Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Comparison of 12X50 and 10X42 Binoculars

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Koh

Koh

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2023
  • Loc: Gimpo-si, Republic of KOREA

Posted 21 August 2024 - 10:40 AM

20240806_120429(1).jpg 20240821_230657(1).jpg

 

As I primarily used large-aperture binoculars, I had completely lost interest in smaller ones for quite some time. However, I recently became intrigued by the heated debates surrounding SRBC on various sites. Coincidentally, a retailer in Korea started importing two models, the Skyrover Banner Cloud 10X42APO and 12X50APO, so I decided to purchase them.

 

The first 10X42 model I received had an issue where the image in the right periphery of the left barrel became blurry starting from around the 70% mark. Despite this flaw, the optical performance of the SRBC 10X42 was astonishing, to the point where it was hard to say that the comparison model, the Leica Noctivid, was optically superior. The second 10X42 model I received, after an exchange, greatly surpassed the Noctivid 10X42 in optical performance. The areas where the Noctivid excelled were ghost control, stray light suppression, and the alignment precision of both barrels, which was maintained at around 30 arcseconds.

 

I was fortunate to receive a 12X50 SRBC model without any peripheral image deviation. I did encounter a 'rainbow-colored light streaking' issue with the SRBC 12X50, but I managed to resolve it by readjusting the interpupillary distance and eye relief.

Given that eyepieces like the UFF30 and HFW12.5, independently produced in China, did not meet my expectations, I was quite skeptical about SRBC. However, after testing these two SRBC binoculars, I can only say that I am extremely impressed. Unfortunately for Leica, I believe they are no longer in the top three in terms of optical performance. In my personal opinion, Swarovision and Victory SF are still not outclassed by SRBC. Therefore, I believe the successor to the Swarovision, the NL Pure, likely surpasses SRBC in optical performance.

However, based on my observations so far, there are still quality control issues between individual products. For this reason, I don't think the top three manufacturers are currently at risk of being overtaken by this binocular. Nevertheless, in the sub-$1500 price range, I think the landscape is about to change significantly.


  • astroneil, mmx_4, ihf and 4 others like this

#2 Koh

Koh

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2023
  • Loc: Gimpo-si, Republic of KOREA

Posted 21 August 2024 - 10:58 AM

20240819_024548(1).jpg

4x boosted Afocal Image of the SRBC 12X50
(Samsung Galaxy S24+, Pentax VD4X20)


  • Mark9473, astroneil and ihf like this

#3 astroneil

astroneil

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,535
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009

Posted 21 August 2024 - 11:54 AM

grin.gif


Edited by astroneil, 21 August 2024 - 11:55 AM.

  • Koh likes this

#4 Demarki

Demarki

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2021

Posted 21 August 2024 - 04:35 PM

At this price range and specs, why wouldn't you pick the canon 10x42L image stabilisation instead? it got both premium optics and image stabilisation.


  • ABQJeff, Sebastian_Sajaroff and Koh like this

#5 Koh

Koh

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2023
  • Loc: Gimpo-si, Republic of KOREA

Posted 21 August 2024 - 09:11 PM

At this price range and specs, why wouldn't you pick the canon 10x42L image stabilisation instead? it got both premium optics and image stabilisation.

 

Thank you for your opinion. I believe the Canon 10X42 L IS has the best optical performance among image stabilising binoculars released so far. However, that model is priced at $1500, while the SRBC 12X50 is $609, which is a significant price difference. Additionally, in terms of objective daytime optical performance, the SRBC is definitely superior, and it also excels in nighttime sky observation. While the Canon 10X42 L IS has excellent optical performance, its image stabilization capability is relatively limited. Above all, I already own the Fuji TS-X 14X40.


  • ABQJeff likes this

#6 range88

range88

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2,010
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2014
  • Loc: Shanghai

Posted 21 August 2024 - 10:00 PM

At this price range and specs, why wouldn't you pick the canon 10x42L image stabilisation instead? it got both premium optics and image stabilisation.

