1384 replies to this topic

[Vertigo]

Yes, probably... I can't do anything with crystal ball comparisons.

 

Andreas

[jrazz]

You know, you're right. The Swarovski is the better instrument. Pinac said so. You are correct.

 

Now can we please not do this again?

[Vertigo]

You know, you're right. The Swarovski is the better instrument. Pinac said so. You are correct.

 

Now can we please not do this again?

You just don't understand what it's about.

Why are B. Paolini's comparisons of eyepieces and diagonal mirrors so recognized because he compares things from hear-say and then forms an opinion?

 

Andreas

[pat in los angeles basin]

I regret my previous posting  - apologies....    Regards, Pat

[Moravianus]

... except that the SRBC does not display the glare that the NL does.

 

 

 

It replaces it with a beautiful rainbow.

[jrazz]

I regret my previous posting  - apologies....    Regards, Pat

 

Been there done that. 

 

That being said, I'm happy you posted the question because it's something that needs to be aired out regardless of the fun that ensued.

 

I've actually contemplated renting out a Swarovski NL Pure simply so I can end this silly debate but then I realized it doesn't really matter what I think and that the comparison is silly. Like this whole discussion. They are different binoculars for different people. Honestly when these first came out a couple of individuals chimed that these perform as well as the NL's. Nobody believed them, not even me. It doesn't matter. 

[astroneil]

Helloha,

 

I’ve been comparing the SRBC 8 x 42 to the Zeiss Conquest HD 8 x 32 over a couple of days. 

 

Will have that mini review for you all a bit later on…..

 

Cheers,

 

Neil.


 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[binocular]

Without reading all 43 pages of this thread, is the general consensus that the Sky Rover did something special with their binocular that comes close to a NL pure?  If it makes anyone feel better, I saw a comparison test stating that on central sharpness the $119 Kowa YF II 6x30 proved to be sharper than the Swarovski so nothing to get worked up about either way, I just want to know the viewing pleasure of the Sky Rover overall and if it has that big wow and fun factor that would make the purchase worthwhile or not.

Edited by binocular, 04 August 2024 - 03:21 PM.

[exup]

Without reading all 43 pages of this thread, is the general consensus that the Sky Rover did something special with their binocular that comes close to a NL pure?  If it makes anyone feel better, I saw a comparison test stating that on central sharpness the $119  proved to be sharper than the Swarovski so nothing to get worked up about either way, I just want to know the viewing pleasure of the Sky Rover overall and if it has that big wow and fun factor that would make the purchase worthwhile or not.

Yes, only 2 bins with close specs and close performance....take your choice and ignore the trolls.

[jrazz]

Only the person buying the binocular can say if it's worth it.

 

I keep on thinking that the extra field is just a gimmick but then jumping between a more "standard" binocular and these I have to say that for me it really does wow me. At night the super wide views are very engaging just like the super wide eyepieces on our telescopes. 

 

 

 

BTW, there are other much more interesting comparisons to make. The Oberwerk 12x50EDU for example. Here's a wide, sub $500 binocular with field flatteners and ED. If that's not a SRBC competitor then what is? 

[binocular]

Yes, only 2 bins with close specs and close performance....take your choice and ignore the trolls.

Just wondering if the Sky Rover 10x42 is a safe bet.  I'm kind of itching to buy another binocular and haven't made up my mind yet.

[binocular]

Only the person buying the binocular can say if it's worth it.

 

I keep on thinking that the extra field is just a gimmick but then jumping between a more "standard" binocular and these I have to say that for me it really does wow me. At night the super wide views are very engaging just like the super wide eyepieces on our telescopes. 

 

 

 

BTW, there are other much more interesting comparisons to make. The Oberwerk 12x50EDU for example. Here's a wide, sub $500 binocular with field flatteners and ED. If that's not a SRBC competitor then what is? 

Thanks!  Going to have to read back and forth to see which one I want to jump into to. 

[exup]

Just wondering if the Sky Rover 10x42 is a safe bet.  I'm kind of itching to buy another binocular and haven't made up my mind yet.

I only have the 8x42 and 10x50, so can't really confirm this specific size is equally as good. I would assume it is, but maybe someone (sensible) who has one can chime in.

[Vertigo]

Without reading all 43 pages of this thread, is the general consensus that the Sky Rover did something special with their binocular that comes close to a NL pure? 

As you can see from the last posts, there is no general consensus.

 

But unlike some fortune tellers, I usually refrain from commenting on binoculars that I haven't tried out myself.

In the best case scenario, you should try out both binoculars yourself instead of relying on remote diagnostics.

 

Andreas

[binocular]

I only have the 8x42 and 10x50, so can't really confirm this specific size is equally as good. I would assume it is, but maybe someone (sensible) who has one can chime in.

I'd get the 8x42 normally but am too happy with the one I have right now but the Sky Rover 10x50 might be a good house binocular especially with a 7.5 FOV

[binocular]

As you can see from the last posts, there is no general consensus.

 

But unlike some fortune tellers, I usually refrain from commenting on binoculars that I haven't tried out myself.

In the best case scenario, you should try out both binoculars yourself instead of relying on remote diagnostics.

