136 replies to this topic

[astroneil]

Hello,

 

I’ve been busy painting and decorating, so this has taken a while to complete. 
 

Please find a link to my review of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud(SRBC) APO 10 x 50 binocular.  which I have thoroughly enjoyed test driving:

 

https://neilenglish....cloud-10-x-50/ 

 

I’d be interested to hear more from other users of both the 10x and 12 x 50 during daytime and nighttime use.

 

With best wishes,

 

Neil.

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[exup]

Hello,

 

I’ve been busy painting and decorating, so this has taken a while to complete. 
 

Please find a link to my review of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud(SRBC) APO 10 x 50 binocular.  which I have thoroughly enjoyed test driving:

 

https://neilenglish....cloud-10-x-50/ 

 

I’d be interested to hear more from other users of both the 10x and 12 x 50 during daytime and nighttime use.

 

With best wishes,

 

Neil.

Excellent Neil, thanks again.

 

I have SRBCs incoming, so hopefully they perform as well as both your samples.

[Corcaroli78]

Hello,

 

I’ve been busy painting and decorating, so this has taken a while to complete. 
 

Please find a link to my review of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud(SRBC) APO 10 x 50 binocular.  which I have thoroughly enjoyed test driving:

 

https://neilenglish....cloud-10-x-50/ 

 

I’d be interested to hear more from other users of both the 10x and 12 x 50 during daytime and nighttime use.

 

With best wishes,

 

Neil.

Very nice review, and, as a you said, not for the faint of heart 

 

Carlos

[holger_merlitz]

Neil, a great review, thank you so much! The immersion test is painful, I won't do that to my optics, being faint of heart :-)

 

So there are no obvious weak points it seems? I admit that this 10x50 is the one I want to get for myself, and after having used the 12x50 before, I am convinced that this binocular will become a keeper.

 

Cheers,

Holger

[Milos1977]

Another super informative review Neil! 

Just this weekend I have started enjoying my 12x50 version of the same Banner Cloud. Here are few of my impressions . I will post my future comments related to 12x50 SRBC here. 

[jrazz]

Wonderful review!

 

Agree with every word

[RyanAstroMan]

Hello,

 

I’ve been busy painting and decorating, so this has taken a while to complete. 
 

Please find a link to my review of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud(SRBC) APO 10 x 50 binocular.  which I have thoroughly enjoyed test driving:

 

https://neilenglish....cloud-10-x-50/ 

 

I’d be interested to hear more from other users of both the 10x and 12 x 50 during daytime and nighttime use.

 

With best wishes,

 

Neil.

You mentioned in your review that you were still able to use the 10x50 with glasses and nearly see the entire field, and that the 8x42 is not as tight, Correct, that is reassuring for me, I really want to try the 8x42 but am worried about the eye relief as I view with glasses, maybe I will give them a try after all. My glasses sit pretty close to my face. I would hope I can see the entire field in the 8x42.

[astroneil]

Many thanks for the feedback folks. Much appreciated. 
 

Exup: it does seem like an eternity waiting on the SRBCs to arrive but it’s worth the wait I assure you.  Very much looking forward to your findings on the 10 x 50. 
 

Holger & Carlos: I’ll never do that again!

 

Jordan and Milos: I’m really enjoying your user reports of these high performance glasses. Just wish I had darker skies to keep up. If my Mrs isn’t looking, I hope to smuggle the 10 x 50 to rural Italy in a few weeks for some astronomy. I can only imagine what the glories of Sagittarius, Scorpius and Scutum will be like through this baby! I will report back on this in Part 2.

 

Right back to the painting….,..

 

Neil. 

[Binofrac]

You are all demons of temptation! My tiny work bonus has now gone to reserving a pair at McGills for when they arrive in stock hopefully later this month. I kept swinging between these and the 12x. Eventually the 10x won as it will be a more general purpose instrument. The 12x was highly attractive for astronomy but would be more troublesome to hand hold and of course had a narrower field of view, and I do already have a 15x70 for higher power. I'm still idly wondering if I made the right choice though.

[jrazz]

This is a silly way of saying it but I don't think there's a wrong choice!

I got the 12x50 and was afraid that it would be too much magnification and too narrow. I think this is not the case. Comparing the 12x to my Maven 10x50 I don't find one harder to hold than the other.

 

And really, the 10x50 is the astronomy size for a reason. 

[Mark Y.]

FWIW, Binofrac.....I just checked out your "From The Garden To The Stars"....Outstanding piece!

[ihf]

And really, the 10x50 is the astronomy size for a reason. 

The reason for 10x50 is greed for magnification, checked by a lack of image stabilization.  

[mati93]

This is a silly way of saying it but I don't think there's a wrong choice!

I got the 12x50 and was afraid that it would be too much magnification and too narrow. I think this is not the case. Comparing the 12x to my Maven 10x50 I don't find one harder to hold than the other.

 

And really, the 10x50 is the astronomy size for a reason. 

I always wondered if the "shakiness" of the view of binos depends more on the size of field of view rather than the magnification, your experience suggests this is true.
 

[exup]

 

I always wondered if the "shakiness" of the view of binos depends more on the size of field of view rather than the magnification, your experience suggests this is true.
 

There are studies on efficiency of hand held Vs mounted bins.  The outcome suggests magnification is the key factor.  Some suggest weight helps dampen some shake frequencies, but it would appear to be a minor factor, with minimal effect.

 

Holgers book p150 has a summary of this.

 

When IS bins are used X10 and upwards, the stabilising effect is significant....and goes to highlight how much detail is lost in hand held shakes, despite what some users believe to the contrary.