They are not of the same price range, actually they are not of the same kind which can be compared directly.

PS SRBC surpasses Canon in optical perormance and form factor.


  • ABQJeff and Koh like this

#7 ihf

ihf

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,555
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 21 August 2024 - 11:16 PM

They are not of the same price range, actually they are not of the same kind which can be compared directly.

PS SRBC surpasses Canon in optical perormance and form factor.

A tale of 4 binos. 3 users and one wannabe.

 

I have compared the SRBC 8x42 (smallest bino/lowest available magnification) and the Canon 10x42IS. While I agree that the optics in the SRBC surpasses the Canon when unstabilized (primarily because of slightly wider AFOV and larger exit pupil, but not due to flatness or pinpointy stars), I strongly prefer the view of the Canon with IS engaged. The richness/star density on the milky way is identical when the IS is engaged, but higher magnification + stable image). As for form factor, the SRBC is as much of an unwieldy brick as the Canon. There is not much of a difference in weight. The SRBC has a slight advantage in eye relief, but not as much as one might hope. The SRBC might be a bit more glare resistant but I did not fully test it.

 

I have also compared the SRBC with the Kowa 6.5x32. No surprise the SRBC has much better optics (the Kowa has strong curvature, shows spikes, is sensitive to glare against the sun). But as a user the Kowa is good enough and always fits into my pocket or small daypack. The SRBC is not going to casually find space in my pockets, as it is way larger and heavier.

 

Finally I have compared the SRBC 8x42 (9.1°) with the Nikon 7x50 (10.7°). The SRBC is much smaller, but at this point size doesn't matter anymore. Again the SRBC is quite shaky in comparison, especially after a day of hiking and a can of beer. The optics of the SRBC does well, it is much closer to the Nikon than the Kowa. The stars are nearly all there, the background does not have as many grey tones, near black in a Bortle 2 dark site. (Unsurprising due to 5mm vs. 7mm pupil.) The wider view of the Nikon is more engaging and immersive. But the optics of the SRBC are doing respectably. Now mechanically, while the Nikon IF and IPD stays adjusted form trip to trip and the bino just disappears into a porthole, the SRBC's focusser is too easily touched and goes accidentally out of focus just picking up the binos. Setting the correct IPD is a bit of a struggle. The diopter setting is not precisely zero. A lot of fiddling.

 

A better comparison would be the 10x50 Nikon vs. SRBC, which I won't do. But I can see the attraction of buying the SRBC 10x50 compared to how much money one can save. Not quite the same, but good enough. Then again there are wide AFOV flat Porros out there that might be just a bit more bulky than the SRBC, but I would assume that they are optically in a similar league. The promise of the Schmidt-Pechan bino is size, but if there is not a 32mm version coming, then I don't know if the SRBC is delivering in the size category. (For me, I can either take a bino on a hike, or its going to be in the trunk of the car with size not so relevant.)

 

So far the SRBC has not made it into my user team yet. Good optics alone is just not good enough. I like players with special skills. I will give the SRBC more chances though. Too early to tell. And I am sure Sky Rover will improve it over the years.


  • Milos1977, aznuge, Mark Y. and 1 other like this

#8 exup

exup

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2022
  • Loc: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

Posted 22 August 2024 - 02:48 AM

I have compared the CIS 10x42L to the SRBC 10x50 ...

https://www.cloudyni...iew/?p=13543404

 

The SRBC FoV is wider and equally as flat and sharp. As we already know the CIS is one of the flattest and sharpest bins available, that's good enough for me.  Effectively Canon L optics in a 10x50 form factor (without IS) can't be bad.

 

The SRBC 8x42 is 9.1°+  FoV which is exceptionally flat and sharp to the edge...that's very nice indeed, with few other bins able to match. Regarding the mechanics in both my samples, as I previously reported, they are fine, tension is perfect in the dioptre adjustment and hinge. Focus wheels are good, but they do feel a bit different to most of my other bins. I would definitely buy these again, without hesitation.


