Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review (2 Viewers)

[Conndomat]

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?

IMO, new binoculars should have their lenses clean, you can blow away some dust on the lenses, depending on the size and amount, dust between the lens elements can reduce the image quality somewhat.

The pictures on CN of the stains on the lenses of the BC are IMO intolerable, regardless of the manufacturer I would always return binoculars like this.

Andreas

 

[Patudo]

The pictures on CN of the stains on the lenses of the BC are IMO intolerable, regardless of the manufacturer I would always return binoculars like this.

I was going to say that maybe it's because I've always bought my binoculars secondhand that I'm not so picky - but in fact if you buy binoculars secondhand you probably need to be even more picky. In any case, yes, I have looked through binoculars from the "wrong end" a few times, but mostly only where I thought something was not as it should be when looking through them the right way.

I suppose I would need to look through the example Pinac has to decide for myself how badly the spots he's seeing affect the image, but he says the effect was negligible (his words), which I can believe - given that, as *** says he's done, you can stick a large black suction cup on the objective and not have anyone notice it's there.

Incidentally, I wonder if the same testing was applied to other $500/600 class binoculars, or indeed binoculars at higher price levels, what defects would be found?

PS. to add another post to the many that reference production issues with binoculars not made in the PRC - see this link.

 

[Conndomat]

I suppose I would need to look through the example Pinac has to decide for myself how badly the spots he's seeing affect the image, but he says the effect was negligible (his words), which I can believe - given that, as *** says he's done, you can stick a large black suction cup on the objective and not have anyone notice it's there.

I'm not particularly concerned with the BC, but rather that such stains are unacceptable on new binoculars, regardless of brand!

But do you know that Pinac sent the binocular back?

I once tried out a Swarovski SLC 10x56 in a shop, when I was focusing I always noticed a small shadow in the center of the right tube and when in focus the right tube didn't seem to be quite as sharp as the left tube!
When I looked at the lenses there was a very small piece of wood in the right tube between the lenses which subtly influenced the view.

A large black suction cup may not be visible upon superficial inspection, but I doubt that this statement will hold true upon closer inspection.

Andreas

 

[Hermann]

I suppose I would need to look through the example Pinac has to decide for myself how badly the spots he's seeing affect the image, but he says the effect was negligible (his words), which I can believe [...]

Whether those spots affect the image or not doesn't really matter IMO. They should not be there. Especially not in a new pair of binoculars. No way. And the price doesn't come into this at all. NO binocular should have or develop such spots.

And, and that's an important point IMO, if a new pair of binoculars that was supposedly clean when it shipped develops such spots during transport, what does that tell us about the construction? Is the focuser not sufficiently shielded from the optics? What will happen after some use in different conditions? Will they increase in number or size? Is that possibly a construction problem? Or did they just make a mistake, like use the wrong type of lubricant or too much lubricant, assuming these spots are oil spots for a moment?

Incidentally, I wonder if the same testing was applied to other $500/600 class binoculars, or indeed binoculars at higher price levels, what defects would be found?

Well, I personally check ANY new binocular quite carefully before using it in the field. And if I find ANY defects - and oil spots on the optics are quite obviously a defect - off they go back to the manufacturer.

PS. to add another post to the many that reference production issues with binoculars not made in the PRC - see this link.

Sure. No manufacturer is immune from such production issues. That's why every binocular (or scope or camera or ...) needs to be checked very carefully once you hold them in your hands for the first time.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

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?

Well, using boosters does serve a pupose: It tells you not only how badly many binoculars are actually aligned, no matter who makes them, it can also help you understand why the image of some binocular isn't "quite right".

Let me give you an example: A few years ago an old guy I meet quite often on my local patch had got himself a new pair of bins from one of the big European manufacturers. He thought something wasn't really right with his binocular, it wasn't as clear and as sharp as he'd expected it to be. I had the same impression but I couldn't quite figure out what the problem was. So the next time we met I brought a Zeiss 3x12, and after we put his binocular on a tripod and used the booster it became clear that there was quite a difference between the barrels: One barrel was pretty sharp across the image at 24x, the other barrel was sharp on one side of the image but not quite on the other, something I had never seen before in a binocular. He got a new pair from the manufacturer that was essentially perfect.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

Well, I personally check ANY new binocular quite carefully before using it in the field. And if I find ANY defects - and oil spots on the optics are quite obviously a defect - off they go back to the manufacturer.

