Product Review: The Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8 x 42 Binocular (4 Viewers)

[Lowcountry]

couple 4. an indefinite small number: few. [Merriam-Webster dictionary]

Leica cameras are ridiculously overpriced in exactly the Veblenian manner you describe, and at a much higher price level as I said... but alpha binoculars aren't, not even Leica's. It would only look that way to some common oik who can't afford them.

This is not about whether something is overpriced or not, but about innate human behavior. Alpha binocular ownership can sometimes be a display of one's economic standing. And NLs are still not a couple thousand dollars.

 

[tenex]

And NLs are still not a couple thousand dollars.

Did you not understand the dictionary entry, or is there some other problem?

As to what this is really "about", I agree that it's innate human behavior -- that of making unsubstantiated assumptions about other people's behavior.

(Why does one have to type " ( n ) " for noun with extra spaces in order not to have it turn into a stupid thumb thingy?)

 

[jgraider]

If you took a poll of thousands upon thousands of US citizens, if asked what a couple means, 99.9% would say 2 regardless of what that freaking dictionary says. There are definitely some "alpha" owners who's noses are perpetually in the air.

 

[Yarkho]

The "other problem", and the elephant in the room, is this: The SkyRover simply stole/copied the Swarovski optical design. And it got a lot of applause, reviews included, for offering it for a five hundred dollars. Why not add some Swarovski / "displaying status" bashing for good measure?

Seriously now, that the intellectual theft did not get discussed in 4 pages is telling in itself.

 

[tenex]

The SkyRover simply stole/copied the Swarovski optical design.

I understand why you say that, but if it were technically true (patent infringement etc) there would be a lawsuit, and otherwise it does seem inevitable that similar products would eventually appear, as design software seems widely available now. In fact Zeiss SF was a substantially similar product already. Why it took so very long to start offering a wider FOV again is the mystery. (Has there ever been such a legal case in optical design? It does happen in the tech world.)

If you took a poll of thousands upon thousands of US citizens, if asked what a couple means, 99.9% would say 2 regardless of what that freaking dictionary says.

We may not know quite the same US citizens. In any case the question isn't what you would mean by "couple", but what I meant. You can't argue about what I meant, especially when it's in dictionaries, not to mention being extremely obvious in the first place, so what really is your point, or Lowcountry's?

There are definitely some "alpha" owners who's noses are perpetually in the air.

The one thing I truly dislike about SRBC is the unexpected way it seems to trigger some people's wealth/status issues. Far too many own SFs and NLs for them to offer exclusivity, if one cared about that. Binoculars are useful tools with a quite modest range of prices compared to many other products like watches or cars. There is no equivalent of status symbols like Breguet or Bentley in binoculars, no $20k price tag much less $200k, and we can be thankful for that. They really shouldn't provoke this sort of tedious conversation at all, so one has to ask what has gone wrong here. This thread was supposed to be about the binocular itself.

 

[Hermann]

The "other problem", and the elephant in the room, is this: The SkyRover simply stole/copied the Swarovski optical design. [snip]

Got any proof of that? For instance x-rays of a Swaro and an SRBC, showing the eyepiece construction in detail? Or is that just wild speculation?

I understand why you say that, but if it were technically true (patent infringement etc) there would be a lawsuit, and otherwise it does seem inevitable that similar products would eventually appear, as design software seems widely available now. In fact Zeiss SF was a substantially similar product already. Why it took so very long to start offering a wider FOV again is the mystery.

I personally don't believe it's a straight copy at all. Nowadays every large optical company has access to modern design software. And if you've got a good team of optical designers you'll inevitably arrive at similar results.

As to why it took so long until binoculars with wider FOV arrived - well, there were quite a few WA binoculars in the past. However, most of these had pretty short ER, like the old Zeiss porros or the famous Deltar/Deltarem of the 1930s and 1940s. They were also pretty soft at the edges. Combining long ER and a wide FOV and decent edge sharpness obviously took some time. And it took manufacturers years to understand a wide FOV might be good for marketing.

The one thing I truly dislike about SRBC is the way it seems to trigger some people's wealth/status issues.

That's not the fault of the SRBC though.

Hermann

 

[SuperDuty]

There’s no question that these are mid tier in appearance and execution, with somewhat questionable QC, what I would like to know, since it’s been insinuated that they’re the optical equal of the Swarovski NL, will somebody do an actual exhaustive and conclusive review/test showing whether they actually are or not ?