 

Andreas

Remote diagnostics is at best iffy as I remember my experience with the Fuji that didn't match all the rave reviews.  We all see things differently.

[jrazz]

I guess the question goes back to you. What are you looking for?

[astroneil]

Sorry folks: something went wrong with my post.

[astroneil]

Ok here we go:

 

Some background: the Zeiss Conquest HD series is widely regarded as upper mid-level in terms of optical performance and in general rates among the best of the $1K priced binoculars on the market IIRC.
The following observations were made only during bright daylight, either in bright sunshine or bright overcast skies. But I also tested for artefacts by shining a bright white light beam through the instruments.

Bright light test: The Zeiss Conquest HD(CHD) showed excellent control of internal reflections but did display a very prominent diffraction spike. The SRBC also showed no internal reflections and no diffraction spike. The same result occurred when I turned it on a bright sodium street lamp after dark about 100m in the distance. The spike was annoying to see in the Zeiss CHD. Not an instrument I’d choose for glassing harbours or cityscapes at night.

Colour tone: Comparing both instruments, I was immediately struck by the cooler colour tone of the Zeiss. This is well documented in the literature. Glassing flower baskets and beds showed the SRBC to have richer, more vibrant colours.
Sharpness: Central sharpness was a tad better in the SRBC and maintained better sharpness as the target was moved off axis. I would say the SRBC image displays significantly more ‘bite’ than the Zeiss CHD.

Image Immersion: The wider flatter field of the SRBC produced a much more immersive experience,as if one were sitting in the image. That said, for a 8 x 32, the 8 degree Zeiss is very nice!

Off Axis Aberrations: These were well controlled in both instruments. The SRBC had a tad less pincushion distortion and significantly better edge-of-field sharpness compared with the Zeiss CHD.

Chromatic Aberration( CA):
Glassing through several layers of defoliated branches on a dead tree against a bright overcast sky showed very little longitudinal CA in the centre of the image,  with the SRBC being a little better in this regard. It was a totally different matter with off axis(lateral) CA though. The Zeiss CHD showed significantly more, both in extent and intensity.

Glare: Both instruments display well above average suppression of glare against the light,  but the clear winner, once again, was the SRBC.
Focusing: the Zeiss CHD has a very fast and silky smooth focus wheel displaying no free play or uneven resistance to movement throughout its travel both clockwise and anticlockwise. But it’s so fast that one can often overshoot on the target and so requires a little bit more concentration to get it just right. In contrast the SRBC focus wheel is more refined IMO; it’s smooth but has more traction allowing one to get the focus right first time, every time.

Close focus: the Zeiss CHD has a shorter minimum close focus(well under 2m) compared with the SRBC.

In summary; the Zeiss Conquest HD is a good step down from the SRBC 8 x 42. Nearly everything about it is underwhelming in comparison. If weight is not an issue the SRBC is clearly the better choice for birding and general daylight glassing etc.

 

Neil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by astroneil, 04 August 2024 - 05:46 PM.

[binocular]

I guess the question goes back to you. What are you looking for?

Still working that out   I have really trimmed down my collection and traded, sold, selling or gave away most of my collection and kept a few of the binoculars I really like but when I read about the Sky Rover I all of sudden got really interested in it.  I may just settle for their 10x50 with the 7.5° fov for a good house binocular.  Also would consider an 7x32 if Sky Rover made one.

Edited by binocular, 04 August 2024 - 05:45 PM.

[Blueox4]

It replaces it with a beautiful rainbow.

For you but no one else it seems. Get over it. Maybe get your eyes checked?

Edited by Blueox4, 04 August 2024 - 05:50 PM.

[jrazz]

Still working that out   I have really trimmed down my collection and traded, sold, selling or gave away most of my collection and kept a few of the binoculars I really like but when I read about the Sky Rover I all of sudden got really interested in it.  I may just settle for their 10x50 with the 7.5° fov for a good house binocular.  Also would consider an 7x32 if Sky Rover made one.

That's fair and if I had to choose only one I would 100% go with the 10x50. In my experience that format always works for astronomy.

 

They actually DO make a fantastic 6.5x32. Search for "Moon Star" in this forum. I believe APM sells them now. Fantastic wide field, small and light binocular. 

[binocular]

Jrazz, Moon Star is a porro if I remember well but for some reason I'm wanting another roof bin in my collection!  I've read the reviews of the moon star but was wondering if it would be any better than the YF II 6x30?  The Kowa is bright, clear with the best and I mean the "best" color tone of any binocular I've ever owned or have now.  That being said, everyone has a different opinion on color tones and for me the Kowa is pure bliss.

Edited by binocular, 04 August 2024 - 06:41 PM.

[jrazz]

Yes, the Moon Star is a porro  

 

I enjoyed it for the pure quirkiness of it. It was definitely wonderful but I doubt it is significantly better or worse than the YF. I found it easy to live with and absolutely fun but I love higher magnifications and I found that after the novelty wore off I wasn't really using it as much. 

 

If you have a YF then yeah, I don't think the Moon Star would be what you want.

[JimV]

The more I use the 8x42 the more I like them over the 12x50. 

Perhaps this statement lacks qualification, such as "for daytime use."