Edited by exup, 22 August 2024 - 03:01 AM.

  • Chris Pringle likes this

#9 Scott99

Scott99

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,795
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 22 August 2024 - 11:11 AM

 


A better comparison would be the 10x50 Nikon vs. SRBC, which I won't do.

But there is no 10x50 Nikon right?  If there was, I'd have it grin.gif
 



#10 barbie

barbie

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,330
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 22 August 2024 - 03:15 PM

I've often thought about the 12x50 SE from Oberwerk but instead will be purchasing the 8x32 SE because of my hand tremors. My 10x42 Nikon Monarch M7 is about as high as I dare to go for handheld viewing. The future is full of possibilities though!!
  • Koh likes this

#11 FlanaganV

FlanaganV

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Spain

Posted 22 August 2024 - 06:05 PM

But there is no 10x50 Nikon right?  If there was, I'd have it grin.gif
 

There is indeed…


  • aznuge likes this

#12 nickcarr

nickcarr

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2017
  • Loc: WA, USA

Posted 23 August 2024 - 09:52 AM

I'm sure they don't compare to the Swaros or Noctivids but my Vortex Razor HD 12x50s are incredible.  I still haven't tried the UHD model, but I've read they're larger and heavier than the previous generation.  

 

Perhaps the only knock is the overall low light transmission.  I'd guess about 88% or so.



#13 Echolight

Echolight

    James Webb Space Telescope

  • *****
  • Posts: 16,001
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 23 August 2024 - 10:17 AM

A tale of 4 binos. 3 users and one wannabe.

 

I have compared the SRBC 8x42 (smallest bino/lowest available magnification) and the Canon 10x42IS. While I agree that the optics in the SRBC surpasses the Canon when unstabilized (primarily because of slightly wider AFOV and larger exit pupil, but not due to flatness or pinpointy stars), I strongly prefer the view of the Canon with IS engaged. The richness/star density on the milky way is identical when the IS is engaged, but higher magnification + stable image). As for form factor, the SRBC is as much of an unwieldy brick as the Canon. There is not much of a difference in weight. The SRBC has a slight advantage in eye relief, but not as much as one might hope. The SRBC might be a bit more glare resistant but I did not fully test it.

 

I have also compared the SRBC with the Kowa 6.5x32. No surprise the SRBC has much better optics (the Kowa has strong curvature, shows spikes, is sensitive to glare against the sun). But as a user the Kowa is good enough and always fits into my pocket or small daypack. The SRBC is not going to casually find space in my pockets, as it is way larger and heavier.

 

Finally I have compared the SRBC 8x42 (9.1°) with the Nikon 7x50 (10.7°). The SRBC is much smaller, but at this point size doesn't matter anymore. Again the SRBC is quite shaky in comparison, especially after a day of hiking and a can of beer. The optics of the SRBC does well, it is much closer to the Nikon than the Kowa. The stars are nearly all there, the background does not have as many grey tones, near black in a Bortle 2 dark site. (Unsurprising due to 5mm vs. 7mm pupil.) The wider view of the Nikon is more engaging and immersive. But the optics of the SRBC are doing respectably. Now mechanically, while the Nikon IF and IPD stays adjusted form trip to trip and the bino just disappears into a porthole, the SRBC's focusser is too easily touched and goes accidentally out of focus just picking up the binos. Setting the correct IPD is a bit of a struggle. The diopter setting is not precisely zero. A lot of fiddling.

 

A better comparison would be the 10x50 Nikon vs. SRBC, which I won't do. But I can see the attraction of buying the SRBC 10x50 compared to how much money one can save. Not quite the same, but good enough. Then again there are wide AFOV flat Porros out there that might be just a bit more bulky than the SRBC, but I would assume that they are optically in a similar league. The promise of the Schmidt-Pechan bino is size, but if there is not a 32mm version coming, then I don't know if the SRBC is delivering in the size category. (For me, I can either take a bino on a hike, or its going to be in the trunk of the car with size not so relevant.)

