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 âŹ1000. 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, ÂŁ2,500 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 ÂŁ450 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.