 

[Canip]

…… it’s been insinuated that they’re the optical equal of the Swarovski NL …..

Well, I tested for my own curiosity and benefit whether sharpness is equal, and it is not (Product Review: The Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8 x 42 Binocular),
so for me, the world appears to be in order: if you want the best of the best, it’s going to cost you more than $ 500 … (I still grapple with the fact that these low cost SRBCs, QC problems aside, are optically really good and a pleasure to use).

 

[Patudo]

Well, I tested for my own curiosity and benefit whether sharpness is equal, and it is not

Of course that begs the question: how many of us would (especially handheld, with no booster, which is how most of us actually use binoculars) be able to perceive the separations between group C5 and group D1 on the USAF chart at 10m distance?

why it took so long until binoculars with wider FOV arrived

I think at least some manufacturers have sought to increase field of view once the need for longer eye relief was recognized as critical for sales (which resulted in a kind of "great reset" as eye relief increased but FOV went down). The first Zeiss West 8x30B porro had only 110m FOV, which became 130m in the next edition and in the Dialyt roof, then 140m in the 8x32 FL. I'd say FOV has long been considered useful and desirable in a binocular, provided it doesn't result in something too outsized and clunky (eg. Sard 6x42).

 

[Binocollector]

Or is that just wild speculation?

Probably more of an educated guess knowing Chinese business/"development" practices.

 

[Hermann]

Probably more of an educated guess knowing Chinese business/"development" practices.

"Educated" or "prejudiced"?

Hermann

 

[agus_m]

Probably more of an educated guess knowing Chinese business/"development" practices.

What about the 10x42 (FOV 7.8º, NL Pure: 7.6º), are they copies too? the 10x50 and 12x50, copies of the future NL Pure 10-12x52?

 

[wllmspd]

Great thing copying something that doesn’t exist already. I’d be interested in an 8x30 that has a wide field, replace the Nikon E2.

Peter

 

[dries1]

"Educated" or "prejudiced"?

Hermann

We are all prejudiced in one way or another, just being a realist.

 

[Binocollector]

"Educated" or "prejudiced"?

Hermann

Do you really have to ask? It's not a big secret that Chinese companies are world champions in copying stuff (and other countries before them did the same - the whole Swiss watch industry started by copying British and French watches; not too long ago, Japan copied tons of Western products, including binos; and Germany also was a big manufacturing hub once for counterfeit products). We will never know for sure however unless someone at Swarovski buys one and takes it apart in their lab to analyze it. And even then it's another question whether there are any patents on the optical design of the NL Pure.

 

[dries1]

SRBC 8X42 for sale on CN and still no takers? Surprising.

 

[dries1]

Still no takers.

 

[adhoc]

(1) To me the most useful brief summary I have found on the Sky-Rover Banner-Clouds is this question-and-answer in the BF thread linked here and seen in post #41.

Agus_m: Whether the SRBC is...at the same level as the NL Pure or Zeiss SF in...pure optical performance seems...controversial...Can we then...say it crushes the subalphas such as the MHG, Conquest, SFL, etc?

Holger Merlitz: ...the SRBC are significantly better (optically) than any of the subalphas and rather closing up towards the alphas.

But, this presumes knowledge and agreement on what other models are 'subalpha' and 'alpha'. This also means another category, between those, has either just been created, or already existed with other models. With my sadly limited experience, I wonder what goes where in their assessment! That is for another thread.

(2) Intellectual property of Swaro. is discussed above in the present thread. In earlier threads in BF on the NL patents for its optical design are implied to be unnecessary because it is an enhancement of the EL Swarovision system. Patents for its mechanical design, needed to narrow the barrels, are shown by John A Roberts in the thread linked here, at post #2, and I find, at post #21, that delving for clarification there is only possible in German text but I hope I am wrong on that. I assume Swaro. can effect patents, and did effect these, in China.

Elephants in the room can be shadowy, and discussing them here can be sensitive!

 

[dries1]

"Can we then...say it crushes the subalphas such as the MHG, Conquest, SFL, etc?"
The other one I hear "it blows them out of the water". I never knew they were used in water.

I think there will continue to be many Monarch HGs and conquests out there, not sure about the SRBC.

 

[dries1]

"Elephants in the room can be shadowy, and discussing them here can be sensitive!"

One creates because of the permission/promotion to be creative, the other copies for a profit.