 

So far the SRBC has not made it into my user team yet. Good optics alone is just not good enough. I like players with special skills. I will give the SRBC more chances though. Too early to tell. And I am sure Sky Rover will improve it over the years.

Was that a 40 or a 12?



#14 Scott99

Scott99

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,795
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 23 August 2024 - 12:55 PM

There is indeed…

which one?  Don't leave me hanging...... lol.gif lol.gif



#15 ihf

ihf

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,555
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 23 August 2024 - 01:03 PM

which one?  Don't leave me hanging...... lol.gif lol.gif

B&H shows 4 different Nikon 10x50s, one better than the next.


  • Scott99 likes this

#16 range88

range88

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2,010
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2014
  • Loc: Shanghai

Posted 23 August 2024 - 06:04 PM

A tale of 4 binos. 3 users and one wannabe.

That's sure informative. I don't do a lot of bino comparisons these days. I was left only with a few ones and the line up doesn't seem to change in the near future.

I really like IS binos and own a 1550is cos I cannot handheld a 15x steady, but they are bulky and hard to grip in hands, not because of the weight. The SRBC is also heavy due to the high glass content, but not with fat barrels like IS so I can hold them, easy and steady.

But I'm more sort of a iron hand guy, I handhold Nikon WX 1050 and took loads of phone shots throught it. It's heavy but I don't feel it shaky at all. To another person(actully most of I believe, I never heard of one who can handheld this monster as happily as I do) this is another story, so I guess choose binos that suits you best.


  • ihf likes this

#17 FlanaganV

FlanaganV

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Spain

Posted 23 August 2024 - 07:11 PM

which one?  Don't leave me hanging...... lol.gif lol.gif

 

 

B&H shows 4 different Nikon 10x50s, one better than the next.

I was thinking in the wx 10x50 grin.gif , but yes, as Ihf pointed it seems that there are at least another three...


  • Scott99 likes this

#18 Koh

Koh

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2023
  • Loc: Gimpo-si, Republic of KOREA

Posted 24 August 2024 - 06:15 AM

Additional review on the SRBC 12X50 binoculars.

Over the past few days, I have compared the Swarovision 12X50EL with the SRBC 12X50 in various environments. Below are some summarized features of the two binoculars:
 

1) The control of chromatic aberration and resolution in the center area is almost identical in performance. However, when moving the target towards the periphery of the field of view, the Swarovision shows chromatic aberration a little sooner. When observing Jupiter and Saturn at approximately 48x magnification using a 4X booster, both binoculars showed the two bands of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn quite clearly, though they were small. I compared various targets at 12X to 48X magnification simultaneously but did not find any difference in the sharpness of the center image between the two binoculars.

2) Sharpness at the edges of the field of view is similar for both binoculars, but the Swarovision 12X50EL is slightly inferior. The reason is that the Swarovision 12X50EL I currently own has a slight optical quality deviation where the image quality deteriorates faster on the left side of the left barrel. Without wearing glasses, my 12X50EL starts to blur from about 75% out from the center of the field, but interestingly, this issue almost disappears when wearing glasses. Therefore, I have not sent my Swarovision to the headquarters in Austria for repair, nor do I plan to do so in the future.

3) As is well known, the control of stray light in the Swarovision is rather poor. However, the BC is also quite poor when compared to models like the Leica Noctivid or Ultravid HD.

4) I believe the daytime and nighttime brightness of both binoculars is of the same level. From daytime to dusk, the BC has a very slight yellow tint, but the difference is not noticeable. I tend to prefer the color tone of the Leica Trinovid BN or something similar to the Swarovski Vision, and in this regard, I like the color tone of the BC.
 

5) The AFOV (Apparent Field of View) of the Swarovision 12X50EL is sufficiently wide, but the BC is definitely wider.

