• 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)

And I agree with them, the Zeiss SF are more contrast, but the Noctivid are sharper (crisper) on axis.
Somehow it's the other way around, with a booster you can see that the SF is slightly sharper, that Noctivid has the slightly higher contrast IMO.
I definitely can see sharpness difference between some different binoculars handheld without a resolution chart. With same or different magnification.
I used to think so too, until I examined various binoculars more closely.

There can be various factors why one binocular appears sharper than another, including a subjectively perceived higher contrast.

I bet that no one can see a difference in sharpness between an SF, Noctivid and NL using a handheld, even with a three-booster on a tripod the differences are marginal.

Andreas
 
My thanks to the OP for putting together this review, which seems to have been read by some surprising folks :giggle:. It's all I can do to take a photo of my binoculars sometimes, so going to the trouble to take multiple photos and note down/write up your observations is appreciated. I wouldn't be too fussed by comments about the lack of detailed resolution testing etc - fine if you're a professional reviewer, but the late Troubadour and many others posted reviews that were essentially totally subjective that plenty of folks found interesting and useful. (That said, since you already have a 4x booster, some comparitive tests with a couple of the other binoculars you mention - eg Nikon 8x30 EII and E, Nikon M7 - would be very interesting... )

It looks as though Nikon and other brands/rebranders that compete in the $500 category may need to think real hard about what they offer. It might not be a NL or SF "killer" (I can't imagine anyone with real experience really thought that), but killing something like a Terra is a different thing. The likes of Opticron/Hawke/Vanguard/APM etc have to be giving some thought to taking up rebadged versions (maybe with tweaks to eg the eyecups) surely.

PS. I guess the hundreds of people who asked questions about the WX/NL/SF should have gone out and bought them too?
 
I wouldn't be too fussed by comments about the lack of detailed resolution testing etc - fine if you're a professional reviewer, but the late Troubadour and many others posted reviews that were essentially totally subjective that plenty of folks found interesting and useful.
I think that's not the point!

I also find reviews of binoculars that have not been tested “professionally” interesting and overall the report on the banner is very nice.

It becomes problematic when you present a subjective impression as factually proven.

In order to be able to make really clear statements here, you have to fix the binoculars and, if possible, work with a booster.

There are studies that show that 8x binoculars of the same quality cannot really be checked for sharpness using a handheld device, the blur factor is simply too high.

I think here you should differentiate between subjectively perceived sharpness and precisely checked sharpness.

Ultimately, it should be pointed out that there can be different ratings here due to the variation in the series; although this is rarer for high-quality binoculars, it does happen.

In principle, you would have to test several models of a series in order to really be able to make an empirical statement.

Basically, any slightly higher quality binoculars should have sufficient sharpness on axis so that they do not stand out negatively when used handheld.

Andreas
 
Agreed, resolution and perceived sharpness are not the same. One can be measured (which a professional review should do, but shouldn't really be expected from non-professionals, IMO), the other is subjective.

The funny thing is that actual measured resolution probably impresses commentators on this forum more (and if done with tripod and booster, really gets the oohs and aahs), whereas in actual birding use the perception of sharpness is probably more important.
 
The funny thing is that actual measured resolution probably impresses commentators on this forum more (and if done with tripod and booster, really gets the oohs and aahs), whereas in actual birding use the perception of sharpness is probably more important.
IMO, sharpness performance is often given too much importance!

Of course, binoculars should be sharp enough so that they are not noticeable when used handheld, but on the other hand, the sharpness performance should always be in context with other parameters.

Andreas
 
I used to think so too, until I examined various binoculars more closely.

There can be various factors why one binocular appears sharper than another, including a subjectively perceived higher contrast.

I bet that no one can see a difference in sharpness between an SF, Noctivid and NL using a handheld, even with a three-booster on a tripod the differences are marginal.

Andreas

I don't doubt you are right when comparing these alpha binoculars. But I can see difference between binoculars of a bit different class.
And when comparing cheaper roofs to porros in same price range, porros are usually noticeably sharper.
 
The funny thing is that actual measured resolution probably impresses commentators on this forum more (and if done with tripod and booster, really gets the oohs and aahs), whereas in actual birding use the perception of sharpness is probably more important.

This is exactly the same as what i think about a resolution test, but i can make a try. Share an example of a professional binoculars review with a reliable resolution test please.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.


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.



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.
Thank you.


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.



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.
have compared NV vs NL 8x42
20240214_151027.jpg


and SF VS NL 8x42

20240324_205310.jpg

didn't compare three all but compared with same references nl 8x42 and el 8x32

between NV, SF, NL

NL is bit sharper then NV and hand down sharper then SF
VERY acknowledgeable in all of the method I do for the review.

so central sharpness is

SF << NV < NL.

sf has best 3D rendering and brightness.
and green, black, yellow color is best satuated because it's significant yellow - green hue.

so color fidelity is worst in SF but SF 8x42 has better fidelity then 10x42 SF. NV 8x42 is more transparent then I thought.

CA in center is much better then NV and very similar with NL. (SF is brighter then NL so, it can be obvious to think that SF controls CA better in center then NL.)
but much more CA in edge.

edge sharpness percnetage is about 92% in sf, 96% in NL, 85% in NV to my eyes.

