Or perhaps another MIC clone piggybacking off the design and quality of Swarovski. The link is mostly a series of pushy adverts with no real testing results.....just "comparitive" image photos versus an NL.

Or perhaps another MIC clone piggybacking off the design and quality of Swarovski. The link is mostly a series of pushy adverts with no real testing results.....just "comparitive" image photos versus an NL.

There is a lot of meaning in the small word " perhaps"....

That's why open minded people will watch that space......

Perhaps a better description of these could be " a roof bin to rival NLs' :...... That way, the emotive debate about 'copying' someone else's "design " is removed completely.

An SP roof bin is an SP roof bin ......

Blast, though I’d finally stopped wanting binos. Be interesting to get reviews of actual examples from some of our regular posters. How close the performance is, how the fit and finish is. Given the expertise of the company, one wonders if they could exceed the existing performance, guess it depends what the design requirements are. The days of my Nikon 8x30E2 may be numbered….

Peter

Anyone seen Charles lately?

There is very little info for the Skyrover . The member who brought it to our attention on CN cannot provide us with any pertinent info . I have an extremely hard time believing that this Skyrover at 1/10 the cost of an NL can provide the same performance of an NL . $350 does not buy you an alpha level binocular although it can get you a nice bin for the money .
The hype attached to this reminds me of when Oberwerk came out with the SE's

Would the Sky Rover mentioned in the Cloudynights post be the same manufacturer as the Sky Rover (United Optics of Kunming, PRC) whose 10x50 individual focus porro - which appears to be a clone of the Fujinon FMT - received a pretty positive review by Holger Merlitz here? Review: Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX2 vs United Optics 10x50 Sky Rover

My understanding, which might be wrong, is that they deliver the APM porros too, so your assertion is possibly correct.

They do astro kit too eg superzoom (sold under an APM label too).

Member "Milos1977" on CN has also posted about it, since he received his. Seems all rather positive. The price would be more like 500€/$ btw, not 350. And if that bino was made in Europe, my guess would be that it would reach 1,000€ easily. So reaching Meopta Meopro territory. I hadn't planned on getting another MiC bino but it seems still rather interesting. I'd love to see some more serious testing (@Gijs van Ginkel ?), once it might become available in Europe, maybe through APM, teleskop-express or other sellers. What would be most interesting would be someone getting one, taking it to a Swarovski facility for them to take apart and analyze to see if it is in any way reverse-engineered.

The Eye relief will be the deal killer for those who wear glasses, get the popcorn sit back and watch.

The Eye relief will be the deal killer for those who wear glasses, get the popcorn sit back and watch.

I for one would be very curious to try the view from a wide-angle eyepiece that didn't strain also to get 18mm ER.

Member "Milos1977" on CN has also posted about it, since he received his. Seems all rather positive. The price would be more like 500€/$ btw, not 350. And if that bino was made in Europe, my guess would be that it would reach 1,000€ easily. So reaching Meopta Meopro territory. I hadn't planned on getting another MiC bino but it seems still rather interesting. I'd love to see some more serious testing (@Gijs van Ginkel ?), once it might become available in Europe, maybe through APM, teleskop-express or other sellers. What would be most interesting would be someone getting one, taking it to a Swarovski facility for them to take apart and analyze to see if it is in any way reverse-engineered.

A quote from Milos1977 from CN . The quote was when the buzz on this bin was in it's infancy . " Swarovski 8x and 10x42 NL pure are $3500. These are $350. The same specs including close focus, eye relief, weight, FOV, diopter correction and adjustment.

TEN TIMES less expensive has to be record in clone binoculars so far. Still, no harm in keeping an eye on these , specially if they become backed by one of the well known brands we mentioned already in this thread. "

A quote from Milos1977 from CN . The quote was when the buzz on this bin was in it's infancy . " Swarovski 8x and 10x42 NL pure are $3500. These are $350. The same specs including close focus, eye relief, weight, FOV, diopter correction and adjustment.

TEN TIMES less expensive has to be record in clone binoculars so far. Still, no harm in keeping an eye on these , specially if they become backed by one of the well known brands we mentioned already in this thread. "

He has since received them and written about his first impressions in the thread I linked.

He has since received them and written about his first impressions in the thread I linked.

I have been following the Skyrover buzz since it's beginning , it's very entertaining . It would be fantastic if you could buy an "alpha" binocular for a fraction of what an "alpha" bin costs but I myself have a hard time believing it to be so . I would be more inclined to believe that perhaps the Skyrover is more of a class leader than a NL Pure crusher .

@albie...
I fully agree. I'll believe it as soon as there has been some proper testing done. Not some overly enthusiastic first impressions. Still an interesting instrument for the FoV alone.

I have been following the Skyrover buzz since it's beginning , it's very entertaining . It would be fantastic if you could buy an "alpha" binocular for a fraction of what an "alpha" bin costs but I myself have a hard time believing it to be so . I would be more inclined to believe that perhaps the Skyrover is more of a class leader than a NL Pure crusher .

Why is it so hard to believe that a China sourced ? …. could produce a China Alpha binocular so close in Quality to a European brand ? . Just look at the labor/manufacturing cost differences not to mention how competitive China has become in producing nice quality optics this last decade alone. Not to offend any owners of the mentioned clone brand but to be honest, they are grossly overpriced. Take decades of large budgets for sales advertising from a household name for example “ Swarovski “ and we end up where we are now.

First of all, a lot of Ballihoo and what does APO means on handheld binoculars?

Andreas

I’m afraid I got stuck on “has the same specs” and the implication that a $350 glass can therefore be the same as a $3500 glass.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

The Eye relief will be the deal killer for those who wear glasses, get the popcorn sit back and watch.

I don't think so. I have no problem seeing full fov with my glasses on, and have to retract one step with naked eyes.

Why is it so hard to believe that a China sourced ? …. could produce a China Alpha binocular so close in Quality to a European brand ?

Because so far every single overhyped China bino proved to be a storm in a waterglass. Besides, the question isn't, could they do it? They question is - could they have done it without some amount of reverse engineering? Could they have done it if someone else hadn't done it before? Because most of the time we only see copycat stuff made in China.

And the price of a Swarovski might be high but I very much doubt that's all just because of marketing costs.

Soon we will hear folks selling their NLs. And when the mechanicals fail, customer service will be subpar. I will keep my NLs.

As I see and have many chinese bino, I'm really skeptical about Chinese bino reviews. below photo is some MIC bino I have right now. Top left is Skyrover Apo 85mm which some chinese said to be almost similar as Swaro ATX 85 so I really put up a comparison between it. Top right is MS apo 12x56 also sell in APM I also compared it with Swaro NL 12x42 Bottom very left is chinese 8x25 which strongly considered as same optically to pleasing 8x25. also compared with Swaro 8x25 CL next to it is 8x32 bw8 form Kunming united optics. also compared with 8x32 of Zeiss conquest hd and swaro EL next to 8x32 is pleasing 6.5x32. also compared with Leica ultravid hd 7x42 and the very left is Shuntu Panorama ed 10x42. you guys may heard of it as Chinese Swarovision. some chinse reviewers said it only lacks birghtness and color fidelity. so I compared it with EL 10x32 (don't have 10x42 right now, and zeiss HT 10x42) to go straight for conculsion, it takes me maximum 20 (10 each for two optics each) seconds to find the difference between swarovski and other big three except for only 6.5x32 porro which helds up well compared to leica uv 7x42. may because of the prorro prism and small magnification which easier to control abberation and transmission. and also because leica 7x42 is optically significent step below the Swaro best lines. difference gap is pretty shrunked but still VERY visible not only for the reviewers but also for a normal light bino users such as birders and star watchers. I also used digiscop photoes for reviews I write in Korean forum but only for reference. I rank them using my words and some points any systems I made up. Frankly speaking, Im tired of or even angry of Chinese bluffing about their products. they have very good price value especially prorro prisms that can be more easily made. but for roof prism, I think they have only about 500$ (maybe up to 700 if really a good one) maximum price value more than Japan, European brands that made at similar era. also mechanical comfort is still far below optical performance. Chinese optic skills have grown very fast these days, but still they have to be more modest for their products. and they have to give more effort of the quality control. I have seen many various faults for my own eyes. Personal Preferation of Contries and Brands is a big point for purchasing optics BUT IT MUST NOT influance the review. even a small amount will contaminate the results. I might can get hands on the 'Fake NL' that exup said. one company that I giving advice in terms of optical analysis and marketing techniques have some plan to import it to South Korea.

THEN I can compare it with REAL NL.

I think a big factor is the glass. Refractive index, dispersion, and so on are vitally important in the design of an optimum optical train. Exotic glasses are difficult and expensive produce and some of them are very difficult to work, due to their other physical properties.