Edited by exup, 12 June 2024 - 08:32 AM.

[Binofrac]

FWIW, Binofrac.....I just checked out your "From The Garden To The Stars"....Outstanding piece!

Thanks Mark,

 

It was a labour of love so it's always nice to know others find it useful.

[mati93]

There are studies on efficiency of hand held Vs mounted bins.  The outcome suggests magnification is the key factor.  Some suggest weight helps dampen some shake frequencies, but it would appear to be a minor factor, with minimal effect.

 

Holgers book p150 has a summary of this.

 

When IS bins are used X10 and upwards, the stabilising effect is significant....and goes to highlight how much detail is lost in hand held shakes, despite what some users believe to the contrary.

Yes, but I also think that two binos with the same magnification but vastly different FOV would behave differently in terms of image shake too. If the FOV were a tiny circle, the image within it would move crazily. Features and details would appear and dissapear from the FOV and the brain wouldn't have time to process, whereas a wide AFOV/FOV would be more easy to process, more stable. Perhaps the FOV is not the main factor, but it might play a role in the steadiness of the image.

[Rich V.]

The angular movement of any degree of shake would be the same in either a wide or narrow FOV design.  A half degree of shake is still a half degree.     Sure, that amount of shake would appear to be a larger proportion of the narrower FOV, but it wouldn't change the actual amount of movement. 

 

In a similar fashion, some people get the impression that at the same magnification, an object may look larger in a narrower FOV bino because it takes up more of the FOV.  It isn't really bigger though, it just may give the illusion.

[mati93]

The angular movement of any degree of shake would be the same in either a wide or narrow FOV design.  A half degree of shake is still a half degree.     Sure, that amount of shake would appear to be a larger proportion of the narrower FOV, but it wouldn't change the actual amount of movement. 

 

In a similar fashion, some people get the impression that at the same magnification, an object may look larger in a narrower FOV bino because it takes up more of the FOV.  It isn't really bigger though, it just may give the illusion.

Of course, it would be the same angular movement in any bino no matter the magnification too. A 8x bino doesn't shake less than a 10x, the apparent movement looks shakier. A feature that you couldn't see because of shake in the 10x, you wouldn't magically see in the 8x either, because it moves the same. Anyway, I was talking about how the brain processes the information, I didn't say that the amount of angular shakiness would depend on the FOV size.

[Binofrac]

I always wondered if the "shakiness" of the view of binos depends more on the size of field of view rather than the magnification, your experience suggests this is true.
 

I think it depends also on how much you paid for them.

[tmichaelbanks]

Shake, schmake.    

For 12x50 versus 10x50, I think it's a personal choice guided by a number of factors like: stationary versus mobile use; for nighttime, the amount of light pollution in your skies; eyepiece comfort; garden use versus raptor viewing; your own ability to hold them steady, and so on.

 

YMMV considerably, but personally I find it hard to go back to 10x when I've been viewing astronomical objects such as the moon and MW DSOs like the Lagoon nebula, Ptolemy's cluster, and the rich star fields in Cygnus and thereabouts with 12x. It's almost more pleasant to switch to 7x or 8x to get wider FOVs, although with the STBC 12x50 FOV that might not be such a problem.

 

Always good to try before you buy, but I realize that is somewhat difficult with SRBC distribution at this point in time.

[JimV]

I got my SRBC 10x50 this afternoon, and they're OK.

Sharp focus adjust is difficult.  Looking at license tags across the street.

It's a fast focus knob, and that's a lot of it.

Sharpness also seems to be lighting dependent.  Patchy clouds here.

 

Don't have my other binos here to compare.

I don't think there's anything wrong

with this pair.  It's a complicated design with lots of internal surfaces.

I'll have to see what the night sky does.

 

So far, given the choice of these or my APM 12x56 ED, I prefer the APM,

despite not being totally sharp to edge.

 

This is my first roof, and I'm not used to how they behave.

[JimV]

Stars are bright and good sharpness to edge.

I'm quarantined due to covid, so I only get to view out a bathroom window.

Ergonomics get an F.  Eyecups are 48mm diameter.

[Erik Bakker]

Get well soon Jim!

 

And in the mean time have some fun with your new binoculars.

[Pinac]

I got my SRBC 10x50 this afternoon, and they're OK.

Sharp focus adjust is difficult.  Looking at license tags across the street.

It's a fast focus knob, and that's a lot of it.

Sharpness also seems to be lighting dependent.  Patchy clouds here.

 

Don't have my other binos here to compare.

I don't think there's anything wrong

with this pair.  It's a complicated design with lots of internal surfaces.

I'll have to see what the night sky does.

 

So far, given the choice of these or my APM 12x56 ED, I prefer the APM,

despite not being totally sharp to edge.

 

This is my first roof, and I'm not used to how they behave.

They are okay? Just okay? I bet they will be more than just okay once you are well and out and about again …

[JimV]

The more I use them, the more I appreciate them.

There are no color fringes with these.

There are a couple of tiny oil spots on one prism I'm not going to worry about.

I think these will be fantastic at night.  I just have figure out the 48mm eyecups.

 

I've been looking out the window during the day, and they are excellent.

But I much prefer porros.  Roofs have little depth perception for terrestrial viewing.

Stars doesn't matter.  At 2.25 lbs, these are fairly light.  Because they are compact, they are dense.

 

If someone made equivalent straight through binos with no prisms I would get those.

For astronomy, I wouldn't care about reverse and upside down.  They certainly would be lighter and less cost.