I'd be interested to know how many binoculars you checked (maybe as a percentage) had defects; how many of those you thought the defects had a material effect on the view; and what did you do in those cases - did they all go back to the manufacturer (and how many of the replacements had issues of their own?). Given that, as we all know, sample variation exists, if you found a binocular that you thought was very good optically, would you run the risk of sending it back and getting one that might be clean inside, but not as good optically?

an old guy I meet quite often on my local patch had got himself a new pair of bins from one of the big European manufacturers. He thought something wasn't really right with his binocular, it wasn't as clear and as sharp as he'd expected it to be. I had the same impression but I couldn't quite figure out what the problem was. So the next time we met I brought a Zeiss 3x12,

That's fair enough - if you think something's not right, it's worth a check. But do you put the booster on binoculars that you think are fine?

A large black suction cup may not be visible upon superficial inspection, but I doubt that this statement will hold true upon closer inspection.

Well, I have to admit I never tried that myself, but you should have a discussion with ***, the guy who made that claim. Although chances are it'll end in "AND HOW MANY BINOCULARS HAVE YOU SERVICED???"

 

[Hermann]

I'd be interested to know how many binoculars you checked (maybe as a percentage) had defects; how many of those you thought the defects had a material effect on the view; and what did you do in those cases - did they all go back to the manufacturer (and how many of the replacements had issues of their own?). Given that, as we all know, sample variation exists, if you found a binocular that you thought was very good optically, would you run the risk of sending it back and getting one that might be clean inside, but not as good optically?

Difficult question. For a start, I began using quality binoculars some 40 years ago, and I never kept a list. I always check any new binoculars with a flashlight, knowing full well that a small amount of dust is unavoidable and totally harmless. I also never bothered with any small "defects" such as some loose armour and the like. I did however send back a binocular where the diopter scale was out by 3 diopters. Not acceptable for a binocular that would cost ~2000 € in today's money. In a cheap pair (like the APM porros) I wouldn't bother, just get on with using the pair.

Taking only high quality binoculars I found four binoculars with optical defects I found unacceptable over the years:

• One pair I bought myself had some stuff (probably lubricant) inside the eyepiece, visible as a shadow in the view.
• Another pair I bought had a fingerprint on the inside of one the objective lenses. Not visible in the image, but fingerprints degrade coatings over time.
• A pair bought by a relative had a hair inside the eyepiece (?) that became visible when you focused.
• The binocular with the defect barrel I wrote about in my post above.

All four went back to the manufacturers and came back in perfect condition. I also handled a few binoculars over the years where I told the owner I'd send them back because the focuser was too rough, had play and so on. Or that suffered from diopter drift. No idea what the owners did.

How many did I look at? No idea. Perhaps 50+ binoculars? 100? I also casually looked at quite a few cheap binoculars over time but I don't recall how many of these were not acceptable. BTW, the only cheap binoculars that were almost always OK were the Russian ones.

But do you put the booster on binoculars that you think are fine?

Binoculars:

• I always use a booster if I suspect something is wrong with a binocular. Always.
• I always check the barrels with the booster if I may use the booster in the field to get more magnification. Works well in a pinch. The barrels of binoculars are rarely equally good (or bad ...), and it's good to know which barrel to use in the field.
• When I have time on my hands I may fool around with a booster, just for fun.

Scopes:
Scopes are different. Every single scope I bought was thoroughly star-tested and checked with a booster, simply because with scopes every small misalignment will bite you in your behind when you need high magnifications. There are still far too many lemons about. You can check a scope without a booster but with a booster the checks are more reliable and faster.

Hermann

 

[Canip]

But do you know that Pinac sent the binocular back?

Well, he hasn‘t done it yet, as far as I know (and for a reason)

 

[Hermann]

Well, he hasn‘t done it yet, as far as I know (and for a reason)

Waiting a while until they sorted out what the problem is? That's what I'd do anyway.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

how many did I look at? No idea. Perhaps 50+ binoculars? 100?

Thanks - that's a helpful perspective. Four out of 50 to 100, two of which you could see the issues without a flashlight and another wonky enough that both you and the owner thought something was not right when looking through it, isn't too bad.