I have serious doubts that the Chinese can produce and figure glasses comparable to those produced by or available to the Teutonic Trinity, some of which are almost certain to be proprietary.

When a MIC binocular manufacturer could copy a NL pure with same specs and close quality they would sell it for 1500€ instead of 500€. Also chinese companies want to make profit. ;-)

Depends on the market, you could “do a WX” and charge $6k, but then you’d not sell a lot of units. Pricing is always a balance.

Peter

Depends on the market, you could “do a WX” and charge $6k, but then you’d not sell a lot of units. Pricing is always a balance.

Peter

Of course when someone wants to spend 6k, Nikon will be preferred instead a Chinese product. But if a chinese manufacturer could make the same and sell it for 3k, some people may come interested. The WX is with IF and its weight limited in its use but a roof with CF and 8x42 half the price as the premium brand would of course see some sales.

With 1500k we are at the top level class of brands like Vortex which are produced in Japan and maybe also already in China?

First reports coming in of an 'NL' clone .....

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/908681-new-bino-developed-by-skyrover/

Looks like Sky Rover have produced a new range of roofs, to go with their extensive range of excellent astro gear and bins.

Definitely one to watch.

Very interesting binocular. But the thread is closed. If this binocular is anything close to NL Pure it is a true bargain. One thing worth to mention with both this Sky Rover and NL Pure 8x42 is the FOV. They have twice the field area than Pentax ZD 8x43 ED, which is by a number of users considered as alpha optics except from the FOV. I am looking forward for a review by a knowledgeable reviewer of the new Sky Rover 8x42.

I think all the discussion about how this range compares to the NL series somewhat misses the point. All it really needs to do is to be the best binocular in its price range. The discussion on CN suggests it's priced at $459 plus airfreight. For UK customers that probably works out to a little more than a Nikon Monarch M7 8x42 (also made in the PRC). Is it superior enough to put aside the after sales support that Nikon provide? I have no idea, not having tried either. It would seem so ... but it'd certainly be interesting to have a look. As to its objective qualities... we really shouldn't be surprised that Kunming is capable of making excellent binoculars. The questions are going to be quality control/consistency and mechanical quality/longer term durability. But those factors also depend on the price point they are aimed at. No one is going to expect a £500 class binocular to be built as tough as a Conquest or have the mechanical finesse of (say) a Noctivid.

I'd love to see range88 and jackjack doing a couple of joint sessions at great birding spots in the PRC and South Korea to try these binoculars in real world conditions (Poyanghu and Cheorwon-gun maybe!!!). I'm sure both of them are capable of being fully objective, and they certainly have experience of a wide range of optics and the ability to describe what they see.

As to its objective qualities... we really shouldn't be surprised that Kunming is capable of making excellent binoculars. The questions are going to be quality control/consistency and mechanical quality/longer term durability. But those factors also depend on the price point they are aimed at. No one is going to expect a £500 class binocular to be built as tough as a Conquest or have the mechanical finesse of (say) a Noctivid.

Excellent points. I personally won't buy a roof prism binocular from a Chinese manufacturer until it's clear they stand up to prolonged and rough use in the field. Porros are another matter. They are much easier to "get right", and from what I've seen so far (I've got two APM 6x30s and will get a 6x32 in the near future) these are very well built. And there's not much that can go wrong with a "simple" porro.

Hermann

I personally won't buy a roof prism binocular from a Chinese manufacturer until it's clear they stand up to prolonged and rough use in the field. Porros are another matter.

It's interesting that you think the APMs are well built (they do look pretty decent in photos - glad to see that impression being confirmed by a knowledgeable user) - yet models like the Oberwerk "SE", if some user comments are accurate, has good optics but not so good mechanicals. I wonder how much it'd cost to get the "SE" up to the level of the APMs mechanically? Out of pure curiosity, what would you consider "prolonged and rough use in the field" to be - what level of mishandling, and over what sort of time period? I have to admit I am very easy on my binoculars, I often don't even focus very much during a typical stint. I can live with less than ultimate ruggedness if the binocular is outstanding optically (not saying the SRBC is - not till I get to look through it anyway). -------------------------- just a couple other general thoughts/wonderings: reverse engineering and other forms of copying have been around for ages - Japanese binocular manufacturers (the PRC of the 50s/60s) did that with U.S. and some German designs.

I wonder how many folks refused to buy East German Zeiss, or Soviet KOMZ etc binoculars because they were made by an "evil empire"? I do know that the CZJ binoculars were the first quality optics a lot of UK birders got their hands on, and those that did often ended up upgrading to Zeiss West, Leica etc.

Robust… a few drops from a meter up onto a hard surface would be a good, as would accidentally dropping into shallow water… the sort of “worst” that might normally be expected. We’re not talking drag behind a truck and blast with a shotgun levels of abuse. Many porros lack armour (well most the ones I have), so I fear that a really hard knock might have negative consequences.

Peter

It's interesting that you think the APMs are well built (they do look pretty decent in photos - glad to see that impression being confirmed by a knowledgeable user) - yet models like the Oberwerk "SE", if some user comments are accurate, has good optics but not so good mechanicals. I wonder how much it'd cost to get the "SE" up to the level of the APMs mechanically?

I don't know the Oberwerk. I find it too heavy to get my interested - and I've got the Nikon SE. The APM isn't on the same level of, for instance, the old Zeiss West Porros. However, it's pretty well made, very clean, and the focuser is smooth without any play. I've seen alphas that were worse. I used my APMs quite a lot, including on two trips to the Alps. Worked just fine, in all sorts of weather.

Out of pure curiosity, what would you consider "prolonged and rough use in the field" to be - what level of mishandling, and over what sort of time period? I have to admit I am very easy on my binoculars, I often don't even focus very much during a typical stint. I can live with less than ultimate ruggedness if the binocular is outstanding optically (not saying the SRBC is - not till I get to look through it anyway).

By "prolonged use" I mean extensive use in the field, over a period of at least a year. Say something like 20 hours a week for a year. Quite a few people I know use their bins a lot more. Some of them daily. I find many modern roofs have got quite complex, perhaps too complex. Just think of the focuser. There are plenty of things that can go wrong, and even the so-called "alpha manufacturers" had their fair share of problems over the past decade. With a Chinese roof in particular I'd want to see how reliable it is before I buy it. Because, let's face it: You probably won't have very good service if something goes wrong after a couple of years. "Rough use": Well, I know a lot of people here use their binoculars only occasionally and in nice and dry weather. I OTOH want to know how the binocular does in difficult conditions, rain, sleet, cold, salt spray and driving sand at the coast. What happens if it gets a (slight) knock on a tree or on a rock in the mountains. These things happen in the field. I think that's normal use, not "mishandling". Such binoculars not opera glasses, they're made to be used in the field. Or at least they should be. Oh, and I want to see what happens to the armour. Self-destructing armour anyone?. BTW, I may be a bit of a cynic, but I wouldn't even buy an "alpha" roof immediately after it's been introduced to the market. No way. Been there, done that. Not again.

Hermann

Agree that a binocular intended for the birding market needs to (at minimum) meet those criteria (which should be emailed to Sky Rover!). I use my binoculars more lightly than most birders (though perhaps require more in certain areas of optical performance), but poor weather and bumps against trees etc should certainly be expected as part of normal birding duties. (NB. how's your Canon 8x20 IS holding up?)

"Rough" use, to me, means harder use than that - say in mountain environments, where heavy thumps can be expected and there will be regular exposure to harsh weather. That kind of treatment, I'm not so sure birding binoculars need to be designed to withstand (although if they can, that's certainly a plus). Commercially speaking - which any business needs to think about - I agree there would be some demand for something like a Zeiss "SFH" (Heavy) built as robustly as the old 7x50 marine, or an NL made like the GA series Habichts - but would such models be worth the cost of production?

I haven't seen the "SE" myself (any UK owner visiting London would be welcome to do some comparisons with my Nikon!) either, and to be fair, most of the negative commentary I've seen re: issues with their mechanicals is from hopster's posts in this thread (see link). If those issues are in fact more widespread, it does seem a shame that a binocular with what appears to be good optics is handicapped by inadequate mechanicals. Oberwerk need to get this right IMO. They don't need to be made like a Zeiss West porro (that's a really high bar to set!!!). But it ought to be possible to achieve the same build quality as an APM.

Agree that a binocular intended for the birding market needs to (at minimum) meet those criteria (which should be emailed to Sky Rover!). I use my binoculars more lightly than most birders (though perhaps require more in certain areas of optical performance), but poor weather and bumps against trees etc should certainly be expected as part of normal birding duties. (NB. how's your Canon 8x20 IS holding up?)

The Canon is quite clearly a fair weather binocular. I use it as such, for instance on walks. No problems at all so far, and I use it quite a lot. But it's of course in a different category than, say, the Canon 10x42 IS.

