Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO in 56 mm, 12x and 15x (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

I'm not sure I've seen this around here, and since I know some forum members like their 12x, I thought I might was well leave this here for reference.

8x42/10x42/10x50/12x50/12x56/15x56 APO Binoculars

SKY ROVER Banner Cloud series 8x42/10x42APO adopt Double ED glasses, Apochromatic structure. Coated with FBMC+phase coating+dielectric coating. Magnesium alloy body. Average transmittance of up to 90% and a peak transmittance of up to 92%. Ultra-flat field wide-angle design. Provide an apparent...

skyroveroptics.com

This seems to be a family picture of the 42, 50 and 56 mm members

Now, my interest lies mainly in the possibility of getting an 8x32 (even better, 8x30) to see how it goes. Well, to be honest, a 10-11º 7x35 wouldn't mind either #daydreaming

 

[jackjack]

real size comparison with 50mm

 

[codarossa]

View attachment 1613133
real size comparison with 50mm

Dear Jackjack, what are your impressions about the 15x56?

 

[Bentley03]

No reviews to be found anywhere online, as far as I can see. Oh well, curiosity's got the better of me, 15x56's are incoming...

 

[ArchStanton]

No reviews to be found anywhere online, as far as I can see. Oh well, curiosity's got the better of me, 15x56's are incoming...

There’s someone on Reddit comparing the SRBC 15x56’s to other binoculars.

https://www.reddit.com/r/binocularsadvice/s/zLQzgp1t6E

 

[Dennis Mau]

There’s someone on Reddit comparing the SRBC 15x56’s to other binoculars.

https://www.reddit.com/r/binocularsadvice/s/zLQzgp1t6E

These statements make me wonder about his comparisons. Really?

"Second place believe it or not is a tie between the $1399 GPO Passion HD 12.5x50 and $60 Adasian UHD 15x56 with regard to overall optical quality."

"This GPO Passion HD image quality really reminds me of the ZEISS CONQUEST HD I returned for refund not too long ago just because the image quality just plain sucked IMHO, but this GPO doesn't exhibit the haziness I witnessed while using the Conquest HDs."

 

[ArchStanton]

These statements make me wonder about his comparisons. Really?

"Second place believe it or not is a tie between the $1399 GPO Passion HD 12.5x50 and $60 Adasian UHD 15x56 with regard to overall optical quality."

"This GPO Passion HD image quality really reminds me of the ZEISS CONQUEST HD I returned for refund not too long ago just because the image quality just plain sucked IMHO, but this GPO doesn't exhibit the haziness I witnessed while using the Conquest HDs."

I have no idea how the SRBC binoculars compare to the other binoculars but wouldn’t take a chance on ordering them directly from PRC. I’d rather pay more for a pair from a established, reputable manufacturer.

 

[Romão Gomes]

Today, I received my sky rover banner cloud 10x42.
In a few days I'll post a comparative review between it, my SHG ddoptics 10x42, the Chronus UHd G2 10x42 and the Meade masterclass pro ed 8x42.
I've also had the Canon L IS 10x42, the Fujinon fmtr-sx 10x50, the Nikon SE 10x42, the Zeiss T FL 8x32, among others.
I know the responsibility of posting comments, as we can influence other people's purchases.
If someone has bought an SRBC and doesn't like its optics, I can only believe that they have received a defective specimen.
I can't compare it to a Swarovision, Noctivid, EDG, SF or Nl Pure, because I haven't tried them.
But of everything I've ever owned or tried, I've never seen anything like it!
The optics of the model I received are superb! Without exaggeration.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[jackjack]

Today, I received my sky rover banner cloud 10x42.
In a few days I'll post a comparative review between it, my SHG ddoptics 10x42, the Chronus UHd G2 10x42 and the Meade masterclass pro ed 8x42.
I've also had the Canon L IS 10x42, the Fujinon fmtr-sx 10x50, the Nikon SE 10x42, the Zeiss T FL 8x32, among others.
I know the responsibility of posting comments, as we can influence other people's purchases.
If someone has bought an SRBC and doesn't like its optics, I can only believe that they have received a defective specimen.
I can't compare it to a Swarovision, Noctivid, EDG, SF or Nl Pure, because I haven't tried them.
But of everything I've ever owned or tried, I've never seen anything like it!
The optics of the model I received are superb! Without exaggeration.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

If one got pass the uncomfortness of huge eyecups and get used to unnatural compressed view that SRBC provides, it's optic alone is enough to change the perception of MIC bins.

as I have seen all except SHG 10x42 (have seen in 8x42) and also all of the bino that you post about not trying them, it is a dominator in 1000~1500$ price range
unless two unchangeable defects that I said above bothers you more then it's optics.

 

[Romão Gomes]

If one got pass the uncomfortness of huge eyecups and get used to unnatural compressed view that SRBC provides, it's optic alone is enough to change the perception of MIC bins.

as I have seen all except SHG 10x42 (have seen in 8x42) and also all of the bino that you post about not trying them, it is a dominator in 1000~1500$ price range
unless two unchangeable defects that I said above bothers you more then it's optics.

Brightness, transparency, brightness and aberration control, low distortion and other things are always desirable for any observer.
But when we talk about flat field, we're talking about a subjective issue.
I love it, but I know that many people don't.

 

[Bentley03]

No reviews to be found anywhere online, as far as I can see. Oh well, curiosity's got the better of me, 15x56's are incoming...

Arrived on Monday. After an initial (and admittedly not very thorough) inspection, I think I've been lucky on the sample variation/quality control front again. Hinge tension and focus movement are absolutely spot on for me, and during the short amount of time spent setting the dioptre and testing handheld, I sense collimation is probably as true as the best of my other SRBC's, no sense of my eyes correcting after bringing the binoculars down from my eyes whatsoever, and no eye fatigue whilst in use.

The view is familiar, typical SRBC and incredibly impressive (especially if a well corrected wide flat field is your thing). But here's the thing, the way those huge eyecups sit atop the bridge of my nose and connect with the top of my eye sockets/eyebrows, gives these binoculars (for me) incredible stability in use. I am generating so little tremor/shake/movement that the view feels certainly as calm as an easy to handhold 12x binocular, but actually as calm as some of the 10x binoculars I own as well. Extraordinary!

A couple of minor gripes. The lens caps for these x56's are not as secure as those on the x42's and x50's, but this could again be nothing more than sample variation (in the diameter of the ends of the barrels), and the cordura binocular case, as with the case included with the x50's, is simply too small and too tight for the instrument. There is no way these binoculars can be packed away with the eyecups set to where they sit when I use them. And that's another thing. The eyecup click stops are very poorly defined and far too easily inadvertently moved down a stop while using the binoculars, which is irritating.

So far, very impressed indeed, overall.

 

[Patudo]

I love it, but I know that many people don't.

Many people here say they don't, but at the same time the best selling alpha binoculars (Swaros) are flat field, Nikon's two leading ranges (EDG and Monarch HG) both feature field flatteners, Zeiss has moved towards partial field flattening in the SF and now the Conquest HDX. So the big manufacturers with all their product research clearly know something. I think if you did a blind test on users who have little experience with binoculars a good many - probably, I'd guess, even the majority - might well prefer flat field. It takes a special kind of persuasion to get folks to believe that having 20% or more of the field of view unsharp beats having the entire field, or the great majority of it, sharp.

@bentley - fascinating observations, as ever. Had to chortle at your wording: "typical SRBC". IMO large exit pupil does help with perceived stability. The eyecups should be easily set in place with O-rings or similar spacers. It is a what... £600? binocular after all. I wonder whether the same (or improved ) optics in a better built body would be a viable business proposition...

 

[Hermann]

It takes a special kind of persuasion to get folks to believe that having 20% or more of the field of view unsharp beats having the entire field, or the great majority of it, sharp.

But a curved FOV gives you some more depth of field.

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

Roughly how much more, as an approximate percentage, based on your personal perception?

I know when I've compared my 8x42 FL with my brother's 8.5x42 FP the former has always seemed more fiddly even though 8x should have more DOF. I also feel field flatteners give you easier eye placement, and less fatigue over long sessions. But I can fully accept other perceptions differ.