Swarovsky SLC 8X42 versus SKY ROVER BANNER CLOUD 8X42 (1 Viewer)

[binomaniac]

I have a Kahles Helia S 8X42 binocular which is actually the new incarnation of the Swarovski SLC binoculars which I have extensively compared with the Zeiss SF 8X42, Swarovski NL Pure 8x42 and Leica Noctivid 8x42. I wanted to keep only one of them. Each of the 4 binoculars has its strengths and weaknesses. I found the best contrast and protection against parasitic lights, especially at night from street lighting, in Noctivid. The most ergonomic: Zeiss SF. The sharpest NL Pure. In the end, I kept the Kahles because they give me the most relaxing view I've ever experienced in binoculars. It's like a device that works as an extension of your own eyes. I am curious if there is anyone who had the opportunity to compare the Kahles Helia s 8x42 or the Swarovski SLC 8X42, which are actually the same binoculars, with the SKY ROVER BANNER CLOUD 8X42 and if they can give us some comparative impressions. Thanks in advance for any information.

 

[tenex]

This is going to be a highly subjective comparison in which other opinions may be of little use. What do you think contributes to this sense of greater ease or relaxation in SLC/HeliaS, even compared to Noctivid? (I may have a similar impression of more conventional optical designs vs the Swarovision type generally, which includes Banner Cloud as of course you know, but haven't investigated as seriously as I should. It may be that I simply haven't spent enough time with the latter to get used to them.)

 

[[email protected]]

It is not the SLC, but jackjack did a 'brief' comparison of the NL 8x42 to the Banner Cloud 8x42. It might be helpful because the SLC is similar in some ways to the NL, being from the same bloodline.

Brief comparisons between Skyrover Banner Cloud VS Swarovski NL Pure

few weeks ago, Korean bino seller sent me Sky rover banner cloud 8, 10x42 for analysis before they officially import and sell it. (the sample were to be sent more then six month ago, but they say they have some trouble getting bino sample from Sky rover.) (Limited Life time Warranty... for...

www.birdforum.net

 

[binomaniac]

At the beginning I had three binoculars, SF, NL and Noctivid. The first one I parted with was SF because, at least for my copy and for my eyes, no matter how fabulous the image was, I felt that it was tiring my eyes even though it didn't seem to be a collimation problem. Then I also gave up on NL because when observing at a short distance looking at the crown of the trees, I simply could not get used to the extremely compressed image, all the branches seemed to be in the same plane. I gave the binoculars to a colleague who had never looked through binoculars before, to look at the trunk of a tree and I was surprised when he asked me why the trunk appears flat instead of being round? So even someone totally lacking in experience notices this instantly. So I stayed with Noctivid, which delights me with a slightly more three-dimensional image, more plastic and with a rendering of colors more to my taste. It seemed to me an extremely relaxing pair of binoculars with a more than generous field of view. At this moment, Kahles' latest purchase enters the scene. . I was shocked by how relaxing the image can be even compared to Noctivid. I compared the two binoculars for months and every time I switched from Noctivid to Kahles the impression of immersion in the scene and three-dimensionality was overwhelming. Also, the field of 136 m equal in both binoculars on paper, in reality it seemed much wider in Kahles. So in the end I kept only Kahles to which I added this month a smaller brother, a Swarovski Swarovision 8x32. Now related to my interest in SKY ROVER. What intrigues me the most from the reports about these binoculars is the fact that despite the flat field, it seems that it still offers a three-dimensional sensation that I lacked in NL. So I wonder if a SKY ROVER 8x42 with a larger field than Kahles and with approximately the same feeling of immersion in the scene, somewhat more neutral colors, would not delight me more. For that , I should order one and I probably will soon, but I thought I'd see if I could get some information from people who had the opportunity to extensively compare the two binoculars.

 

[binomaniac]

And by the way, the SV 8X32 last arrived, it seems to me that it has a much more three-dimensional image than the one in NL, although it has a field flattener.

 

[Viraj]

What intrigues me the most from the reports about these binoculars is the fact that despite the flat field, it seems that it still offers a three-dimensional sensation that I lacked in NL.

According to the @jackjack s' review of NL and SKY ROVER the latter has a more compressed field compared to the NL. So, SKY ROVER would be a no-go for you.

And by the way, the SV 8X32 last arrived, it seems to me that it has a much more three-dimensional image than the one in NL, although it has a field flattener.

However, you feel SV 8x32 has more three-dimensional images than the one in NL which is supposed to be the other way around. Therefore, giving it a try for SKY ROVER would be worth it in your case. It is all the personal experience rather than others' opinions that matters.