Hermann

The reports on CN about eye relief don't seem too positive. 13 mm from the rim of the eye cups will probably not be enough for me to use with glasses.

To quote @dries1:

The Eye relief will be the deal killer for those who wear glasses, get the popcorn sit back and watch.

The measurements taken by the gent from Brooklyn who has posted about them on CN suggest effective eye relief of about 13.5mm. I don't see too many ER-related complaints for these binoculars (effective eye relief figures ripped from Canip's site: https://binocular.ch/the-pinac-collection/#collection): Trinovid BA 10x42 12mm Dialyt 7x42 12mm Kowa 8.5x44 12.5mm Meostar 10x42 HD 13mm Ultravid 10x42 HD+ 13mm SLC 10x42 WB 13.5mm Conquest 10x42 HD 14mm Retrovid 10x40 14mm

I've used some of these myself with no issues, and indeed think that binoculars with excessively long eye relief (eg Nikon SE) can have issues with blackouts if the binocular can't be moved further away from your eye via glasses that stand further off, or longer eyecups.

Anything below ca. 17 to 18 mm doesn't work for me. Yes, that might be out of the norm but it's a deal breaker for the bino for me. The handful of binos that worked for me with glasses so far: Kowa BDII 6.5x32: 17mm ER Kite Cervus HD 8x56: 20mm ER Ddoptics Nighteagle Ergo DX 10x56: 21.5 mm ER Ddoptics Lux HR 10x50 (barely): 18mm ER Fuji HC 8x42: 18 mm ER

Meopta Meopro HD (old version - works barely, FoV slightly cut off): 18mm ER.

Anything below ca. 17 to 18 mm doesn't work for me. Yes, that might be out of the norm but it's a deal breaker for the bino for me. The handful of binos that worked for me with glasses so far: Kowa BDII 6.5x32: 17mm ER Kite Cervus HD 8x56: 20mm ER Ddoptics Nighteagle Ergo DX 10x56: 21.5 mm ER Ddoptics Lux HR 10x50 (barely): 18mm ER Fuji HC 8x42: 18 mm ER

Meopta Meopro HD (old version - works barely, FoV slightly cut off): 18mm ER.

Is ER vs. usable (effective) ER the source of the confusion here?

Please note that total ER (as measured on that thread) on the Sky Rover Banner Cloud is 18mm, exactly the same as the Fuji HC 8x42 you’ve got on your list.

Now, the “usable/effective” ER on the Fuji HC is 14.5mm vs. 13.5mm on the SRBC. Not sure why you’d discard that Sky Rover bino due to a mere 1mm difference in usable ER.

18mm total vs 13.5mm usable is quite a difference. It would allow SR quite a bit of leeway to increase usable eye relief by redesigning eyecups, etc.

Incidentally, I don't think the eyecups being higher than the eyepiece lens (decreasing usable eye relief) is necessarily a bad thing, as it helps give the glass a bit of protection; just like recessing objective lenses deep inside the barrels helps protect them. My 8x32 FL has not much protection in this respect, as there is not much eyecup depth around them (see photo from scopeviews.co.uk).

1mm doesn't sound like much, but I certainly believe it can make a real difference. I wouldn't mind if eye relief of my 10x42 SE was 1mm shorter!

Is ER vs. usable (effective) ER the source of the confusion here?

Please note that total ER (as measured on that thread) on the Sky Rover Banner Cloud is 18mm, exactly the same as the Fuji HC 8x42 you’ve got on your list.

Now, the “usable/effective” ER on the Fuji HC is 14.5mm vs. 13.5mm on the SRBC. Not sure why you’d discard that Sky Rover bino due to a mere 1mm difference in usable ER.

There is no confusion. I'm aware of the distinction. But have you looked at the pics on CN and how deeply recessed those lenses are? "Usable" ER between that bino and the Fuji HC 8x42 could never ever be the same. And, yes, 1 mm (from my own measurements it's more like 2 mm) might well make a difference for me between usable and truncated FoV. So why would I buy a new bino with 9.1° FoV when possibly a portion of that is lost?

I might still get one but I will only believe that it might work with my glasses once I tested it because in fact the Fuji HC barely works with glasses. The only ones where really not one tiny fraction of the FoV is lost for me, are the Kite Cervus HD with a whopping 21.5mm and the DDoptics Nighteagle Ergo DX with 20 mm. On both of these the lenses aren't much recessed but I'd have to measure it to give you an accurate number.

Whether the stated ER is correct or not(there are many cases when it's not), the usable ER is what makes sense. While it has to be a small margin to avoid eyeglass lens to touch the eye lens or metal rim, with an optimal design it is not necessary to waste much more than 1mm of the ER. Despite that, there are a lot of examples where 5 or more mm of ER is wasted. Fujinon FMTRX 10x50 has 20mm ER, which I think is correct. The usable ER is measured to only 13mm, though. Here we can conclude the stated ER is completely irrelevant to even mention in the specification. In some cases the wasted ER is mainly caused by an unnecessary high rubber eyecup edge. If this consists of solid rubber you can then increase the usable ER by simply cut of a bit of the eyecup. I have done this with 2 of my binoculars: Bresser "Lidl-bargain" 10x50 and Vortex Bantam 6,5x32.

In other cases it's not possible, at least not that easy.

Looking at the Kite Cervus HD 8x56 (your fave), the ER = 20mm and usable ER = 14.5mm. So the glass must be really deep in the eyecup. “So why would I buy a new bino with 9.1° FoV when possibly a portion of that is lost?” Yes, not ideal. But even if a portion of the FOV is lost (say you get to see 8.0-8.5°), it might still give you the widest FOV (that your eyes can see) from any other bino with that magnification. Having said that, it would be nice to get input from eyeglass wearers but this product is way too new on the market.

I am being cautiously optimistic, but so far I have been taken aback by the capabilities of that Sky Rover bino. Every report that comes out is like Wow!

Whether the stated ER is correct or not(there are many cases when it's not), the usable ER is what makes sense. While it has to be a small margin to avoid eyeglass lens to touch the eye lens or metal rim, with an optimal design it is not necessary to waste much more than 1mm of the ER. Despite that, there are a lot of examples where 5 or more mm of ER is wasted. Fujinon FMTRX 10x50 has 20mm ER, which I think is correct. The usable ER is measured to only 13mm, though. Here we can conclude the stated ER is completely irrelevant to even mention in the specification. In some cases the wasted ER is mainly caused by an unnecessary high rubber eyecup edge. If this consists of solid rubber you can then increase the usable ER by simply cut of a bit of the eyecup. I have done this with 2 of my binoculars: Bresser "Lidl-bargain" 10x50 and Vortex Bantam 6,5x32.

In other cases it's not possible, at least not that easy.

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a good “usable ER” for the average eyeglass wearer?

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a good “usable ER” for the average eyeglass wearer?

I think around 15mm is pretty close to the average useable ER in order to provide an open unvignetted image of the entire FOV.

Fujinon FMTRX 10x50 has 20mm ER, which I think is correct. The usable ER is measured to only 13mm, though. Here we can conclude the stated ER is completely irrelevant to even mention in the specification.

I don't understand? IMO this rumor has spread to CN. widespread (I won't name the author) and has subsequently proven to be wrong. The Fujinon is one of the most comfortable binoculars I have ever used due to its long EP position.

Andreas

I think around 15mm is pretty close to the average useable ER in order to provide an open unvignetted image of the entire FOV.

For many short-sighted glasses wearers, 15mm is likely. but not enough for everyone! Farsighted glasses wearers usually need 16mm> It's not for nothing that the premium brands with their Alphas all have EP beyond 16mm!

Andreas

For many short-sighted glasses wearers, 15mm is likely. but not enough for everyone! Farsighted glasses wearers usually need 16mm> It's not for nothing that the premium brands with their Alphas all have EP beyond 16mm!

Andreas

My question was for the “average” eyeglass wearer. I feel that Swedpat answered the question well and to the best of his knowledge. It is obvious that there will be individuals who will fall outside of that “average”.

Looking at the Kite Cervus HD 8x56 (your fave), the ER = 20mm and usable ER = 14.5mm. So the glass must be really deep in the eyecup.

I very much doubt that measurement.
Just measured it myself and the lense is recessed about 3 mm -- so the usable ER is 17 mm not 14.5. Not sure what Pinac measured there but it's wrong. Maybe they changed the design.

Seems like there are a few folks who really want to like this new sky rover glass. Perhaps they should step up and order one themselves to see how the view is with their glasses.

I very much doubt that measurement.
Just measured it myself and the lense is recessed about 3 mm -- so the usable ER is 17 mm not 14.5. Not sure what Pinac measured there but it's wrong. Maybe they changed the design.