SF has highest pincusion distortion. so panning is more comfortable then NL

eye placement is lot better in NL then SF and NV.
SF, NV has bit shorter eyecup for it's real eyerelif.
(especially NV 8x42)

x3 digiscoped of the SF 8x42 / NL 8x42.

take only one each of 12 photos taken.
there is a bench to fix my elbows and window frame to support my hand and bino.
and you guys will know the digiscoping skills seeing a digiscoped birds I have taken.

have taken over 300000 shot approx with Samsung S21
also do birding only with digiscope.
I know how to take, and use digiscope at least more then most of other users.

As I said before. Camera is not always right but not always wrong.

1000211801.jpg

SF 8x42 / EL 8x32 (old Swarovision pre field pro)
1000211804.jpg

YES it can be a sample variation
YES it can be just a uneven work by camera
YES it can be just one's wrong thought that every one can have diffrent feel.

BUT I said it because it is confident experience for me in these comparisons.
In my own eyes, diffrence gap in bigger.

after seeing all the buzz going on my previous thread of the bino comparison, I'm not planning to post other specific threads about this.
 

Attachments

  • 1000211802.jpg
    1000211802.jpg
    854.4 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
As i see no more comment, i assume my review is to be a most professional one ;)
You've asked about a resolution test, and here it is. A smartphone was paced in 8 meters with a resolution test.

sky_rover_bc_vs_nikon_m7_8x42_resolution.jpg

A screenshot with a DSLR through the Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO is on the left, a screenshot with a DSLR through the Nikon M7 8x42 is on the right. This is a fully synthetic test, as we do not have such a contrast image in reality. Visually, the resolution is comparable in both binoculars, but with a slight margin to the Banner Cloud.

I made some visual testing during daytime (in a cloudy weather) also, on a building wall in 85 meters. I set some binoculars on a tripod and tested them for a sharpness and resolution.
So, the sharpness (acutance) is best in:
1) Nikon P7 8x30,
2) Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO,
3) Nikon E 8x30,
4) Nikon M7 8x42.

The resolution is best in:
1) Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO, very similar, but slightly worse in Nikon M7 8x42,
2) Nikon P7 8x30 and Nikon E 8x30.

I don't see much difference between two x30 binoculars, neither between two x42 binoculars in resolution even with a x4 booster. Though i can differentiate them in sharpness (crispness). Two binoculars of x42 differ in resolution from x30 for sure, but this can be seen in a tripod mounted mode only.
 
Last edited:
I wonder who is behind this company. Lots of talk and noise, another China made clone.
I remember well, how Zenray got its start, and finish.
Does anyone know about that ?
Jerry
 
Plagerized from another site........

Sky Rover is a subdivision of United Optics. Binoculars, spotting scopes and telescopes are designed and fabricated there at the United Optics plant near Kunming (which I have just recently visited). There is no relation to the former Zen-Ray, whose binoculars were made at the Shunho plant, also in Kunming.

Cheers,

Holger
 
Plagerized from another site........

During the time when I lived in China, from 2005 to 2016, I occasionally received binocular samples from UO for field testing. After I had collected my experiences with these samples, I sent them reports in which I complained about various issues that I had encountered, and among the most frequent complaints were problems with stray light in difficult (or not so difficult) light conditions due to incomplete baffling and/or prism leaks. In the last of these reviews, which were among the few that actually got published on my website, the Sky Rover 10x50 MS scored on a similar level as the Fujinon FMTR-SX in terms of stray light. Yet far from being perfect, but on an acceptable level. Meanwhile, the new Banner Cloud binoculars suppress stray light on a truly excellent level. Some parts of this learning curve I have probably experienced first hand, but more recently, they have reached a level of glare resistance that actually exceeds that of Swarovski binoculars in difficult light.

Swarovski binoculars I have field tested a couple of times. These are outstanding binoculars, but in terms of stray light they have always scored a little bit lower than similar high end models from Zeiss or Leica. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to improve over time, and with the latest 8x32 NL Pure these problems remained unsolved. I hope that this fact doesn't reflect an attitude as expressed by FatBoy Slim on his T-shirt. Time will tell who is going to plagiarize whom if the developments continue like that for another couple of years.

Cheers,
Holger
 
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.
Nice review. Thank you 🙏🏼
 
nel frattempo arriva volevo aggiornare che la spedizione in Italia è assurda facendo pagare 35 euro con quasi un mese di viaggio... arriva prima una stupidaggine su Wish o Temu..
 
Last edited:
*** (the C-in-C of Collimation) has said before that he used to stick a large black rubber cup on the objectives of binoculars, pass them to people in his shop and (apparently) this went completely unnoticed by the viewers. Given this, one really has to question whether comparatively minor blemishes such as smudges, dust or fingerprints (lots of examples in previous posts featuring the mighty Zeiss and others), actually register.

It seems to me that lots of folks who shine a flashlight into binoculars that they were happy with before, come away unhappy. It strikes me as being like testing binoculars with boosters and so on. Does it matter whether a binocular performs well at 50x? Should you be fussed about what you see looking through the end of a binocular that's not designed to be looked through?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top