6) Although rare in top-end models from the top three manufacturers, with the BC, you sometimes need to readjust the diopter. This is due to the slight play in the central focusing adjustment mechanism, diopter adjustment mechanism, and internal focusing ring. I am not a fan of the 1/4 diopter adjustment method of the Swarovision. Therefore, it is somewhat disappointing that the BC requires diopter adjustment again when focusing on near and far targets. However, I find this understandable considering the price is only in the low $600 range.

When comparing the optical performance of 12X50 binoculars comprehensively, I would evaluate that the optical performance of the BC slightly surpasses that of the Swarovision 12X50EL. However, my Swarovision 12X50EL is a 2012 production model, which may not match the performance of newer Swarovision or NL Pure models produced afterward.
 

Nonetheless, issues such as the play in the focusing-diopter adjustment mechanism and variance in edge sharpness still remain. We all expect to get the same optical performance when we all pay the same $600. Therefore, Skyrover should put in more effort to reduce these quality variances.

Additionally, if SRBC could provide a 2X-3X booster and booster adapter in the future, it could offer users a more unique experience. Although the optical limits of binoculars mean extremely high magnification is not possible, satisfying the 'joy of viewing' and the 'fun of using' will be essential for reaching a higher level as a manufacturer.


Edited by Koh, 24 August 2024 - 06:19 AM.

  • Scott99, astroneil, Milos1977 and 6 others like this

#19 astroneil

astroneil

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,535
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009

Posted 24 August 2024 - 10:23 AM

Dear Koh,

 

Thanks a million for carrying out these tests and reporting your results. waytogo.gif They are very much appreciated. I have the 8 x 42 and 10 x 50 SRBCs and couldn’t be more pleased with either. They are both extraordinary by any measure!

 

Regards,

 

Neil


  • Koh likes this

#20 Scott99

Scott99

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,795
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 24 August 2024 - 12:46 PM

B&H shows 4 different Nikon 10x50s, one better than the next.

Thanks!   But that gap....a few models from $100-$200, then the next one up is the $6,000 WX.  I guess I was looking for something more in the middle lol.gif lol.gif

 

But yes, two Nikon 10x50 porros and one roof are available - I could try one of those waytogo.gif


Edited by Scott99, 24 August 2024 - 12:47 PM.

  • ihf likes this

#21 ihf

ihf

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,555
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 24 August 2024 - 01:34 PM

Thanks!   But that gap....a few models from $100-$200, then the next one up is the $6,000 WX.  I guess I was looking for something more in the middle lol.gif lol.gif

I agree. Nikon has a gap roughly where the SRBC 10x50 is. The USD 500-2000 range is asking to be filled.



#22 djeber2

djeber2

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,774
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Cloudy Midwest

Posted 24 August 2024 - 04:04 PM

Dear Koh,

 

Thanks a million for carrying out these tests and reporting your results. waytogo.gif They are very much appreciated. I have the 8 x 42 and 10 x 50 SRBCs and couldn’t be more pleased with either. They are both extraordinary by any measure!

 

Regards,

 

Neil

Neil, Koh, I just recently received my 12x50 SRBC, after first getting the 10x42 a couple months ago.    I really like both of my SRBC, great additions to my collection.


  • astroneil likes this

#23 binocular

binocular

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 673
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2023

Posted 17 September 2024 - 09:54 PM

 I am not a fan of the 1/4 diopter adjustment method of the Swarovision. Therefore, it is somewhat disappointing that the BC requires diopter adjustment again when focusing on near and far targets. However, I find this understandable considering the price is only in the low $600 range.

 

I've found diopter adjustment is needed with all the binoculars I use if I view an object really close such at 30 ft or so and then start to view objects miles away and the SRBC was no different but I don't use my 10x for anything too close and never once needed to adjust the diopter on my SRBC 10x42.