No design change - I simply messed up. You are right and I was wrong - usable ER is 16mm as I just re-measured. Thank you for spotting that! Will correct my website.
Canip

No design change - I simply messed up. You are right and I was wrong - usable ER is 16mm as I just re-measured. Thank you for spotting that! Will correct my website.
Canip

I almost started questioning my own eyes . I used the Fuji HC 8x42 again and in fact -- the ER is not quite sufficient for me. There is still some slight loss of FoV. I might still get one of these Banner Clouds if they become available through a European seller. I am not ordering in China and paying 19% tax and shipping.

That IMHO makes the price not that great after all despite the impressive specifications.

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a good “usable ER” for the average eyeglass wearer?

Good question. In the past 15mm (stated) seemed to be a kind of industry standard, but eye relief has definitely gotten longer in current binoculars. I think 15mm effective eye relief probably covers most glasses wearers, although some might need more (but could mitigate this by choosing glasses that sit closer to their face). But the binoculars I mentioned in my post #40 upthread do show that it's possible for a binocular design to have shorter ER than that and still be commercially successful.

back to the SRBC - maybe this will be the APM equivalent in the birding world - that is to say something that performs close to an industry standard (APM to Fujinon) that it becomes a legit mainstream choice. Time will tell I suppose. Of course a good few folks already bird quite happily with PRC-made binos (Hawke etc). Mr Ludes must be rubbing his hands... 😸

Here is an example of two of my eyeglasses. The model above allows my eye to come approximately 2mm closer to the eye lens. This has made the change from not satisfying to fully satisfying with a few binoculars for me. It can be worth to check out if a change of eyeglasses(or getting an extra pair) can make the required difference for getting satisfying full FOV with binoculars.

Neil English seems to have got a pair himself, will be very interesting to have another review of these coming soon….

Peter

The thread on CN re the bc bino has gone awry, lol, fitting really, how much more info can squeezed out. Time for those cheap scates on CN to pony up the cash and get one so their questions can actually be answered.

Here is an example of two of my eyeglasses. The model above allows my eye to come approximately 2mm closer to the eye lens. This has made the change from not satisfying to fully satisfying with a few binoculars for me. It can be worth to check out if a change of eyeglasses(or getting an extra pair) can make the required difference for getting satisfying full FOV with binoculars.

View attachment 1563068

I also switched frame styles to make binoculars easier to use. Made a huge difference. My optician had never heard of this issue.

Guarantee period is one year, who buys binoculars like that?

Andreas

Neil English received his B.C. 8x42 yesterday. His very first impression HERE. Very much looking forward to his full review.

Guarantee period is one year, who buys binoculars like that?

Andreas

I have bought a fair number of old binoculars that had no guarantee whatsoever. I don't know what the warranty situation is with regard to my FLs (for instance) and if work was needed I'd pay for it. Although of course these were secondhand rather than new, some of these cost more than the Sky Rover Banner Cloud.

Granted, it's understandable that folks want proof of longer term durability before buying the SRBC. Reputations in optics aren't made in a few years - though Kunming has of course been in the optics business for much longer than that. If I was starting out completely afresh, my budget was limited to $5-600, and it had to be a brand new binocular, I'd certainly consider it.

If it helps anyone on the fence because of the warranty period, this message from Sky Rover was posted on CloudyNights a few weeks ago:

Thanks for your feedback.

After discussing with team again, for the Banner Cloud APO series binoculars, we can provide a 3-year limited warranty instead of just one year, and even after three years for overseas customers, we can continue to provide limited paid warranty.

Originally posted HERE. It may not be long enough for some, but it is now a longer warranty than Nikon’s 1-year.

FYI… Some very interesting reviews of this 8x42 Banner Cloud have been published over the last 24 hours:

Binomania’s review

Neil English’s review (ongoing)

If they are that good as in reviews the big three will face a big problem in selling their binoculars. Especially, the one having 6 times more market price and the biodegradable coatings. It seems Banner Clouds selling like hot cookies and Sky Rover can't handle the market demand.

It will be interesting to see how they hold up mechanically.

Has anyone x-rayed one?

The big three have existed for years world wide. So this bc bino is going to eclipse their sales? This hype is driven by a few on cn and here, not really a large market but a few eager beavers.

I know what Holger stated, also he did discuss QA/QC issues and not many in the US are going to want to ship them to China for service.
I do not always agree with other reviewers, nothing wrong with that - based on opinions, but I do not drink the kool aid.

Can one review be more or less “correct” than another?

The big three have existed for years world wide.

They sure have. And IMO they got fat and lazy lately: Very little real innovation, ever increasing prices. Is that progress? I doubt it.

So this bc bino is going to eclipse their sales?

Of course it won't. Anyone who believes this lives in cloud-cuckoo-land. But if they manage to keep up the quality in their production runs, their binoculars will have an impact on the sales figures of the big three. After all, the review samples tested by Neil English, Holger Merlitz and Piergiovanni Salimbeni were obviously of very good quality, not just optically, but also mechanically.

Of course they won't sell many binoculars to collectors and those who are more interested in appreciating their "precious" optics rather then using them in the field. (BTW, IMO both groups are well represented on this forum.) But I'm sure they'll be bought by people who simply want some good binoculars to pursue their hobby and can't or don't want to shell out huge amounts of money for a pair made by one of the big three.

So yes, I think they've got a decent chance to grab some significant market share. Not today, not tomorrow, but in a few year's time.

This hype is driven by a few on cn and here, not really a large market but a few eager beavers.

If people were to write enthusiastic posts about a new product by a manufacturer you like, would you also call that "hype"? And would you say this "hype" is also driven by the likes of Neil English, Holger Merlitz and Piergiovanni Salimbeni?

Hermann

If people were to write enthusiastic posts about a new product by a manufacturer you like, would you also call that "hype"? And would you say this "hype" is also driven by the likes of Neil English, Holger Merlitz and Piergiovanni Salimbeni? I actually tried most of the glass I own before I purchased them, I have learned about the review process. The hype I am speaking of is from frequent posters here and on CN about the BC, not those mentioned, (nice twist Hermann). Time will tell if BC can have adequate and consistent QA/QC over time.

I appreciate the work from Holger and Piergiovanni.

And would you say this "hype" is also driven by the likes of Neil English, Holger Merlitz and Piergiovanni Salimbeni?

Not by Holger or Piergiovanni, but others are unfortunately sometimes expressing their excitement a bit too loudly for my (and perhaps dries1’s?) sensitive ears …
Perhaps I should wear ear plugs more often

Always funny when Hermann gets out the crystal ball. What happened to the prediction that IS binos would take over? Another day, another hype. The same people (and I don't mean the reviewers) pushing this bino on both forums. That thing might sell like hot cake but the market is small. And the people who can afford a Swarovski for the most part won't buy this thing. Or they could have bought any of the great Japanese binos before that also offered great value at lower prices. It's simply not how the market works. The target audience for this wonder bino are the small group of people trying to find a bargain within the astronomy subset of optics enthusiasts. And when I look at the usual recommendations when an astronomy channel on YouTube for example recommends a bino - it's mostly cheap stuff. Like Skymasters, Opticrons, etc. So in that case, a 500€ Banner Cloud is already a step up financially. It's not like the astronomy users will now suddenly downgrade from all the Swaro and Zeiss binos they own. The mass market for binos that we had in the 70's and 80's also no longer exists. I also doubt that anyone here knows the exact number of units produced so a sentence like "they can't keep up with demand" is speculation at best concerning the question of how much demand there is. If they make a batch of 500 and sell out, they also "can't keep up with demand" but they're still not selling a lot. The one person I know who owns a Swaro EL has bought it after simply asking friends what they think is the best. He'd never ever have bought a "Banner Cloud". Good products don't sell themselves or Fuji should have sold a ton of the HCs. They didn't, it seems. I own #505. And only a handful of people on the forums seem to own one. Time will tell if the Banner Cloud will make any dent in the market, especially compared to the European companies (who deal with a shrinking market anyway). And Nikon seems to be struggling or they wouldn't have discontinued all the astro porros. It's an interesting product, no doubt, but not an innovation. If anything it's a good copy. And how much market share does Rolex lose to Chinese Rolex copies? And the price seems to be around 500 or even more, at which point I'll wait if any European Kunming-resellers might stock it.

Not that I need another bino. For a wide field of view I already own more than enough wide angle Japanese porros.

