CN FORUMS ARCHIVE Telescope Reviews: IS Designs- Canon vs Fujinon, Soft vs.Rigid Prism

My observations so far on the limited experience I've had with IS........being as I am looking for the pair that best suits my needs.

First and foremost, they ALL give a better view than any other hand-held bino, "stability wise". i.e., you can better resolve any and all targets better with IS than with comparable non-IS when hand-held. Optically speaking, THAT particular quality depends on the model.

I spent some time with the Canon 12x36 last couple of weeks, and I like that one...... ALOT ! It seems to be the best bang for the buck of the entire field of IS available on the market at present. Up or down in the Canon line, and you see "the differences" pretty quickly. Personally, I think the 12x36 IS II from Canon is a good central-point referrence standard for their line.

I also have had the chance previously to use the Fujinon 14x40 Techno Stabi quite a bit, having had one on loan for awhile. Compared to the Canon, it has significantly more compensation range, a full 5 degrees as opposed to ~0.8 or so on average for the Canons. Depending on the application, this can be a huge benefit, while in others it might prove to be a distraction. But contrary to some reports I've heard and read, the Fujinon actually has very good optics compared to some of the Canons, using Fuji's same proprietary coatings as used on higher end non-IS Fujis.

With that said, I've found that IS proves the general theory of binoculars of all shapes and sizes in that "there are always compromises". What I eventually had to ask myself was whether "the compromises" were worth the added benefits, optically, weight, size, and "other"-wise. Personally for me, the stability FAR AND AWAY outweighs any trade-offs involved, and it's mostly a matter of just finding which IS currently offered provides the widest ranges of uses and features that I find desirable for my own uses with the fewest number of those trade-offs.

Haven't had the opportunity to try out the 10x42L Canon yet (looking forward to doing so), but right now my two favorites are the Fujinon Techo-Stabi 14x40 and the Canon 12x36 IS II. This of course is not in taking their relative costs into consideration, but just basing my likes and dislikes on "what is there" rather than "what's it cost?". Both of my preferences are of very good quality, with the Fuji having the preferred optics and IS system for the widest range of uses, the Canon the preferred weight, size, and cost/performance value. Considering 12x vs 14x, I really don't need "both", so am still weighing the pros and cons, though I am still leaning toward the Fujinons.

Another thread brought up a good point concerning IS however. What kind of long-term reliability and durability are we looking at ? No doubt, non-IS would rate higher in this category.......fewer mechanical parts = less to go wrong over time, obviously. This is another pro/con factor to look at, and whether the added benefits of IS outweigh the possibility, or even likelihood, that IS binos will need more attention, maintenance, or more frequent replacement than non-IS.

Simple bottom line....."Is it worth it?" when the benefits and disadvantages are all weighed into your consideration ? For some of us who appreciate the technology as it "is" at present, it "is" worth it. And like others have mentioned, the technology will be improving for a long time to come, so why keep waiting for next generation while missing out on present enjoyment ? How many of us refuse to buy a computer because the next ones released will be better than the last. Technology obsolesence is unfortunately a fact of life we have to live with. But it's always better than never improving at all. Just think about that the next time you look through a pair of WWII era binos and compare them with a Nikon SE or Zeiss FL.

Jitter

Edited by Jitter (03/28/07 11:39 AM)