-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Swarovski NL 8x42 vs Skyrover apo 8x42 sharpness contrast microcontrast etc (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter blake69
- Start date
tenex
reality-based
Micro-contrast?
www.dpreview.com
Very few can have tried the SkyRover yet, but none seem to have been disappointed with its optical performance.
Micro Contrast, Is It a Myth?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
Very few can have tried the SkyRover yet, but none seem to have been disappointed with its optical performance.
I don't have much experience with the NL other than about an hour at the store looking at trees, buildings and birds but I can say that the comparison of the Banner Cloud with the NL is apt but only from an optical perspective. The SRBC is sharp, contrasty and has no false color that I can see. It has very good stray light control as well. Really impressive.
As for the build it is not on par with the NL. The focuser on mine has some micro-backlash and does not have consistent drag force along its travel. The eyepieces are really big and take some getting used to. It feels solid but the rubber coating feels cheaper than the NL. I do, however, prefer the diopter adjustment on the SRBC over the NL.
Build-wise it is on par with other ~$500 binoculars. It's good but no-where near alpha or even my Maven B6. Optically it can go toe to toe with anything from the Germans and Austrians.
As for the build it is not on par with the NL. The focuser on mine has some micro-backlash and does not have consistent drag force along its travel. The eyepieces are really big and take some getting used to. It feels solid but the rubber coating feels cheaper than the NL. I do, however, prefer the diopter adjustment on the SRBC over the NL.
Build-wise it is on par with other ~$500 binoculars. It's good but no-where near alpha or even my Maven B6. Optically it can go toe to toe with anything from the Germans and Austrians.
Ignatius
Pigasus J. Pig IX for President
That will be something I noticed on Nikon Action EX binos. Most likely it is due to the original target market which has a markedly different facial bone structure to us gweilos with our long noses, comparatively narrow set eyes and more or less deep eye sockets. It is the reason I got rid of otherwise quite good 7x35, 8x40 and 10x50 porros.
I had the Banner Cloud 8x42 and I compared it to my NL 8x32 and sorry, but there is no way it is even close optically or build quality wise to the NL. You're dreaming if you think a $500 binocular will touch a $2800 binocular like the NL. I bought it out of curiosity and because of the gushing reviews. It is a very normal $500 MIC binocular with an above average FOV. The optics don't compare to the NL, especially in transparency and contrast. The build quality is typical MIC, and IMO even a Nikon M7 beats it in build quality.
Also, the Banner Clouds eye cups are 48mm in diameter, which is HUGE compared to the 38mm of say a Swarovski EL 8x32. The eye cups are designed for the flatter face of Asians and don't work well with Caucasian face structures. They remind me of a Canon 10x42 IS-L.
When chill4x4 said does anybody know where Charles is, I had to laugh because that is what the Banner Cloud reminds of. I had many Zen Rays and I would equate the performance and build quality to a Zen Ray, which means pretty good for the money, but no way does it come close to an alpha roof. It even feels and smells like a Zen Ray. I think Charles IS back!
For size and lightweight and because I do mostly daylight birding I have come to like the alpha 32mm's, and now I only have a 8x32 NL and a 10x32 SF , and I like them both. The SF controls CA a little better than the NL and the NL has sharper edges, but I like both of them for their differences. The Zeiss is incredibly sharp on-axis. It is fun having a Zeiss and a Swarovski to switch back and forth from.
Also, the Banner Clouds eye cups are 48mm in diameter, which is HUGE compared to the 38mm of say a Swarovski EL 8x32. The eye cups are designed for the flatter face of Asians and don't work well with Caucasian face structures. They remind me of a Canon 10x42 IS-L.
When chill4x4 said does anybody know where Charles is, I had to laugh because that is what the Banner Cloud reminds of. I had many Zen Rays and I would equate the performance and build quality to a Zen Ray, which means pretty good for the money, but no way does it come close to an alpha roof. It even feels and smells like a Zen Ray. I think Charles IS back!
For size and lightweight and because I do mostly daylight birding I have come to like the alpha 32mm's, and now I only have a 8x32 NL and a 10x32 SF , and I like them both. The SF controls CA a little better than the NL and the NL has sharper edges, but I like both of them for their differences. The Zeiss is incredibly sharp on-axis. It is fun having a Zeiss and a Swarovski to switch back and forth from.
Last edited:
Agree wih tenex' scepticism on the micro-contrast theory and think it all boils down to resolution.
If you have ever viewed a 1951 USAF chart through a (boosted) binocular or scope, it would be absurd to suppose that binocolar A had better contrast at low spatial frequencies than binocular B, but that B was better than A at high spatial frequencies.
John
If you have ever viewed a 1951 USAF chart through a (boosted) binocular or scope, it would be absurd to suppose that binocolar A had better contrast at low spatial frequencies than binocular B, but that B was better than A at high spatial frequencies.
John
I don't think in reality there is any difference in resolution between the NL 8x32 and SF 10x32. The NL 8x32 is also very sharp on-axis and at the edges. It could be the SF 10x32 seems sharp on-axis because it is a little softer around the edges and because of the higher magnification. I don't think there is any difference in resolution between these high quality binoculars at the low magnification that binoculars are used at that you can see with the eye.
A lot of times, resolution can "seem" higher because of contrast and other factors. I will say this. The SF and NL do seem sharper on-axis than the Banner Cloud 8x42. Without a booster and a resolution chart you don't know for sure though. Alpha level binoculars always seem sharper to me when I compare them to less expensive binoculars. It is one of the first things I notice, but there could be other factors at play other than resolution.
Last edited:
Uhmmmmm I disagree but unfortunately I do not say the absolute truth, which is subject to each individual. For me SF give a crispier image and even more, a more relaxed viewing experience. I do not know if resolution and image sharpness are the same tough. I can distinguish a difference between the images of the NL and SF. If it wasn't for the back outs in the SF.....
It could. You would have to do a blind test to know for sure because if you know you're looking through an alpha level binoculars your brain can make you think it is better when actually it is not, but if you side by side them like I did many times under different lighting the differences are usually obvious.
Going from memory, which can be very difficult, I would put the build quality and optics of the Banner Cloud on par with the Zen Rays I had, but I would have to compare them to know for sure. That means, like the Zen Rays, the Banner Clouds are a very good value. I especially liked the Zen Ray 7x36 once they had the initial optical problems ironed out, and the Zen Ray Prime had great optics.
The trouble with MIC binoculars even though the optics can be quite good is there always seems to be something wrong with them build quality wise. Either the focuser is sticky or the IPD adjustment is too loose, or the eye cups are wonky, there is ALWAYS something wrong, whereas an alpha like the SF or NL are nearly perfect in every way. I wonder where Charles is? I guess he just disappeared off the face of the earth, from what Cameraland said.
Last edited:
We can argue non stop about if we perceive that bino A is sharper than bino B, or which has the best contrast/micro contrast/macro contrast, etc. There are so many threads about this in the forum, comparing all possible combinations of pairs of binoculars. I think that if we start measuring resolutions with boosters, or better, with a digital cameras with optical zoom such as the Nikon P1000. By analyzing the images produced, we could have an objective way of measuring the actual resolution AND contrast of the binos. Without any human factor involved. I wonder if this has been done already with some binos, I think it is possible to estimate the modulation transfer function from the pictures.
You're correct. With normal eyesight, it is practically impossible to discern any difference in resolution in binoculars of similar quality at the low magnifications they are used at. You have to use boosters to boost the image and a resolution chart. Even in Jack Jacks comparative photos, it is hard to discern resolution differences between binoculars.
Yes, or even Allbinos. It would be interesting to see some comparative objective tests.
SuperDuty
Well-known member
Based on what you’re saying here, what makes you say in your earlier statement that the NL is much more transparent than the Banner Cloud ?
That would make your ratings of binos pretty useless …
Did you really want to say that?
Similar threads