It is natural for most of us (including me) expended large amounts of money to own so called alpha binoculars from big brand to digest the bitter truth of emerging equity good or close enough model for a fraction of the cost. Initially I didn’t want to believe the banner clouds are that good when I read the posts on a few forums from a few exited individuals after testing it. It was too good to be true. However, after reading the three detailed and equally good reviews offered by our well known western optics reviewers, I do not dare to tell banner clouds are not good as they seem. The banner cloud seems to me as a clone of NL series in some ways however it offers some of more advanced features such as hydrophobic leans coatings, tripod adaptability and probably non-biodegradable armors compared to the NL series. Someone can argues that big three offer more reliable and longer warranty periods than banner cloud offers. However, my point of view is it is logical to buy 3 pairs of banner clouds, one after every three years, at the half the price of an NL which covers almost the same warranty period. Apart from the truth that many members here don’t like to buy Chinese products (I hope they will not buy banner could secretly) banner cloud will be a good option for those people can’t afford for one from the big three but want same experience to enjoy the birding as much as the people can afford one from the big three. If there is any Issues in QC and mechanics will be revealed in the future. However, I afraid that the price of banner cloud would increase in the future if the demand becomes high.

It is natural for most of us (including me) expended large amounts of money to own so called alpha binoculars from big brand to digest the bitter truth of emerging equity good or close enough model for a fraction of the cost. Initially I didn’t want to believe the banner clouds are that good when I read the posts on a few forums from a few exited individuals after testing it. It was too good to be true. However, after reading the three detailed and equally good reviews offered by our well known western optics reviewers, I do not dare to tell banner clouds are not good as they seem. The banner cloud seems to me as a clone of NL series in some ways however it offers some of more advanced features such as hydrophobic leans coatings, tripod adaptability and probably non-biodegradable armors compared to the NL series. Someone can argues that big three offer more reliable and longer warranty periods than banner cloud offers. However, my point of view is it is logical to buy 3 pairs of banner clouds, one after every three years, at the half the price of an NL which covers almost the same warranty period. Apart from the truth that many members here don’t like to buy Chinese products (I hope they will not buy banner could secretly) banner cloud will be a good option for those people can’t afford for one from the big three but want same experience to enjoy the birding as much as the people can afford one from the big three. If there is any Issues in QC and mechanics will be revealed in the future. However, I afraid that the price of banner cloud would increase in the future if the demand becomes high.

Hello Viraj, Some very sensible points there. If I were interested in these as everyday instruments I’d definitely buy three of the Banner Clouds over an NL or anything similar. Its a no brainer. That said, I have no sustained interests in these bigger models anyway but happy to have a perfect 8 x 42 as a souvenir 🤗 Regards,

Neil

Quote from Neil‘s review:

„….This new series of binoculars by Sky Rover represents the most highly advanced binocular that competes favourably with European brands costing several times their modest price tags….“ (emphasis by me)

Shouldn‘t we wait and see how the Sky Rover performs after 2 years of usage before coming to such a conclusion?

Definitely. However, I rarely buy a product that's new on the market nowadays anyway. Too many new products are bananaware nowadays, and I got burnt a few times in the past.

And are we going to send the bino to China to claim our warranty rights, or how is that supposed to happen?

And as long as there's no European distributor that handles warranty claims and repairs ... no way.

Hermann

Always funny when Hermann gets out the crystal ball. What happened to the prediction that IS binos would take over?

Please note I never claimed it would happen immediately. And I stand by my prediction. The advantages of IS binos are such - at least among people who actually use them to see fine detail, e.g. on a bird - that even the big three won't be able to ignore them in the long run if they want to stay competitive.

Another day, another hype.

Well well. The biggest hypes on this forum always occur when one on the big three announces a new binocular. There have been quite a few examples since I joined the forum.

The target audience for this wonder bino are the small group of people trying to find a bargain within the astronomy subset of optics enthusiasts. And when I look at the usual recommendations when an astronomy channel on YouTube for example recommends a bino - it's mostly cheap stuff. Like Skymasters, Opticrons, etc.

I doubt "astronomy enthusiasts" looking for cheap bins are main target group. Birdwatchers and nature watchers in general are a larger and thus far more interesting target group.

It's an interesting product, no doubt, but not an innovation. If anything it's a good copy.

So all your Japanese wide angle binoculars are just "good copies" of the original porros Zeiss made from 1894 onwards?

And the price seems to be around 500 or even more, at which point I'll wait if any European Kunming-resellers might stock it.

Yep. In that price range I wouldn't buy anything direct from China. And I wouldn't buy any new binocular in that price range before there are some reports on their reliability.

Hermann

Please note I never claimed it would happen immediately. And I stand by my prediction. The advantages of IS binos are such - at least among people who actually use them to see fine detail, e.g. on a bird - that even the big three won't be able to ignore them in the long run if they want to stay competitive. Well well. The biggest hypes on this forum always occur when one on the big three announces a new binocular. There have been quite a few examples since I joined the forum. I doubt "astronomy enthusiasts" looking for cheap bins are main target group. Birdwatchers and nature watchers in general are a larger and thus far more interesting target group. So all your Japanese wide angle binoculars are just "good copies" of the original porros Zeiss made from 1894 onwards? Yep. In that price range I wouldn't buy anything direct from China. And I wouldn't buy any new binocular in that price range before there are some reports on their reliability.

Hermann

My guess is that this is only the start of the avalanche. There is no technical reason for a $3000 binocular, the components are all commodities that add up to much less. Swaro is postponing the impact by providing superior customer service and real innovations such as the Visio. The others will suffer imho.

Longer term, I would expect Kunming United to become a respected name in optics, much as Zeiss or Hoya are today.

A lot comes down to advertising, existing brand awareness and local availability. I hope we see greater availability, but it depends on where sky rover is expecting to see them mainly.

Peter

My guess is that this is only the start of the avalanche. The others will suffer imho.

Longer term, I would expect Kunming United to become a respected name in optics, much as Zeiss or Hoya are today.

IMO there are differences between the American market and the European market. Other manufacturers find it very difficult to gain a foothold in Europe. Nikon also failed with its EDG, even though it was initially offered much cheaper than the three other manufacturers. Nikon is actually only present in the low-budget sector. In contrast to the American market, most buyers here are still more traditional; when in doubt, they fall back on the tried and tested. So it will be difficult for Kunming United to really capture decisive market shares.

Andreas

What I have written I have written

Good day to you!

So much popcorn, lol. The real interest (or hilarity...) in this thread is what it tells us about the attitudes and perspectives of those contributing, rather than about the binocular under discussion.

IMO they got fat and lazy lately: Very little real innovation, ever increasing prices.

You know I respect your opinions/observations Mr H - but I have to disagree on this one. I think there have been some real developments by Z and S in terms of wider field of view and handling. I do agree prices have gone up to a level that seems incredible for those who remember when top tier binoculars cost around €1000. But if you adjust for inflation, and factor in the optical performance of modern top alphas (and the R&D needed to develop same), it's not completely unreasonable. Granted, £2,500 or whatever a NL costs is more than I'm willing to pay - but that is the price of having an optics industry in Europe, with European workers being paid European salaries. Which brings us back to the SRBC and the efforts by PRC manufacturers to compete at the higher end of binocular design and production generally. This is really just the most recent iteration (those intent on remaining ignorant of the perspective that history gives should look away now...) of a trend more than a century old. Kunming is basically following the same playbook as Kamakura and the other JB/JE companies of the 50s, except that the rebranders in the West today are the likes of APM, "Oberwerk", Hawke, Vanguard etc instead of Bushnell, Swift and others forgotten by time. But the result is the same - consumers being able to get more affordable binoculars that still perform well (for which there is most certainly a demand). The best of the JB/JE products were not too far off West German porros optically and mechanically. What's happening now is very similar, except with roofs. It's also worth remembering that a lot of Japanese binoculars of the 1950s were copies or close copies of Bausch & Lomb 7x50s and other designs (Zeiss etc). Copying, or near copying, has been going on since the beginning of time. And copying is often followed by development and innovation. In the end the likes of Fuji and Kowa were able to sell their products on the strength of their own brand name: something like this is probably happening with Kunming aka "Sky Rover". I suppose the big question is whether they think it's worth setting up a distribution and after-sales support network themselves, as opposed to letting rebranders take care of those aspects (as, let's not forget, Kamakura and other Eastern manufacturers, like whoever makes the Audubon these days, do).

PS. I noted in a previous post that the SRBC doesn't really need to equal or better a NL or SF - all it really needs to do is be better than anything else in its price category (currently £450 or so per Neil E review). That's a little above the Terra series and around the same as Nikon M7. The SRBC may or may not put the alphas out of business (I'd imagine it won't, because alpha binoculars are luxury items, similar to Rolex et al, which ought to have been obsoleted as pure timekeeping instruments by the quartz revolution). But there's a very good chance it will prompt some significant changes at the affordable to mid-tier of the market. Forget about SRBC vs NL or SF - I'd really like to see comparisons between the SRBC and the Conquest HD, the Monarch HG etc.

So much popcorn, lol. The real interest (or hilarity...) in this thread is what it tells us about the attitudes and perspectives of those contributing, rather than about the binocular under discussion.

IMO, such an irrelevant conclusion does not belong in any review, so you could also draw other conclusions as to why the binocular under review were rated so well.

Andreas

My thought would be .....looks like I can get Nikon Monarch M7 8x42's without the toxic PFAS on the lenses for less money than Sky Rover

My thought would be .....looks like I can get Nikon Monarch M7 8x42's without the toxic PFAS on the lenses for less money than Sky Rover

When we talk about PFAS I am pretty sure you (and we all) have consumed few hundreds to few thousand (or even more) folds of PFAS during the last few decades than the amount of bio available PFAS comes with any binocular lens. PFAS is ubiquitous and used to make non-stick cooking pans to cosmetics and packing materials. So don’t worry about PFAS coming with binocular lenses.

One can always get something for less money ….. the question should be “is it as good?”

.looks like I can get Nikon Monarch M7 8x42's without the toxic PFAS on the lenses for less money than Sky Rover

Wow - how things have changed. The default here used to be to favour anything that could possibly improve optical or other aspect of performance, no matter how toxic it or its production might be - the discussions on lead vs unleaded glass being a great example - and bewail "woke" attempts at moving away from same.

One can always get something for less money ….. the question should be “is it as good?”

Agreed. Or, offer more for the same money - which if Holger et al are anything to go by, the SRBC does over eg. the Terra or M7...

such an irrelevant conclusion does not belong in any review,

Fortunately, not everyone in the "United States of Europe" has received a sense of humour bypass...

I think comparing it to the alphas would be a bit of a stretch, but like someone said above, it would be very interesting to see a comparison with "subalphas". By reading all of these reviews I get the impression that these Sky Rover would destroy a CHD, all the Monarch series, Trinovids, etc. Do you still get what you paid for?

Fortunately, not everyone in the "United States of Europe" has received a sense of humour bypass...

Fortunately, not everyone in the "United States of Europe" has received a sense of decency bypass...

Andreas

What I have written I have written

Anyone not already rolling their eyes at this has not sought the origin of the quotation (although the source should by now be easy to guess).

The real interest (or hilarity...) in this thread is what it tells us about the attitudes and perspectives of those contributing, rather than about the binocular under discussion.

Which is to say that it's quite typical of this forum, since ultimately choices are a matter of personal taste and judgment -- which somehow become especially intense when money also enters the picture.

But there's a very good chance it will prompt some significant changes at the affordable to mid-tier of the market. Forget about SRBC vs NL or SF - I'd really like to see comparisons between the SRBC and the Conquest HD, the Monarch HG etc.

I think comparing it to the alphas would be a bit of a stretch, but like someone said above, it would be very interesting to see a comparison with "subalphas". By reading all of these reviews I get the impression that these Sky Rover would destroy a CHD, all the Monarch series, Trinovids, etc. Do you still get what you paid for?

The build and finishing quality of the Sky Rover Banner Clouds (SRBC) seem to match their price tag - they are pretty much what one would expect from a bino in the $500-$1,000 price range. These SRBC were obviously not made or designed to displace the exquisitely crafted "heirloom" binoculars. No status symbol with these. Not the type of binocular to show off proudly behind an elegant glass display or hutch. The alpha brands can rest at ease in that sense. These SRBC series seem to me were made/designed for the more serious enthusiast who seeks optical excellence but doesn't want to feel guilty about scuffing up or damaging their $2,000-$3,500 glass when out in the field. I am sure there are a few here who worry about taking such an expensive alpha instrument to certain places or locations in spite of its top-notch optical capabilities. I can also see a market for digital nomad millennials (who love the outdoors and prefer to hang out in Quora or Reddit) or for anyone who refuses to spend thousands on a binocular. Also the curious older enthusiast who hangs in traditional forums like this one and who prefers to buy from a personal dealer like Oberwerk, APM and the likes. If you think about it, these binos seem to fill that void nicely. I believe Sky Rover has a certain target international demographics in mind, but I don't think it will be large initially, especially overseas. For now, it appears they are super busy filling the surge in demand from their easy-to-reach domestic market where these binos have been well received.

By reading the various reviews published to date, the SRBC appears to punch above its weight (and price) "optically" speaking. I have come away with the impression that, once one puts everything into the equation - as it does have some optical slight weaknesses compared to the top alpha dogs - there doesn't seem to be any sub-alpha that can touch the SRBC, again in optical terms. I have collected the optical highlights below for those who prefer a summary:

Against a Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W - Note: this is an alpha porro (not a roof!) bino costing w/ 7.8º FOV. Cost: about $1,500 USD

I spent a few days comparing the view in the Banner Cloud with my reference binocular, the venerable Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30W: an instrument of unimpeachable optical quality. I call it ‘reality through the looking glass.’ This instrument has a flat transmission curve across the visible spectrum, delivering 96 per cent of the light it gathers to my eyes. As a result its colour tone is absolutely neutral. Compared with the Habicht, the Banner Cloud delivers slightly warmer colours, with a slight bias towards the red and orange region of the visible spectrum. Placing the instruments on my tripods and carefully comparing the views, I judged the central sharpness of the Banner Cloud to be every bit as good as the Habicht. Indeed I came away with the distinct impression that the Banner Cloud was revealing slightly finer details at distance, an impression I attribute to its larger objectives. - Neil English

Stray light is much better controlled in the Banner Cloud Apo 8 x 42 too. While observing the bright star. Vega, rising in the northeast with a bright sodium street lamp just outside the field of view, the difference between the Habicht and the Banner Cloud was like night and day. The Habicht all too easily showed its weakness in manifesting off-axis glare, with the bigger Banner Cloud stubbornly refusing to reveal any in the same test. - Neil English

Against a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL (about $2,000 USD w/ 7.6º FOV):

I was immediately taken by the superb performance of the Banner Cloud 8 x 42: the view is outstanding in many ways: razor sharp from edge to edge, wonderful contrast, and vibrant true-to-life colours. The field flatteners all but eliminates field curvature and pincushion distortion is refreshingly mild, only becoming slightly apparent in the outer 20 per cent of its enormous field. The instrument instantly reminded me of the Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL only with a much larger field of view. During brighter spells, I could see that it performs admirably against the light. Glare suppression is well above average in this unit. - Neil English

A quick comparison (visible in my YouTube video) with a Swarovski 8.5×42 showed excellent containment of residual chromaticism in the center of the field. If you observe birds of prey and planes against the light I think you will be very satisfied with its performance. - Piergiovanni Salimbeni

One test that surprised me was its ability to contain diffused light… I must admit that the Sky Rover, in this particular circumstance, showed a greater ability to contain the diffused light than the Swarovski EL, which even showed half of the LEDs reflected from the spotlight inside the eyepiece of the right optical tube. This experience led me to test the binoculars in the following days in observing birds of prey against the light and I was very satisfied with their performance for such a wide-angle binocular. In the past I tested top-of-the-line binoculars with a very wide-angle field that did not have the ability to contain stray light like these new Sky Rover binoculars. I know that this fact may not please some enthusiasts but this is what I highlighted in the field. - P. Salimbeni

Against a Zeiss Victory SF (#1 rated binocular at AllBino in the 8x42 roof bino category - 8.4º FOV, cost: $2,900 USD):

The images are bright and the color rendering is almost perfectly neutral. I only noticed a very slight change towards the warm tone (but it is more neutral, for example, than my ZEISS VICTORY SF) - Piergiovanni Salimbeni

I conducted several twilight tests with my high-end binoculars and with a Vixen Ultima ZCF 9×63 binocular, which, although it has a very narrow field of view, is one of the compact and bright binoculars suitable for this type of testing. I must confirm that Sky Rover has designed binoculars that appear decidedly bright , difficult, I think, among the roof prisms, in this range, to be able to do better, it would perhaps be compared to some bright Porro prisms with few elements in the optical train… The real differences with the TOP OF THE RANGE only became evident around 8.30pm when the Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO 8×42 was no longer comparable to top of the range instruments, such as a Zeiss Victory SF 8×42 or a Swarovski EL 8.×42, but the difference was not, as I always say, proportional to the price. - P. Salimbeni

Angular Distortion: Given its very wide-angle field, I expected greater angular distortion; in reality it is quite contained since all the highlighted details showed little distortion. As you know, I am not very sensitive to the “rolling ball” effect; However, I tried to do some panning comparisons with my Victory SF 8x42 and noticed a slight rolling ball effect in the Banner Cloud due to its minimal distortion. - P. Salimbeni

The vision of the M42 nebula is excellent, decidedly bright. Even though it doesn't reach the stellar punctuality provided by the Zeiss Victory SF 8×42 that I'm using as a comparison, it is very, very satisfactory. - P. Salimbeni

General observations:

Sky Rover declares a field of 9.1 degrees, which corresponds to almost 160 meters at 1000 meters and which therefore generates an apparent field with the classic formula greater than 72 degrees.

In fact, during my astronomical observations, it seemed to provide a slightly higher range. This performance establishes the Banner Cloud APO 8×42 as the binoculars with the widest and most correct field currently available on the market in that format and in that specific price range (and often even when compared to much higher price ranges). - P. Salimbeni
Note: At a big premium in price (starting at $2,900 USD), I believe the Swaro NL series are the only other roof prism binos that offer such wide and well-corrected FOV's. That's it. I, personally, would like to see an in-depth optical comparison between the SRBC and a Swaro NL in the same size.

Chromatic aberration in the center of the field: Again, Sky Rover has done an excellent job regarding the containment of chromatic aberration. I had the opportunity and pleasure to observe with the Sky Rover under different lighting conditions, from observing snowy landscapes to observing the Moon or birds of prey against the light. I must confirm that in all cases, the binoculars have no on-axis chromatic aberration and this performance is comparable with the best binoculars on the market that I have tested in the last 20 years. - P. Salimbeni

TEST WITH USAF CHART AT 35 METERS: What surprised me, however, was the total absence of residual chromatism in the center and also the lateral chromatism was among the best ever seen, given that almost always the outermost rows of the table (printed in the 30×40 format) show a little ' of chromatic residue. In the case of the Banner Cloud, only a slight hint could be seen on the edges of the table. Truly an excellent performance. With respect to sharpness and contrast, when I struggle to notice differences with high quality binoculars it means that there is little to nitpick, these are binoculars that have excellent contrast and show the black lines "really black" and not dark purple and very sharp edges. In the case of the Banner Cloud, only a slight hint could be seen on the edges of the table. Truly an excellent performance. With respect to sharpness and contrast, when I struggle to notice differences with high quality binoculars it means that there is little to nitpick, these are binoculars that have excellent contrast and show the black lines "really black" and not dark purple and very sharp edges. - P. Salimbeni

Where the Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO 8×42 really amazes is in freehand observation of the landscape (static or with slow panning). It is possible to exploit over nine degrees of field which, freehand, are perfectly correct. The images are sharp, contrasted, with bright colors, and the containment of chromatic aberration is excellent in this price range. The lateral chromatism is minimal and never invasive. - P. Salimbeni

I had some very pleasant visions during a short trip to Valtellina looking at Monte Disgrazia and the tormented area of Pescegallo in the distance. The images were truly exciting, similar and at times better than those obtainable with higher-end instruments. I think wide-angle earth observation enthusiasts can seriously consider purchasing these binoculars. Furthermore, thanks to the position of the eyepieces and the distance between the optical tubes, there is a clear appearance of three-dimensionality which allows the planes to be clearly separated from each other. It's a vision that I would define as “Porro-like”. - P. Salimbeni

And last but not least when reviewing the 12x50 of the same SRBC series:

I do not say this lightly, but this is the first time that I handled a binocular made in China which in all practical aspects gave me the impression of being among the best that the market has to offer. I am thus eager to see other members of this Banner Cloud series, as there are the 8x42, 10x42 and 10x50. - Holger Merlitz

When we talk about PFAS I am pretty sure you (and we all) have consumed few hundreds to few thousand (or even more) folds of PFAS during the last few decades than the amount of bio available PFAS comes with any binocular lens. PFAS is ubiquitous and used to make non-stick cooking pans to cosmetics and packing materials. So don’t worry about PFAS coming with binocular lenses.

Just because we have apparently consumed PFAS by the thousands does not mean we need to continue doing so. And just because someone was unaware of having consumed it before does not mean they have to knowingly consume more of it once they do become aware. Especially when one looks at this graphic, courtesy of Wikipedia

Sorry for the digression.

Can you tell us more about this ?

The optical weaknesses that I have been able to collect from reviewers on the SRBC:

• Not as bright in very low light conditions compared to the alphas
• Not among the best-in-class in eye relief

The build and finishing quality of the Sky Rover Banner Clouds (SRBC) seem to match their price tag - they are pretty much what one would expect from a bino in the $500-$1,000 price range. These SRBC were obviously not made or designed to displace the exquisitely crafted "heirloom" binoculars. No status symbol with these. Not the type of binocular to show off proudly behind an elegant glass display or hutch. The alpha brands can rest at ease in that sense.

These SRBC series seem to me were made/designed for the more serious enthusiast who seeks optical excellence but doesn't want to feel guilty about scuffing up or damaging their $2,000-$3,500 glass when out in the field. I am sure there are a few here who worry about taking such an expensive alpha instrument to certain places or locations in spite of its top-notch optical capabilities.

I think you have the wrong idea about people who use Alpha binoculars, very few people proudly put them in a glass case and instead use them. IMO, binoculars are also not suitable as a status symbol, most people are not interested in long-distance optics, it is a minimal part of the total population, most people cannot tell a Swarovski from a pair of chewing gum binoculars and you get little attention if you walk around with such optics wander. Many astronomers have a tendency to look down on people who use expensive hand-held binoculars, it's simply not necessary, at the same time they invest thousands of euros in small full apos and pat each other on the back, it's a little bizarre, would these Takahashis, AP's, TMB etc. also be status symbols? You should also pay attention to the frequency of use; binoculars can be used much more often than a telescope, which is very dependent on the weather and is only of limited use during the day. In terms of price, an Alpha binocular is roughly equivalent to a small, fully equipped Takahashi FC-76 DS, and that doesn't include the star diagonal, the eyepieces, the viewfinder and the mount. Considering the much more common uses, I simply cannot understand this bashing over users of Alpha binoculars.

Andreas

IMO, such an irrelevant conclusion does not belong in any review, so you could also draw other conclusions as to why the binocular under review were rated so well.

Andreas

My sentiments exactly . That quote should never be in a review , it's offensive . I quoted the same thing over on CN in the BC thread yesterday .

That said, I have no sustained interests in these bigger models anyway but happy to have a perfect 8 x 42 as a souvenir 🤗

well mate - if you fancy sending it south of the border for some further critical review, I could, just about, be convinced to oblige ...

It's a tough job this binocular reviewing lark, but someone's got to do it... 😇

Quote from Neil‘s review:

„….This new series of binoculars by Sky Rover represents the most highly advanced binocular that competes favourably with European brands costing several times their modest price tags….“ (emphasis by me)

Shouldn‘t we wait and see how the Sky Rover performs after 2 years of usage before coming to such a conclusion? And are we going to send the bino to China to claim our warranty rights, or how is that supposed to happen?

Why wait?

What could possibly go wrong? New(at least to us on BF) optics manufacturer, new binocular models, MIC, optic service center? .... What could possibly go wrong?

I think you have the wrong idea about people who use Alpha binoculars, very few people proudly put them in a glass case and instead use them. IMO, binoculars are also not suitable as a status symbol, most people are not interested in long-distance optics, it is a minimal part of the total population, most people cannot tell a Swarovski from a pair of chewing gum binoculars and you get little attention if you walk around with such optics wander. Many astronomers have a tendency to look down on people who use expensive hand-held binoculars, it's simply not necessary, at the same time they invest thousands of euros in small full apos and pat each other on the back, it's a little bizarre, would these Takahashis, AP's, TMB etc. also be status symbols? You should also pay attention to the frequency of use; binoculars can be used much more often than a telescope, which is very dependent on the weather and is only of limited use during the day. In terms of price, an Alpha binocular is roughly equivalent to a small, fully equipped Takahashi FC-76 DS, and that doesn't include the star diagonal, the eyepieces, the viewfinder and the mount. Considering the much more common uses, I simply cannot understand this bashing over users of Alpha binoculars.

Andreas

Andreas, Bashing? Just because I also post in CloudyNights? No one wants to turn this into a pissing contest between birders and astronomers and about who owns more expensive optical equipment. Some of us enjoy both hobbies.

Going back to binoculars, we have an interesting case scenario here with a brand new optical product that appeared out of nowhere. It was dismissed early on but it is now getting legitimate interest as more experienced reviewers get one in their hands. If it succeeds, it could potentially level the field in terms of optical performance in the world of binoculars - yes, we don’t know that yet, but the product does exist so it’s not vaporware or altogether hypothetical. So, this new SRBC appears to offer excellent optical performance (even better in a few optical parameters as per the reviews), but it sits on the opposite side of the price spectrum at about 1/5 the price of top-shelf binoculars. One could indeed argue in favor of paying a premium for an alpha brand due to local warranty service - if you happen to live in Europe or in the U.S. But the reality is that to quite a few of us, this may not be enough to close the price differential between the alphas and a product like the SRBC. So if it’s not for the things that usually motivate people to own such special top-tier products like brand status, exclusivity, heirloom quality or the pleasure of owning a beautifully crafted product, please enlighten us as to why someone should now spring for an alpha model?

How has Sky Rover designed the Banner Clouds: have they found a new way to copy details of Swarovski optical design, or just run computer simulations equivalent to those Swarovski was able to X years ago? What would make them "not as bright in very low light conditions": presumably a transmission curve weak on the blue end, which would also agree with the impression of warmer colors?

Who will be selling (and servicing?) these in Western countries, with what resulting markup?

Time for these boosters to order their bc binos, instead of just talking about reviews.

How would you describe that?

These SRBC were obviously not made or designed to displace the exquisitely crafted "heirloom" binoculars. No status symbol with these. Not the type of binocular to show off proudly behind an elegant glass display or hutch.

So alpha binoculars are made for the snobs and people who need a status symbol? Basically you're jumping on the bandwagon that Neil suggested. "All in all, this is very encouraging news for consumers who want new levels of sophistication for their hard-earned cash, and will surely help to break the ugly, pretentious, elitist “pay to play” cycle all too often seen on our vulgar forums." "Why do we buy a refractor? Great optics, right?" Maybe that's ugly, pretentious, elitist “pay to play”, every 10 inch Newton off the shelf will drive this expensive refractor into the ground in terms of resolution, visibility and detail recognition, so...

So if it’s not for the things that usually motivate people to own such special top-tier products like brand status, exclusivity, heirloom quality or the pleasure of owning a beautifully crafted product, please enlighten us as to why someone should now spring for an alpha model?

I cannot judge the performance of the Banner Cloud, I cannot provide any information about binoculars that I have not tested myself, and I have never made any negative comments about these binoculars. But the fact is that I have compared many middle class and Alpha glasses with each other and ultimately the Alphas still have small advantages, be it in handling, in workmanship and especially optically, these differences are perhaps 5-10%, you can do the same Compare a good Chinese ED telescope with a full apo, the latter will always be slightly better. In my opinion, the vast majority of Alpha binocular buyers are not the type of people who decadently brag or flaunt their optics, I find these statements presumptuous! Conclusion: IMO we optics lovers are a very small community, even if we take all birders, astronomers and nature watchers together, hardly anyone "out there" cares whether you have a Zeiss hanging around your neck or looking through a Takahashi, rather than here bashing against one side we should rather share our passion and complement each other.

Andreas

lol, and I suppose everyone interested in the WX/NL/SF had to go get one too?

re: SRBC design - no idea as to what extent it is a Swaro NL copy, I'm sure we will find out in time. But in general, computer aided design must make it possible to design complex optical trains more easily than in the past.

So if it’s not for the things that usually motivate people to own such special top-tier products like brand status, exclusivity, heirloom quality or the pleasure of owning a beautifully crafted product, please enlighten us as to why someone should now spring for an alpha model?

For any reason they please, of course. There is nothing more boring than talking about who has more money than whom and how they choose to spend it. There is no generally valid conclusion to be drawn as to when "the gap has been closed" or where "diminishing returns" end etc, just individual preferences and circumstances of no intrinsic interest to anyone else. Not to mention ugly sentiments like resentment or contempt (as seen in Neil's snarky review comment) which it would be especially nice to do without.

How would you describe that? So alpha binoculars are made for the snobs and people who need a status symbol? Basically you're jumping on the bandwagon that Neil suggested. "All in all, this is very encouraging news for consumers who want new levels of sophistication for their hard-earned cash, and will surely help to break the ugly, pretentious, elitist “pay to play” cycle all too often seen on our vulgar forums." "Why do we buy a refractor? Great optics, right?" Maybe that's ugly, pretentious, elitist “pay to play”, every 10 inch Newton off the shelf will drive this expensive refractor into the ground in terms of resolution, visibility and detail recognition, so... I cannot judge the performance of the Banner Cloud, I cannot provide any information about binoculars that I have not tested myself, and I have never made any negative comments about these binoculars. But the fact is that I have compared many middle class and Alpha glasses with each other and ultimately the Alphas still have small advantages, be it in handling, in workmanship and especially optically, these differences are perhaps 5-10%, you can do the same Compare a good Chinese ED telescope with a full apo, the latter will always be slightly better. In my opinion, the vast majority of Alpha binocular buyers are not the type of people who decadently brag or flaunt their optics, I find these statements presumptuous! Conclusion: IMO we optics lovers are a very small community, even if we take all birders, astronomers and nature watchers together, hardly anyone "out there" cares whether you have a Zeiss hanging around your neck or looking through a Takahashi, rather than here bashing against one side we should rather share our passion and complement each other.

Andreas

Reading Andreas‘ post made me re-read Neil‘s review (post # 78 above) more carefully than before and have to admit I am somewhat perplexed about certain statements that I found there. Consider these (emphasis by me):

„I now have the opportunity of presenting an instrument that, I believe, completes that evolutionary journey: enter the SkyRover Banner Cloud series of high-performance roof prism binoculars which are every bit as good as the current crop of so-called ‘alpha’ binoculars made by Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica, but without their enormous price tags.“

„To keep costs down, SkyRover avoided the design of a lockable dioptre mechanism: an eminently sensible move as these really are a solution waiting for a problem. Then slap on another $500 for the “convenience.”Totally unnecessary and not conducive to sharing!“

„One often hears that it takes many weeks to garner an accurate assessment of an instrument’s optical and mechanical quality. While there is some truth in this, the reality is that once you’re used to looking through first-rate optical instruments one can easily come to firm conclusions after just a few minutes of use.“

„The instrument excels in all terrains, whether it be wide open hills, valleys, observing out at sea and forest exploration. “

So after just a few minutes of use, one can firmly say that an instrument is every bit as good as the alphas and excels in all terrains?

I find the boldness of these statements admirable.

many astronomers have expensive hand-held binos! I wouldn't judge the whole astro community by CN forums, it's got its own weird problems and is generally dysfunctional IMO - not representative of the whole.

These types of arguments come up all the time, I can still remember one of my college roomates ranting against spending money on good beer, insisting that beer is an "indistinguishable product" or some nonsense like that! Actually, it's similar to optics - some people can't tell the difference between the expensive stuff and cheap swill or they just don't care

I'm having trouble seeing what's different between the latest "Banner Cloud" or whatever versus things like Nikon Monarch 5's and 7's, Zeiss Terra, Swaro's new kid binocular, etc. Vortex, Maven. There are dozens of binos made in China of varying quality and more made in Japan, Germany, Portugal, etc, I don't see much to get excited about.

some people can't tell the difference between the expensive stuff and cheap swill or they just don't care

An unknown factor is always the eyesight of the person posting, especially when they claim there is no difference between instruments in widely different price brackets.

If it costs more, it’s probably better, especially if it costs a lot more.

I'm having trouble seeing what's different between the latest "Banner Cloud" or whatever versus things like Nikon Monarch 5's and 7's, Zeiss Terra, Swaro's new kid binocular, etc. Vortex, Maven.

The wide FOV and flat field, which beg comparison with NL not Monarch... and raise the question why Nikon or Kamakura haven't attempted something similar yet.

...have to admit I am somewhat perplexed about certain statements that I found there.

To which I could add:

"The Banner Cloud 8 x 42 Apo also impressed me with its very decent stereopsis when viewing complex targets in the middle distance."

Compared to what, a Papilio?

"While the West is busy going woke and de-industrialising, China is powering ahead, offering ever more sophisticated technologies for the consumer market."

Technologies that originated where? And have already been available for how many years now?

But obviously, nitpicking from vulgar forums can be ignored.

One often hears that it takes many weeks to garner an accurate assessment of an instrument’s optical and mechanical quality. While there is some truth in this, the reality is that once you’re used to looking through first-rate optical instruments one can easily come to firm conclusions after just a few minutes of use.“

I have to say that I disagree with that statement. It took me quite a while to really appreciate just how good my Curio 7x21 is. It was not love at first sight. (Of course, one might not view the Curio as a first rate optical instrument in which case my argument falls away. However i think it is.).

Бинокль Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO обзор I found the above review that compares SRBC to the other models in the same price category (I am sorry if someone posted it earlier). It seems the reviewer did not rate SRBC in the same category of binoculars more than 1000. "The Banner Cloud performs better than the comparably priced Nikon M7 8x42" "The Nikon M7 8x42 has slightly better materials than the Banner Cloud" " in Banner Cloud, the colors seem a little muted to me and there is a lack of “transparency” in the picture"

"If we expand the price range for choosing binoculars to buy, then the Kyte Lynx HD+ 8x42 shows nicer, more transparent and sharper than the Banner Cloud"