 

[binomaniac]

Yes Viraj, I completely agree with your last statement. Regarding the problem related to more or less feeling of 3d in Sky Rover, I want to say that I looked carefully at the comparative photos between 12x50 Sky Rover and NL 12X42 posted by @jackjack and I noticed that in Sky Rover the more distant objects are much clearer than in NL, so the apparent depth of field is more permissive in SRBC. This implicitly leads to a stronger 3D sensation. I have also read reviews that talk about a very good stereoscopic sensation. English is not my native language but I think that Neil English.net in his review about SRBC 8X42 when he says: "The Banner Cloud 8 x 42 Apo also impressed me with its very decent stereopsis when viewing complex targets in the middle distance" refers to to the sensation of 3 D. I apologize if I misunderstood. Anyway, it's clear that until I have an SRBC in my hand I won't be able to form an exact opinion, but I thought it wouldn't be bad to get some personal impressions from people who had the opportunity to compare the two instruments.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes Viraj, I completely agree with your last statement. Regarding the problem related to more or less feeling of 3d in Sky Rover, I want to say that I looked carefully at the comparative photos between 12x50 Sky Rover and NL 12X42 posted by @jackjack and I noticed that in Sky Rover the more distant objects are much clearer than in NL, so the apparent depth of field is more permissive in SRBC. This implicitly leads to a stronger 3D sensation. I have also read reviews that talk about a very good stereoscopic sensation. English is not my native language but I think that Neil English.net in his review about SRBC 8X42 when he says: "The Banner Cloud 8 x 42 Apo also impressed me with its very decent stereopsis when viewing complex targets in the middle distance" refers to to the sensation of 3 D. I apologize if I misunderstood. Anyway, it's clear that until I have an SRBC in my hand I won't be able to form an exact opinion, but I thought it wouldn't be bad to get some personal impressions from people who had the opportunity to compare the two instruments.

I agree with jackjack. IMO the SRBC had a more compressed view than the NL with the NL having more stereopsis. The photo's can sometimes play tricks with your eyes. The SRBC was definitely more flat field than the NL when I compared them.

 

[tenex]

I gave the binoculars to a colleague who had never looked through binoculars before, to look at the trunk of a tree and I was surprised when he asked me why the trunk appears flat instead of being round?

I wish you had handed him your SLC first. "Compression" of distance is a simple function of magnification, in any binocular.

There is no difference in "stereopsis" between Schmidt-Pechan binoculars whose objectives are aligned with their oculars. There is no detectable difference in "depth of field" between binoculars of the same magnification, only confusion with variations in field curvature etc. Few who use NLs find their presentation "flat" in the way you describe. It's not just that they're not as bothered by it, they really don't get such an impression, and those who do have so far been unable to explain why.

"3D" has proved a completely hopeless subject for discussion, so all one can suggest is that SRBC could be worth trying. And if you do like it, be very sure to get a good sample.

 

[Owlbarred]

Re: SRBC vs. Swaro NL -- "Beam me up, Scotty."

 

[Maljunulo]

"3D" has proved a completely hopeless subject for discussion,

‘Tis but one among many.

 

[agus_m]

I thought some binos such as the Zeiss SF, maybe NL Pure and SRBC, have a wider separation of their objectives than of their oculars. Nowhere near a porro, but still a noticeable enhancement of stereopsis compared to other roofs.

 

[NDhunter]

I thought some binos such as the Zeiss SF, maybe NL Pure and SRBC, have a wider separation of their objectives than of their oculars. Nowhere near a porro, but still a noticeable enhancement of stereopsis compared to other roofs.

Another one.
Jerry

 

[Patudo]

I looked carefully at the comparative photos between 12x50 Sky Rover and NL 12X42 posted by @jackjack and I noticed that in Sky Rover the more distant objects are much clearer than in NL, so the apparent depth of field is more permissive in SRBC. This implicitly leads to a stronger 3D sensation. I have also read reviews that talk about a very good stereoscopic sensation.

I have the greatest respect for jackjack's efforts to show us what he sees in the binoculars he looks through. They are interesting , and I also consider them informative. But I would hesitate to opine about things like apparent depth of field, perceived 3D without looking through the binoculars in question myself; and even so, your perception may differ from mine.

FWIW I feel there are differences in perceived depth of field in binoculars of the same magnification - whether because of field curvature, differences in actual magnification or even just some feature (exit pupil etc) that allows the eye's accommodation to function more easily and freely I don't know, but I wouldn't disagree with those who claim to see more depth of field in some binoculars than others.

 

[agus_m]

Another one.
Jerry

wow, another one of what?

 

[NDhunter]

Dreaming of the 3D differences.

 

[Maljunulo]

I would like to pick a nit.

JackJack's photos show what his phone sees, after it is transmitted over the internet, and downloaded to your device.

There is absolutely no way to convey what JackJack, or any other person, sees.

 

[agus_m]

Dreaming of the 3D differences.

I am sorry but I am not convinced by you argument. Don't you have something better to say? No need to be rude

 

[jackjack]

I would like to pick a nit.

JackJack's photos show what his phone sees, after it is transmitted over the internet, and downloaded to your device.

There is absolutely no way to convey what JackJack, or any other person, sees.

what else can do better besides the best way we all know? just verbal impression about how the user like the bino like many previous reviews?

yes, we all know the only best way to know about specific bino but also we all know not everyone can't do it

Photography ABSOLUTELY can't deliver full view and impression that bino give because it's just 2D photo and we don't use bino only as camera lenses.

but can help to point out some part of optics that can be critical to choices that some folks wanted to make.

and again, that's why I always put at least one bino on direct conparison. so both photo goes under same procedure like you said above. Closest to identical lighting, through same camera, converted to internet, download to the phone and more.

and for the last time I say it again, as many will know now, It's not my camera alone that judge the review.
Luckily, I have a set of biological lens which still have many years left before expiration date.