#24 Koh

Koh

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2023
  • Loc: Gimpo-si, Republic of KOREA

Posted 22 September 2024 - 07:51 PM

Recently, a used SRBC 12X50 binocular came up for sale at a fairly low price, so I purchased another one. In the past, I’ve conducted a few waterproof performance tests on binoculars, and this time I conducted a waterproof test for the first time in 12 y

 

The SRBC underwent three rounds of waterproof testing. In the first test, it was submerged lightly for 3 minutes. In the second test, it was submerged about 10 centimeters, and in the third, about 20 centimeters, each time for 2 minutes. 

 

The result was that no internal water intrusion or flooding was

 

Separately, I also tested its operability after storing it in a freezer at -19°C for 12 hours. The central focusing ring and interpupillary distance adjustment worked normally, but the diopter adjustment required more force than usual to operat

 

The mountainous regions of Korea, where I often go for stargazing, frequently experience temperatures below -20°C in winter, and sometimes even close to -30°C.

 

Due to these harsh conditions, I eventually passed on my Nikon SE series to someone else, and I sold off all my UO 7X50MS to 28X110MS long ago because their cold operability was inadequate. After purchasing the SRBC, I was greatly impressed with its optical performance, though I had some concerns about its operability in cold conditions. However, after testing it in the freezer for 12 hours, I feel reassured.

 

For reference, I confirmed that the waterproof performance held up during submersion, but I would advise others not to follow this kind of test.

Waterproofing is primarily intended to prevent water intrusion during unexpected accidents in outdoor activities, not for use underwater. Not only is using binoculars underwater impossible, but the waterproof performance of all binoculars decreases over time.

 

Furthermore, even if water doesn’t seep inside the binoculars, some metal parts that come into contact with water may still corrode, so it’s best to avoid such tests.

 

The waterproof and cold operability tests of the SRBC were conducted purely for fun and to satisfy my curiosity, so please do not take these results too seriously.


Edited by Koh, 22 September 2024 - 07:57 PM.

  • djeber2, Erik Bakker, FredDawes and 1 other like this

#25 Koh

Koh

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2023
  • Loc: Gimpo-si, Republic of KOREA

Posted 22 September 2024 - 08:03 PM

Recently, a used SRBC 12X50 binocular came up for sale at a fairly low price, so I purchased another one. In the past, I’ve conducted a few waterproof performance tests on binoculars, and this time I conducted a waterproof test for the first time in 12 y

 

The SRBC underwent three rounds of waterproof testing. In the first test, it was submerged lightly for 3 minutes. In the second test, it was submerged about 10 centimeters, and in the third, about 20 centimeters, each time for 2 minutes. 

 

The result was that no internal water intrusion or flooding was

 

Separately, I also tested its operability after storing it in a freezer at -19°C for 12 hours. The central focusing ring and interpupillary distance adjustment worked normally, but the diopter adjustment required more force than usual to operat

 

The mountainous regions of Korea, where I often go for stargazing, frequently experience temperatures below -20°C in winter, and sometimes even close to -30°C.

 

Due to these harsh conditions, I eventually passed on my Nikon SE series to someone else, and I sold off all my UO 7X50MS to 28X110MS long ago because their cold operability was inadequate. After purchasing the SRBC, I was greatly impressed with its optical performance, though I had some concerns about its operability in cold conditions. However, after testing it in the freezer for 12 hours, I feel reassured.

 

For reference, I confirmed that the waterproof performance held up during submersion, but I would advise others not to follow this kind of test.

Waterproofing is primarily intended to prevent water intrusion during unexpected accidents in outdoor activities, not for use underwater. Not only is using binoculars underwater impossible, but the waterproof performance of all binoculars decreases over time.

 

Furthermore, even if water doesn’t seep inside the binoculars, some metal parts that come into contact with water may still corrode, so it’s best to avoid such tests.

 

The waterproof and cold operability tests of the SRBC were conducted purely for fun and to satisfy my curiosity, so please do not take these results too seriously.

Please refer to the video for some of the test results.

 

https://youtu.be/K8O...JgPT4kvwjECpbkn


  • FredDawes likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics