Product Review: The Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8 x 42 Binocular (9 Viewers)

[Patudo]

In my mind they don’t need to do that, but the general opinion seems to be that they are either equal to, or nearly equal to the top alpha models, or at least that’s what I think I’m reading.

I suppose that's understandable when reading observations like this (written by someone invested in the SRBC, no doubt, lol).

I'll try to check it out myself when I get the chance, most probably at the end of the year. I'm expecting a binocular with mechanicals similar to comparably priced Opticron etc but better optics, possibly a good bit better, but we'll see.

 

[Canip]

Also make sure to check for oil droplets on the internal glass and "rainbow spikes".

Well, my first sample has oil droplets on an internal glass surface and optically still „beats“ most of the glasses in my bino collection with high image brightness and excellent sharpness / contrast. I just wonder how much better my second sample - which the Singapore shop I am buying from is specifically checking before dispatch - will perform. I honestly don‘t think it can be even better …

 

[dries1]

The Bushnell Legend M created much excitement here years back too.
I wonder how much of these will sell world wide, likely the most in china and some here in the US and Europe. I just do not see these at current $$$ being a great seller, and additionally they have a ways to go to make a consistent product.
Enjoy your BCs.

 

[tenex]

Why is it so hard for many here to believe that a much more inexpensive binocular can come so close or even be equal optically to a so called Alpha costing three to four times more ?

No, what people don't believe is that the overall quality and durability are equal. And if that weren't enough, then there are subtle preferences in color, contrast etc which reviewers of SRBC haven't even got into yet...

Because things cannot be that must not be.
All their prized 'alpha' binos would suddenly not be so alpha anymore. They would no longer be so exclusive. The immense amounts of money they spent on them would suddenly be wasted because now some common oik who doesn't give a fig about the perceived cachet of a Swaro NL could enjoy the same good view which they believed to be their private and precious domain. Never mind the fact, that even if the quality of those Chinese bins isn't quite up to snuff, one can buy nearly seven SRBCs for the price of one NL which almost makes sending them for repairs moot. Let us also not forget that for many this attitude is a matter of clownish politics and crude propaganda.

And the so-called alphas cost what they do for a number of reasons: cachet, marketing, quality, r&d, and because people will pay the asking price. Especially now that even those companies are beginning to move production to cheap labour countries like China, Phillipines, etc. in order to drop the price a little bit while still increasing profit margins. If they kept production here they would go out of business because even most of the 'alphisti' will eventually find that their pockets are not deep enough to afford alphas actually MADE in western Europe. Except maybe one or two that even flaunt their wealth to make themselves feel better than the rest of us here. (I do not mean folks like @chill6x6 who just love sharing pix of their nice collection)
I also trust Canip's and Mssrs. Merlitz and English's appraisal of those bins. Will I now rush out to buy one and have it sent over from China? No, because I am happy with what I have and do not suffer from envy and resentment.

No envy or resentment? What then motivates this rant? "Reverse snobbery" is the best I've been able to come up with, for gratuitously assuming snobbery in others. Simply preferring premium/alpha bins to less expensive ones that will do the job (despite issues of mechanical quality or QC) isn't snobbery. Enjoying using them for the decades they're built to last isn't snobbery. I can think of only one member here whose posts can seem to verge on flaunting expensive optics; in any case it's rare enough to make one wonder what your problem is. You could easily say that you find alphas overpriced and SRBCs attractive, but instead you cast aspersions on people who like and buy alphas. Why? What is so necessary here for you to believe? Who would mock the inferior taste or resources of people who buy cheaper ones?

Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to rehash the usual arguments about binoculars themselves; I want to know why you interpret alpha bins as flaunting of wealth? They only cost a couple thousand dollars, while so many other much more expensive possessions would be more effective for anyone who really wanted to flaunt wealth... and wouldn't be wasting time here.

This is so tiresome.

 

[Canip]

NOTE:
the following makes no claim to be a scientifically reliable finding (I have been using my own eyes), nor is the result in any practical way relevant for birding or any other activity during which you engage a binocular.

Like many others, I have said before, and say it here again, that I find the SkyRover an optically exceptionally good binocular. It is so good that it has been compared to the best of the best, notably the NL Pure.

But I just had to know more precisely...

IS THE SRBC 8X42 AS SHARP AS THE NL PURE 8X42? OR EVEN SHARPER (it has been named "NL killer", after all)?

So ....

In normal use, out in the fields or woods and observing all sorts of object and surfaces, I could not detect any difference in sharpness between the two (and I would not expect to).

So as done before, I tried the two binos on the famous USAF 1951 with a few boosters (2.5x Kite Optics / 4x Zeiss / 6x Zeiss).

Are you still reading this? And you are even interested in the result?

Well .....

The NL "wins", and more clearly than I had expected. On the USAF 1951, at 10m distance**, with good lighting, the NL goes deeper or further, as shown on the attached pic. While the SRBC lets me identify the pattern of the stepped assortment of spatial frequency specimens down to group C, element 5 (certain) / 6 (dubious), the NL clearly goes down to group D, element 1, so 1-2 elements deeper/further than the RSBC.

** USAF 1951 printed in format A4

Happy, all the Swaro aficionados out there?

Caveat: the price of the RSBC is about 1/4 of the NL's, so the RSBC is not really "losing" here. For its price, it is a surprisingly good bino in my view (yes, I didn't mention quality control, I was just talking about the optics).

fwiw Canip

 

[Patudo]

You are becoming a problem, Canip 😇

Problem (translated from Trumpspeak) - someone who disagrees with me, but whom I haven't the wit to argue against...

 

[tenex]

For its price, it is a surprisingly good bino in my view

I wish everyone had just said that.

 

[SuperDuty]

You are becoming a problem, Canip 😇

Problem (translated from Trumpspeak) - someone who disagrees with me, but whom I haven't the wit to argue against...

Keep politics out of it unless you’re willing to hear someone else’s point of view.

 

[gcole]

I have been following this discussion from the beginning, here and elsewhere and it seems that the loudest screams against this binocular are the ones who have paid thousands of dollars more for their Alpha brand. You do not have to be a binocular scientist to figure why. If I had just found out that I could have saved myself thousands of dollars …… if I had only bought that instead of this.