bank.

Question:

1. Since you’ve had the opportunity to play around with several binos, what are your impressions in regard to glare control of this bino directly compared with the 8x42 NL Pure?
 
Last edited:
Hello,

very nice report!(y)

However, I don't agree with this at all:

Comparing binoculars for sharpness by holding them in handheld should actually be forbidden!
In order to achieve a reasonably accurate result, they should at least be tested on a tripod and with test boards, better yet with 3-4x boosters.!


I own exactly these two binoculars and cannot agree with your result, the Conquest are sharp, but the Zeiss FL 10x56 is even sharper on the axis.
Many people say that the Noctivid 8x42 is sharper than the Zeiss SF 8x42, but on a tripod and especially with a booster the result is different, in fact the Zeiss is a touch sharper.

And how do you compare an 8x with a 10x binoculars in terms of sharpness, that's apples and oranges, especially since the handheld wobble factor is even greater with the 10x.

It really makes no sense to test binoculars for sharpness using a handheld, even most mid-range binoculars have very good sharpness. You should really place the glasses next to each other on a tripod. Even then, differences in sharpness between binoculars of the same rank are very difficult to detect. A booster can be used here bring clarity.

By the way, sharpness is not necessarily a criterion for a special quality, getting a very good focus point on the axis is not that difficult from a technical point of view and some binoculars that are maximized overall on sharpness and omit other parameters tend to have a digital impression that makes the image unnatural .

Andreas
can you link me the post containing result of comparison of NV and SF in terms of central sharpness?
 
Last edited:
can you link me the post containing result of comparison of NV and SF in terms of central sharpness?
I would have to search for this post for hours now!

It was a direct comparison between a Zeiss SF 8x42, Noctivid 8x42 and a Swarovski NL 8x42!

I initially did the test without a booster and after a lot of back and forth I came to the conclusion that the Zeiss was a little sharper than the Noctivid and NL.

Curiously, our colleague "Pinac" did the same test with the three glasses but with boosters, he came to the same result.

1. SF 8x42
2. Noctivid 8x42
3. NL 8x42

Andreas
 
LOL, they just don’t have any in stock anymore. Possibly end of month/beginning of next for the U.S. market at least. Very few people were able to get one from the first batch.
 
Excellent review, thank you very much. So the Moon Star Apo 8x32 or APM 8X32 ED APO turned out to be a good binocular, having compared it to the Banner. There is little news regarding this bino. I was undecided between the two, for me the weight is too big for the Banner and I don't have twilight needs. The comparison with the Vixen SG 6.5x32 that I know is also excellent.
 
Time for all the members asking questions about this great $500 binocular to get of the pot, pony up $$ and get the d..n binocular. How many more questions are needed to squeeze out the last molecule of data.
Like I said -- I'm not gonna order in China and deal with 19% taxes and the hassle of importing it. It will surely pop up in European shops at some point if it is as good as everyone claims. When I can order here I have 14 days return period without shipping costs as opposed to ordering in China.
That being said -- I value center sharpness over flat field -- so that might be a dealbreaker -- I already have a ton of super wide angle vintage porros with excellent center sharpness. Since our eyes don't see sharp at the periphery anyway, one would have to roll around the eyes in the FoV to really make use of the flat field. I do like flat field but it's not the "be all -- end all" of binos for me.
 
When comparing sharpness the difference can be noticable without a resolution chart if the difference is not very close.
Sharpness and resolution is the same when comparing the same magnification. Sharpness can be described as relative resolution. For example 10x will mostly beat 7x unless the 7x model has very significantly better sharpness.
A person with exceptional eye resolution will gain more of sharp optics while higher magnification is more important for a person with poor eye resolution.
 
very nice report!(y)
Thank you.

Comparing binoculars for sharpness by holding them in handheld should actually be forbidden!
Why? I believe most people (and me as well) use binoculars in handheld mode much more often than a tripod mounted. And it's ok to describe a perceived sharpness in that case. I use a word "sharpness" to describe acutance, not a resolution. In case of a resolution test i fully agree, the test should be performed with a tripod mounted binoculars and with an additional booster. A photo test by a DSLR could be even preferable.

Many people say that the Noctivid 8x42 is sharper than the Zeiss SF 8x42, but on a tripod and especially with a booster the result is different, in fact the Zeiss is a touch sharper.

And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.

I don't own the NL 8x42, so can't make a direct comparison. May be will have a chance to do it in a month or so.
Concerning Canip question about the smell, the Banner Cloud had some plastic smell from a rubber covering for a while at the beginning. It is a binoculars for the price and not more, in terms of build quality and used materials.
 
Last edited:
I definitely can see sharpness difference between some different binoculars handheld without a resolution chart. With same or different magnification.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top