l1n1234
member
Reged: 04/20/09
Posts: 10
|
|
I picked up a Pentax 8x40 PCF WPII for $60 from a camera store going out of business and tried to use it handheld last night and the stars were so jittery and bothersome. I tried all the tips on this forum, laying on a lawn chair, bracing both arms, timing my breath, but still could not get a steady enough image.
I am thinking about getting the Canon 10x30IS, or 12x36IS II. Should I get the Fujinon, Nikon IS which may have more robust image stabilization? Anybody disappointed with the view from image stabilization? Should I just get a mount?
Lo Net
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Lo Net ,
I don't think anyone here would doubt that a properly mounted binocular provides a steadier image than image stabilised binoculars , BUT -- and it IS a BIG but -- lifting out a tripod or mount of any description completely alters ( some might say altogether ruins ) the free and easy flexibility of being able to hand hold binoculars in any position chosen .
As for myself , as much as the jitters it's the aching of the arms that bothers me about hand - holding binoculars in a skyward direction for any length of time , which is why I prefer to fix up some kind of arrangement that allows the hands to be kept as low as the chest or stomach height with elbows resting against perhaps the arms of a chair and the binoculars attached , via tripod adaptor thread , to the top side of a 90 degree arm , up to about a foot long , like a shortened , hand - held monopod , if you will .
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
I am thinking about getting the Canon 10x30IS, or 12x36IS II. Should I get the Fujinon, Nikon IS which may have more robust image stabilization? Anybody disappointed with the view from image stabilization? Should I just get a mount?
I don't know what Fujinon and Nikon have done with IS. None of their IS models ever struck me as being both attractively priced and large enough in aperture to be of much interest to me, and hopefully they work a lot better than they look, if you follow me. There's a pricey Zeiss with mechanical stabilization that I would bet is awesome, but I've never tried that, either.
Canon IS technology doesn't eliminate all motion like a mount. Rather, it eliminates the high frequency jitter. So, you have to get reasonably steady, i.e. so that the star is only dancing around within a relatively small circular area and then the IS will take out the jitter, i.e. stop the dancing. With practice it's like you press a button and then the view sort of floats around slightly. It gives you a large percentage of the advantages of a mount but certainly not all. With a mount there is (or should be) virtually no motion at all. With a fluid head and a crank to change the center post height you can have a pretty enjoyable session as long as you don't try to look too high up, because then you are fighting with the tripod for body position while the neck is in an awkward position. A parallelogram mount solves this nicely but requires a counterweight and adds more bulk to the trip outside. I find mounted binocular observing quite different from heading out with a pair of Canon IS binoculars. I tried my 15x50 Canons on my tripod, and it was better, but I really missed the freedom that Kenny mentioned, and I plan to do it again only on rare occasions.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
I--and I may be in the minority here--prefer a steady tripod mounted binocular because I like to have my hands free to sketch, take notes, hold one or more field guides (or star atlases), and/or sip a beverage. I do not have any IS binoculars because I do not see where they will add much to the way I observe.
Another issue to consider is the perspective of each individual binocular. If you travel on the IS path you are locked into a limited number of perspectives--or should I say locked out of a multitude of perspectives. Either way you do the math, IS binoculars come with limitations.
And as for binoculars on the trail--I take a monopod or lighten up (power down) and carry a binocular that I can comfortably hold without noticable shake.
There you have it.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3459
|
|
Well, I guess it's time to hear from the other side! I have 2 Canon IS binoculars- the 10x42L's and the 15x50's. I would consider them 2 of the last binoculars I'd ever part with. Obviously, Bob- as a sketcher, mounted binoculars are the best setup for you. Me, I simply love cruising the skies, and not being limited by a tripod or monopod.
I guess it all depends on what you want to do- and your style of viewing. Lo Net- If you could find anyone nearby who has a pair of them, it would be worth your while to at least take a glance through a pair and see how they work for you. They are the binocular I take with me whenever I travel, and I don't have to carry a monopod. To have 15x of handheld optics is wonderful, and man- when you push that button, and see the heavens just float there in front of your eyes- effortlessy- nothing can match it. Unless you have bino's mounted on a tripod- then you're limited. You can only view so high, and when you want to turn appreciably, you have to move the tripod.
Again, it all depends on your style of useage.
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1947
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Lo Net,
Sounds like you already know the machinations you have to go through to keep bins from following the bouncing ball.
I don't know if you've had a chance to read the bin stabilization solution I've been working on for the past three years (see my latest post on the thread "Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 still best handheld?" on this forum).
Unfortunately, polling CN members on their experience with Canon IS bins won't tell you how you will adapt to them, but that's what happens, your brain either adapts or doesn't adapt to the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) movement of the images in IS bins.
You might find they are the greatest thing since Frito-Lay invented Doritos, or you might get nauseated from the "swimming" images (in which case, don't eat Doritos before observing).
Most likely, your experience will be mixed like Mike described above.
Nikon and Fuji put up better numbers in terms of correction angles, but I've read reports of objects "vibrating" in place instead of "swimming" around the field like Canons.
If you turn out to be Canon IS Tolerant (CIST), you still might need to brace yourself well in a reclining lawn chair with pillows under your arms to get those last bit of jitters down to a minimum.
Too bad you missed the deal last week on A-mart for a 10x30 IS for $250.
"Try before you buy" is the mantra of binoculars users, but that's even more important for Canon IS buyers since results vary from hand to hand and brain to brain.
If you also use bins for daytime observing, the 10x or 12x IS bins are worth trying since you will find them useful.
The 10x is more stable than the 12x, and it's cheaper, so it's a good place to start.
If you want one right away, you'll usually find the best prices at NYC camera dealers, but beware, a few are "slimy". Check their ratings.
If you can wait, you can probably pick one up on Astromart for under $300.
Also, Canon has a rebate offer of $50 off the less expensive models once a year. Not sure when they are going to run that, check with Canon USA.
If you have a rubber neck, a monopod might work for a 10x bin.
Here's the set up I have. Unfortunately, my neck is made of petrified oak, not rubber:
rubbernecking with monopods
As you can see, it takes some flexibility, which is why I took up yoga.
Failing CIST or a rubber neck, you might need to buy a 4-way-head parallel mount, which will give you six degrees of (Kevin Bacon) movement.
Unimount
I had one, and it worked great, but I felt if I had to drag all that equipment out with me, I might as well use my telescope.
If that happens, then you might want to try a SkyWindow:
Skywindow Bin Mount
If you are prone to "aperture fever" you might want to go for the Gold class mirror from the getgo. I found the standard mirror degraded the images in my 12x50 SE.
This is a very comfortable set up, but still needs a table to set it up on. However, a light card table will suffice.
The drawback with the Skywindow is that the images are reversed. Telescope observers are used to that, but they get a relatively small FOV in most telescopes.
It can be a bit unnerving to sweep the sky backwards. So again, it's something you have to try to find out if you like. I recommend mounting a laser pointer on it so you can find your way around the sky.
Good Luck!
Di L. Up
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I have been using the 12x36 IS IIs for several years for birding, and I use them for some astronomy. We also have the 10x30s, which reside by the windows overlooking the bird feeders. I've also used my wife's 15x45s, which are an older model. If I am seated in a chair, or in a reclining lawn chair, the view is generally fixed with no slow roll. If I am tired, or standing, it sometimes has a slow roll, but I don't find that a bother nor does it seem to reduce the amount of detail visible.
As others have mentioned, some people don't find the IS binoculars to their liking. It would certainly be worth trying a pair for yourself.
Clear skies, Alan
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
The 12x36IS as amazingly light, and grab them for looking up while standing with my scope.
They seem much lighter than the 15x50, which I prefer to use while reclining in a patio chair. Otherwise, although steady, they can literally be a pain in the neck.
I like the 10x30 for birds, as they focus much closer, They do have a decently wide view (6*).
The IS won't compensate for body sway, but it dos allow the varied positioning and quick free movement of the human head - can't be matched by any tripod head!
Edited by dvb (05/09/09 06:50 PM)
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 2069
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Image Stabilization is definitely something to personally experience before making any judgements. Some people have a problem with it, but they appear to be in a small minority. The vast majority of people are amazed at how well it works.
The Canon binoculars have exceptional optics - don't underestimate the quality of these binoculars quite apart from image stabilization. They feature very flat fields of view and very good acuity. You will be hard pressed to find binoculars that would outperform them by any significant amount even setting aside the image-stabilization feature.
I have had the 18x50's now for some 3 years, and they are still my favorite viewing instrument of all - because of ease-of-use: I'm outside, no tripod, no fuss, no setup, and yet I have seen all 110 Messier objects and a vast number of NGC objects, with enough left over to keep me busy for a lifetime!
Tonight is a typical example - it was raining all day, but has just cleared - probably not for long and the seeing is probably awful and with the RH at 88% at 65° not enough to inspire me to set up a telescope, etc. etc., but I will take the Canon's out, if only for five minutes to "round up the usual suspects" and at least feel that I "saw" something!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I add this comment very often when threads come up on the Canon IS line, but I'll add it (yet) again:
To get the best performance, turn the IS off, focus as well as you can (even though the stars are jumping around) and then engage the IS. If you do that, you will notice a significant reduction in the IS artifacts. Why this is, I'm not sure, but it may be that the logic is optimized as it's engaged, or that the adjustment mechanism does not perform well when the physical orientation of the binoculars has changed substantially.
--------------------
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
Most likely, your experience will be mixed like Mike described above.
...which is to say, I do love the IS feature on my Canon IS binoculars. It's fantastic. But how close is it to a mounted view is a rather complicated question. In some ways it's very close and in other not. The ways it isn't so close cut both ways. Overall I prefer using the IS to using a mount, but it's easy to understand why somebody else would take the opposite view.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
The Canon binoculars have exceptional optics - don't underestimate the quality of these binoculars quite apart from image stabilization. They feature very flat fields of view and very good acuity.
Yes! I totally agree with this. With both the 10x30s and 15x50s, I really felt like I was getting the IS for free.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
Quote:
With both the 10x30s and 15x50s, I really felt like I was getting the IS for free.
Well put. These are great bins in their own right. IS is a bonus.
--------------------
"But seeing through a telescope is 50% vision and 50% imagination." - Chet Raymo
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Newt on Matilda
Celestron CF 9.25"
Vixen CF 8" f/4 Newt
Meade 8" SN f/4
Celestron C6 SCT
Skywatcher ED100
Skywatcher ED80
EQ6 Pro "Matilda"
AT Voyager
Canon 15x50is
Mallincam HyperColor Plus
|
pev
member
Reged: 01/22/07
Posts: 14
Loc: Florida, USA
|
|
Another vote for the image quality of the Canon IS. They give very nice and very flat field views that are sharp to the edge. Contrast is also great. They certainly compete with the premium binos and that's not including the IS function which basically puts them in another league.
I have the 10x30 and 15x50. The other day I was actually comparing the views of the moon with a mounted 20x80 against the 15x50 handheld. If you hold the IS with no support, the views are still much better than if none IS, none mounted binos. But if you lean on something or have something to support your elbows or lay back on a chair, the views are really really close to a mounted binocular. The 10x30 IS are even steadier since they have less magnification. They are excellent for daytime use.
I really don't see anything that's better for hand held views unless it has IS.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I picked up a Pentax 8x40 PCF WPII for $60 from a camera store going out of business and tried to use it handheld last night and the stars were so jittery and bothersome. I tried all the tips on this forum, laying on a lawn chair, bracing both arms, timing my breath, but still could not get a steady enough image.
It sounds as though either you have abnormally shaky hands or you're unusually sensitive to jitters. Most people are quite happy hand-holding 8x binoculars from a standing position -- much less using them with both elbows resting on a solid support. This suggests that you should definitely try before you buy with respect to IS binoculars. Generalizations that work for 95% of the population may not apply to you.
Quote:
I am thinking about getting the Canon 10x30IS, or 12x36IS II. Should I get the Fujinon, Nikon IS which may have more robust image stabilization?
I haven't used the Fujinons or Nikons. But the consensus among binocular astronomers who have tried these is essentially universal. The Fujinons and Nikons are designed to correct for gross motions as on a swaying boat, and are rather poor at correcting the fine motions that bother astronomers. The Canons are just the opposite, and are therefore clearly superior for astronomy.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
As state above, Canon IS removes the fast jitters that your eyes can't follow and leaves the slow averaged motion that your eyes can follow. However, if you're really sensitive about crisp fine detail, the IS fuzzies can be be a problem. Put them on a tripod and the IS view is a good as the non IS view. The more motion the optics correct, the worse the fuzzies. In any case, you can see more with the IS on than off when hand held. Watch a plane fly by, engage the IS, and you'll suddenly be able to read the tail numbers. For me, with their bulky shape and weight, they're more of a novelty. For general use at night I prefer standard 10x50 Porros. For daytime, good 8x32 roofs are my choice. YMMV
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
l1n1234
member
Reged: 04/20/09
Posts: 10
|
|
I think you are right that I have shaky hands,and am more sensitive to jitters. Both of which probably requires me to get a mount or one of the Canon IS.
Quote:
The Fujinons and Nikons are designed to correct for gross motions as on a swaying boat, and are rather poor at correcting the fine motions that bother astronomers. The Canons are just the opposite, and are therefore clearly superior for astronomy.
If the Canon IS eliminates the "fine" motions what causes this "swimming" or "floating" effect that everyone mentions. Is it body sway? Assuming that you are still trying to hold the Canon IS as steady as possible and not purposely sweeping?
Is the view one of pinpoint stars just "panning" around, or streaks and lines but not jumping? Assuming you properly focus first and then turn on the IS as Mike recommmends above.
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
>>>what causes this "swimming" or "floating"<<<
That's the actual residual motion after the fast jitter/jumping is moved. The steadier you can hold the bins, the less the residual motion.
>>>Is the view one of pinpoint stars just "panning" around, or streaks and lines but not jumping?<<<
Pinpoint stars panning around. Streaks are due to jitter/jumping, which is removed by the IS.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
If I am in a reclining lawn chair, the IS view is steady. There is no slow roll left. Ditto with observing birds from my little Quik-e-seat (a nice accessory in itself).
From a standing position, there are some larger motions left. I would describe them more as a slow pan side to side and up and down, not as a "slow roll." Since it is absent when I am seated, I would ascribe it to a gentle sway or movement of my body. When I am tired, it is worse than when I am well rested.
I agree with Mr. Dewar - the 18x50s are the ultimate astronomy binocular. I also view the 12x36 IIs as a superb birding binocular - light and a steady 12x view.
Clear skies, Alan
|
PEterW
super member
Reged: 01/02/06
Posts: 242
Loc: SW London, UK
|
|
Canon IS is a definite for daytime use, you can one hand hold them and still get rock steady (a very slight wander that doesn't bother me) images. The level of small detail you can see is fearsome.
Night-time use, the stars are pin-points, but then there aren't as many of them as with larger bins?! I prefer bigger bins so I can have a chance of seeing stuff... so a tripod is the way to go there. I do both, each to what it is best at!
Cheers
PEter
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I found if I needed a tripod for my binoculars, I'd take my little 90mm f/5 apochromat out instead. So I've given up tripod mounted binoculars entirely.
Clear skies, Alan
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1590
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi all,
CESD hit the nail on the head. The CANON IS binoculars do have excellent optics.
And, furthermore, one can use the IS feature or just mount them on a tripod. Did I mention the coatings! Just my opinion.
Everyone can have it both ways or either way. What's not to love about these?
Best regards,
Dave.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I have a Canon 15x50 IS on loan. Having used it a few times I would agree with some comments above and disagree with others.
Optics are fine, but IMO, they are much better with IS turned off than with IS turned on. I saw what I thought was coma in the point images with IS turned on.
While jitters motion is suppressed with IS turned on, image quality degrades. So if all you want to do is look around they are fine. But if you want to observe finest image detail, I don't see it happening with IS turned on.
I could see extrememly fine image vibration. Almost the same kind of image vibration as I sometimes see in computer screen refresh rate, or in flourescent lights. I find it annoying.
There is no comparison of a handheld IS image to a tripod mounted image. Mounted images IMO show much finer details and are easier to view.
The IS could not be used at very high altitudes. It clicked and stuttered. My mounted binoculars can go as high in altitude as my neck will allow. I've seen Vega overhead.
I would not consider IS as the best feature to use to observe fine detail in objects, whether that be large detail on the moon of fine separation of stars in a dense cluster. For that I'd turn off the IS and mount the binocular.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
I think the Canon IS Bino's are the ultimate travel tool. I take a Netbook (ASUS eepc) loaded with planetarium software, my 15X50 IS on every vacation; from the balconies of cruise ships to Cozumel, the hotels from Hilton Head SC to Wailea Maui. I use them when I visit my parents in PA, or when there is a break in the clouds in my backyard.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
edz wrote in part...
The IS could not be used at very high altitudes. It clicked and stuttered. My mounted binoculars can go as high in altitude as my neck will allow. I've seen Vega overhead.
edz
Ed,
It sounds like yours have a problem. I've used two pair of the 15x50s and neither had a problem when pointed overhead. Ditto with the earlier 15x45 and our 10x30 and 12x36 version.
I'd get another pair and retest.
Clear skies, Alan
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Professor EdZ,
I think the batteries in your unit need to be replaced. I have only seen what you have described when the batteries are weak. I view at zenith all the time in my lawn chair with no problem. if you are seeing Coma the IS can be turned off refocused and IS turned back on. If that does not address these issues you may want to try a different unit.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
Ed, I hope you'll try another sample, or at least fresh batteries. Yours aren't working right. I've certainly not experienced a problem with IS with altitude. Mine are fine as far as my neck will allow (and higher, if I'm reclining).
--------------------
"But seeing through a telescope is 50% vision and 50% imagination." - Chet Raymo
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Newt on Matilda
Celestron CF 9.25"
Vixen CF 8" f/4 Newt
Meade 8" SN f/4
Celestron C6 SCT
Skywatcher ED100
Skywatcher ED80
EQ6 Pro "Matilda"
AT Voyager
Canon 15x50is
Mallincam HyperColor Plus
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
Happy to finally hear EdZ report on the IS fuzzies. I haven't noticed the zenith problem tho. I'll have to check that out on my pair.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
I've certainly not experienced a problem with IS with altitude. Mine are fine as far as my neck will allow (and higher, if I'm reclining).
Ditto. I've been using the 10x30s since 2001. Weak batteries makes sense, though. If the batteries are weak the IS correction frequency might have dropped also. Hope it's nothing worse than that.
I will second Jonathan's comment about dealing with transient coma as well. That is something that I have seen. I do not know much about the way IS works, but I have always assumed the coma appeared because my movements during the early stages of IS correction forced the prisms towards the ends of their range of motion, and when I settled in, the corrections settled in around an extreme, non-centered position, giving me maximum aberration from the corrective optics. I just turn off the IS and restart it, trying to do a better job of steadying myself leading into it.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've certainly not experienced a problem with IS with altitude. Mine are fine as far as my neck will allow (and higher, if I'm reclining).
Ditto. I've been using the 10x30s since 2001. Weak batteries makes sense, though. If the batteries are weak the IS correction frequency might have dropped also. Hope it's nothing worse than that.
I will second Jonathan's comment about dealing with transient coma as well. That is something that I have seen. I do not know much about the way IS works, but I have always assumed the coma appeared because my movements during the early stages of IS correction forced the prisms towards the ends of their range of motion, and when I settled in, the corrections settled in around an extreme, non-centered position, giving me maximum aberration from the corrective optics. I just turn off the IS and restart it, trying to do a better job of steadying myself leading into it.
What Mike said about the IS artifact.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
Mike Hosea,
We can meet up and try our 15x50s side by side if you'd like. I'm only about 30 miles west of Boston.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
Now this is interesting  EdZ takes on the IS fan club 
. . .
A lot of generalizations can be posted. But I, for one, would certainly welcome a qualified binocular test official, such as EdZ, conducting a controlled series of tests between the Canon IS series and classic binoculars mounted on tripods. Here are a few questions to consider.How does the Canon IS compare to the Nikon SE series?
How does the Canon IS compare to the Fujinon FMT-SX series?
At what point (weight, magnification) does a Canon IS binocular enter the running?
Where is the Canon IS on binocular factors such as FOV, exit pupil, focus mechanism, color rendering, water protection, shock resistance, and aesthetics of design and armor?
What's on the list of non-IS binoculars that deliver better views on tripods than the IS handheld? As good as the IS handheld? Not as good as the IS handheld?
What is the real cost of the image stabilizing feature?
What are the real limitations of image stabilizing? EdZ, I hope you pick up the challenge. And IS fans, I hope you assist by loaning him some of your IS models.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
EdZ, I hope you pick up the challenge. And IS fans, I hope you assist by loaning him some of your IS models.
Just be careful all that you don't expect to much or let someone talk you into sending your equipment to me. If and when the time comes, I'll make those specific arrangements personally, as I have always done.
BTW, what you asked for is months of work. My plate already has months of work on it, so your not likely to see anything of the sort too soon.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I could see more fine detail in my $200 Canon 8x25 IS than my $2,000 Zeiss 7x42 FL's handheld and have never seen vibration in any of my four Canon IS binoculars with the IS on. I know there are many out there that are biased against the Canon IS binoculars and dig up every negative remark that makes them feel better IMHO.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3459
|
|
Bob-
You're right... this is getting interesting- and I as well am happy to see/would be happy to see our distinguished Moderator/Expert Resident Bino Tester take on the IS series of Canon's. I did some comparison's of the Canon 10x42L and 15x50 IS models against the Nikon 12x50 SE here - and here a couple of months ago, so there's already a little info on the forum. Nowhere in the depth or manner in which Edz would perform his excellent comparison's- I'm nowhere in his league! My inputs were more an actual in-hand comparison of the obvious differences you or I would find with both in hand.
Quote:
How does the Canon IS compare to the Nikon SE series?
I compared the 10x42L and 15x50 Canon's with the Nikon 12x50 SE
Quote:
How does the Canon IS compare to the Fujinon FMT-SX series?
Though I haven't compared the Fuji's with the Canon's, I would have to say the Fujinon 10x50 FMSR-SX's I have would be on par optically with the Nikon's, though much heavier... and probably- due to the lower power and higher weight, easier to handhold or use off a mount than the Nikon's. Both are superbly sharp bino's. For overall sharpness, I would guess both would beat the Canon's.
The thing being, it's just so much more effort to handhold a binocular steady to take advantage of the better optics- that, to me- the improved steadiness of the view overcomes the better sharpness of the optics. Understand- the Canon's are no slouches optically, IS not withstanding. I find that no matter how well I can support the Nikon's or Fuji's (short of a tripod) that the little circular Cheerio's are more distracting than any IS artifacts or VERY slightly poorer optics in the Canon's.
Quote:
At what point (weight, magnification) does a Canon IS binocular enter the running?
Not sure I understand the question. People use the whole range of Canon IS binoculars. Just this morning I heard a birder comment on how scary good the 12x36 IS bino's were for birding. People use conventional 35mm bino's for their low power widefield views of the night sky all the time, so to me, any of the Canon's would be suitable as well.
Quote:
Where is the Canon IS on binocular factors such as FOV, exit pupil, focus mechanism, color rendering, water protection, shock resistance, and aesthetics of design and armor?
Many questions here in this one question! The 10x42L is advertised as weatherproof, the 15 & 18X are advertised as water resistant. Asthetics of the designs- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Everything factors in from hand size to eye spacing to size of nose as to be nearly impossible to address. (Kind of like- what kind of shoes do you like best??  )
FOV, Exit Pupil are a matter of reading the published specs... at least until/if Edz should get involved in actually measuring all of these- then I have a feeling we'd know a lot more!
Quote:
What's on the list of non-IS binoculars that deliver better views on tripods than the IS handheld? As good as the IS handheld? Not as good as the IS handheld?
Edz- with his impeccable, long-term record-keeping would probably be the only human on the face of the earth capable of answering a question like that! 
Quote:
What is the real cost of the image stabilizing feature?
That would be- in part- determined on just how much an individual deemed the IS feature to be worthwhile to onesself. If you find it a valuable asset, the real cost would be less than if you found that IS didn't work for you at all!
Quote:
What are the real limitations of image stabilizing?
Now here, even brands of IS bino's would enter into the equation, as it has generally been felt here that the electromechanical design/stabilazition characteristics of the Canon IS binoculars are more suited to land-based useage, whereas the Nikon/Fujinon brands are more suited to the slow rolling motion platform of a ship on rolling seas.
Still, the bottom line remains- what works for one person will not work for another, and IS vs. non-IS fans seems to be one of the aspects of binoculars that will always remain. For some- IS is salvation... for others- a demon. And no amount of testing and comparing will change the fact that IS simply works great for some people- and for some it doesn't. No matter what.
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
Edited by Wes James (05/11/09 04:42 PM)
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
I know there are many out there that are biased against the Canon IS binoculars and dig up every negative remark that makes them feel better IMHO.
Well Joe, I have no reason to be biased OR dig up negative remarks. If you think I'm making remarks just to make myself feel better, well, I can't imagine where that idea would even come from.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
I have 15x50s, they have the IS fuzzies, the eyecups are very uncomfortable, the bins are bulky and feel clumsy in the hand. They have very good optics. I have non-IS bins I like much better. I feel I'm being objective in my observations. Of course YMMV. The principle disagreement over these bins is whether they have IS fuzzies or not. Many claim they do and many claim they don't. It seems unlikely that all who do see the effect are halucinating...or running on low batteries. Let's put some of these side by side and see what gives. 
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I also have no reason whatsoever to be biased against nor make any negative comment I did not feel justified making .
Several times over the years on this forum I have pointed potential purchasers seeking advice or recommendations in the direction of one or other of the Canon IS models , in some cases even when such seemed far from the thoughts of the inquirer .
I can't remember anyone suggesting that the image stabilisation does not provide a distinct advantage over non - image stabilised binoculars when hand - held , but that is not the central issue that was asked by the original poster of this thread .
It may well prove to be that the 15 x 50 specimen Ed has on loan needs new batteries or has some other kind of fault , but I have stated in the past that based upon daytime experiences with two different 10 x 30s , one 18 x 50 and one 12 x 36 Mark 2 specimen , all handheld , in all cases in MY opinion , the activation of the stabilisation mechanism had a very subtle affect upon the sheer quality of the image presented , which I can only describe as being a slight reduction in sharpness ( and I know some people insist upon there being no such thing as " sharpness " in the official A to Z of optical properties ) .
The best way I can think of describing this is if you can imagine a mounted binocular providing an image similar to a photograph , or video recorded picture set on pause / freeze frame , then the Canon image stabilised image is more like watching a video recorder set to show very slow motion frames in steps of perhaps three frames per second .
I was thus not at all surprised to read that EdZ reported what he perceived to be a similar derogatory effect when comparing what he saw with the mechanism engaged as opposed to not .
It is also well documented even by many otherwise satisfied owners that the eyecups could be improved upon , and as a neutral reviewer I would feel I was doing a poor job if I failed to mention the less than user friendly ergonomics or clunkiness of even the 30mm model .
I have also tried the Nikon and Fujinon IS models and to my mind , along with all the Canons , all three give me a feeling not unlike holding a small camcorder , as opposed to holding my more favoured binoculars .
Then of course , with the exception of the Canon 10 x 42 , which I haven't tried , it cannot be denied that ( for understandable reasons ) all of the stabilised models including even the astronomically expensive Zeiss 20 x 60 , come with exit pupils of 3mm or little more ( 15 x 50 ) or less ( 18 x 50 ).
Considering even a cursory glance at the specifications of the top twenty most expensive sub 50mm binoculars ever produced , it cannot go unnoticed that practically ALL of them have exit pupils larger than 3mm .
I suspect there could well be a good reason for that .
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
but that is not the central issue that was asked by the original poster of this thread .
Well, it's important not to oversimplify the question based on the title or arbitrary wording. The spirit of the question seems to be whether the OP would be satisfied with the improvement of the IS binoculars over his unsatisfactory experience trying to hand-hold non-IS binoculars, or should he just give up on hand-holding and use a mount.
Quote:
which I can only describe as being a slight reduction in sharpness
There is no free lunch. The view cannot be as aberration-free with the IS enabled as without it, assuming that the optics are collimated with the IS off. It simply cannot. Thus, a discussion based on the question of "is it just as sharp" is a silly one. It isn't. However, the question of whether you will notice, provided you take some efforts to deal with the coma issue previously discussed, seems to be one with a personal rather than universal answer. It reminds me somewhat of those tedious discussions about planetary eyepieces.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I know there are many out there that are biased against the Canon IS binoculars and dig up every negative remark that makes them feel better IMHO.
Well Joe, I have no reason to be biased OR dig up negative remarks. If you think I'm making remarks just to make myself feel better, well, I can't imagine where that idea would even come from.
edz
Edz, my remarks were directed at those who never even looked through a pair of IS binoculars but dig up reviews in the past such as the one that the reviewer said the following about the Canon 10x42L IS :
Quote:
Rubberized housing flimsy and poorly constructed. No carrying case included. What vibration reduction? Britney Spears is more stable.
Wired Magazine : Four Image-Stabilized Binoculars
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Another issue is that Canon doesn't seem to have much competition in the IS binocular field.
Zeiss is too costly, Newcon isn't made for astronomy. I think a battery pack may be the only way to become geekier than we already are.  So the Canon's are alone.
IS binoculars aren't meant to make mounts obsolete. What they do is improve and extend the range of what binoculars can be used sans mount. To me, that makes them very desirable and flexible. They preserve the freedom that attracts many people to binoculars in the first place.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
To allay any questions of batteries, I put new ones in when I got home. The others were old. I'll continue to try observing.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
To allay any questions of batteries, I put new ones in when I got home. The others were old. I'll continue to try observing.
edz
Something else to be aware of is that these binos eat batteries really fast -- especially alkaline cells, and especially when it's cold out. Both NiMH and lithium cells work vastly better than alkalines in them, for whatever reason.
The IS 10x30s are much more forgiving toward the batteries. And all Canon IS binos that I've tried start to growl and chatter when the batteries get low.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
I just took my 15x50s out for some testing, and I have observed the "fuzzy" effect that has been described. I found it easiest to observe the effect when looking at some leaves but also when reading the label and looking at some bar codes of a some food product visible in the kitchen about 40 feet away. There's a transient loss of resolution that is insufficient to interfere (for me) with reading but is noticeable. I think it's imperfect correction for shakes. If I increase the shakes it comes more often and stays longer. I put the binoculars on a mount and repeated the test with and without the IS. I think the view was slightly better without the IS, but I was not able to see the fuzzy effect that way.
I suspect there are a number of reasons why not everyone notices this, mostly having to do with personal factors and viewing habits, not to mention whether you're in a glass half-full or glass half-empty mood.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
Quote:
I suspect there are a number of reasons why not everyone notices this, mostly having to do with personal factors and viewing habits, not to mention whether you're in a glass half-full or glass half-empty mood.
Yes, by the time your glass is half empty, a lot of things could look fuzzy!
--------------------
"But seeing through a telescope is 50% vision and 50% imagination." - Chet Raymo
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Newt on Matilda
Celestron CF 9.25"
Vixen CF 8" f/4 Newt
Meade 8" SN f/4
Celestron C6 SCT
Skywatcher ED100
Skywatcher ED80
EQ6 Pro "Matilda"
AT Voyager
Canon 15x50is
Mallincam HyperColor Plus
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3459
|
|
Quote:
IS binoculars aren't meant to make mounts obsolete. What they do is improve and extend the range of what binoculars can be used sans mount. To me, that makes them very desirable and flexible. They preserve the freedom that attracts many people to binoculars in the first place.
Peter- I think you nailed the whole issue on the head. It would be foolhardy to expect IS to improve on a mounted fine world-class binocular, and to me, it sounds like that is what some people are expecting. That simply isn't gonna happen! It is merely a way of breaking free of a mount, and I challenge anyone to handhold a standard high quality binocular and get as good and enjoyable view as I do on IS. Unless you get a bad example! Or weak batteries! And I haven't had what I feel excessively short life out of my batteries. Then I don't use cheap batteries.
And Edz- I think almost everyone here agrees that your reputation for fairness and objectivity when it comes to reviewing binoculars is robot-like, methodical and as unbiased as they come. I reread Joe's comment, and nowhere in there did I see it as directed towards you.
Wes
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
We can meet up and try our 15x50s side by side if you'd like. I'm only about 30 miles west of Boston.
Now that I've seen the effect, I think comparing our 15x50s will not be much help to anyone, but maybe someday you could show me the rest of your toys. 
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 2069
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Edz - I hope you saw my earlier comments in this and other threads on IS about disengaging and re-engaging the IS.
Turning it on and leaving it on provides the worst possible performance at least in my experience with canon IS binoculars (I've had 3 pairs of different models, but now just have the 18x50's). I have found it makes a very significant difference if you shut the IS off, focus as carefully as you can on an object and then engage the IS and fine-tune if necessary. The images are at least twice as sharp that way and I see none of the coma/flaring artifacts that are otherwise commonly seen. Stars are absolutely pin-point in the center of the field
Sure the views are going to be sharper if tripod-mounted, but the difference is not that great if you are careful to engage the IS at the object you are viewing. I have seen 3 of the stars in the Trapezium and find that with care and persistence, I can split stars in the 9/10" range handheld in my 18x50's which would be completely impossible in any non-IS binoculars.
I would be interesting knowing if you see this making a difference in your observations...
--------------------
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
[in part]
IS binoculars aren't meant to make mounts obsolete. What they do is improve and extend the range of what binoculars can be used sans mount. To me, that makes them very desirable and flexible. They preserve the freedom that attracts many people to binoculars in the first place.
Exactly. Normal 10x binoculars are simply not steady enough in my hands to provide a view I am happy with. The ability to use 12x, 15x, and 18x without a tripod is a real joy, and the views provide far more detail than I get with my 7x42s.
Clear skies, Alan
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Many questions here in this one question! The 10x42L is advertised as weatherproof, the 15 & 18X are advertised as water resistant.
The newer 15 and 18x50s are described as "All Weather." According to the manual they can be used in heavy rain.
Clear skies, Alan
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
As a birder since 1965, and having bought new binoculars from time to time, I've come to the conclusion that the only proper way to pick a pair is to try it in person. Reviews can provide some valuable information, but they will never tell you if it is a pair you will be happy with. I've tried a couple of binoculars that were highly recommended by a number of people, but they were not to my liking.
I know it often isn't easy to find a pair to try for yourself, but I'm convinced it is worth the time and trouble.
Clear skies, Alan
Edited by Alan French (05/11/09 11:21 PM)
|
kwkee
sage
Reged: 08/17/03
Posts: 294
Loc: Far East
|
|
Guys....
Just want to ask something quick about the Canon I. Do you need to keep pressing onto the button is order to engage the IS function? Or do you press once to engage and press another time to disengage?
Thanks
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
I have found it makes a very significant difference if you shut the IS off, focus as carefully as you can on an object and then engage the IS and fine-tune if necessary. The images are at least twice as sharp that way and I see none of the coma/flaring artifacts that are otherwise commonly seen.
That's the method I've been using. BTW, I found it impossible to hold the IS button down and attempt to refocus the right diopter. with my left hand.
Last night I viewed Saturn. I compared the 15x50 to my 15x70 Ultra.
I mounted the 15x70 Ultra and could see the points of the rings sticking out both ends. I handheld the Ultras and Saturn was swimming around rapidly and I could no longer hold it steady enough to see the points.
I mounted the Canon 15x50. Without IS turned on I could barely see what I thought were the points of the rings sticking out. With IS turned on I could not see the points sticking out and the disk grew to be slightly misshapen.
With the 15x50 off the tripod, when I turned IS on, it would settle the rapid movement to a slow easy to follow sway. But the image was no better. Saturn looked slightly out of focus and I could not improve it by refocusing the main focus dial.
So I tested these two with/without tripod on a resolution chart. I suspected readings were probably a step low all the way around since these are not in bright light. That's normal for lower light level. FWIW, the best reading I've ever achieved with the Ultra was one half step lower, 5.8 arcsec (84 apparent). The finest readings I've ever achieved with mounted regular 15x70s was 6.5 arcsec, with the Nikon SE 12x50 7.0 arcsec (84 apparent). Lower apparent readings are better.
Obie Ultra 15x70
mounted 6.2 arcsec (93 apparent)
handheld 8.7 arcsec
Canon 15x50 IS
mounted 6.9 arcsec (104 apparent)
handheld 9.8 arcsec
handheld w/IS 7.8 arcsec
FWIW, I tried handheld first and could not focus either binocular fine enough on the moving target to do this test. I needed to rest the binocular on the banister to get decent focus. Also I tried several of these readings several times, so these are the best readings I got, I had some worse readings.
Comments on above. Without a doubt the IS engaged is causing the lines to blur. It's still better than the 15x70 handheld, but not as good as the Canon mounted and not near as good as the Ultra mounted.
The Ultra handheld could not be held steady enough to see as fine a detail, but the image quality was better. The lines that I could see were sharp and dark. The lines I saw in the IS were fuzzy bblurred and grey.
If all you ever compare is the handheld difference in the images, my guess is that you will be so wowed by the difference in the images swimming (or not swimming with IS), that only few would be looking for the finest detail to see which really has finer image quality. The target size I'm seeing finest details on ranges from 10mm to 7mm at a distance of 100 yds. 10mm was the poorest reading. So, comparing the quality of images requires the observer to see a 7-8mm target at 100 yds and the lines are about 2mm thick. That's much smaller than Saturn in the test above.
edz
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Ed,
Sample variation plays an even bigger role with the Canons than with "ordinary" binoculars. Although I have always seen a slight drop in resolution from non-IS tripod-mounted tests to hand-held tests with IS engaged, in my experience the difference with a good pair is much less than your unit's almost 12%. I hope you get to try a better sample.
For adjusting the diopter with the IS engaged, do the "short click" to engage the IS and leave it on (for up to 5 minutes). This works with the 15/18x50 and the 10x42, but not on the other IS models which require you to continuously press the button to keep IS on.
Kimmo
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
Tried the zenith with mine last night and the bins worked the same as on the horizon.
EdZ measurements are about as quantitative as any for bins. Most reviews are much more subjective. With the IS fuzzies, we're down to the point were personal sensitivities and preferences dominate the discussion, just as with many other attributes of optical gear; edge of FOV sharpnes, Newt coma, reafractor color, mount stability, G&Gness... What's perfectly fine for some is intolerable for others. It's not so much whether you can discern it but rather whether it bothers you. There's a lot of variety in what's available because because of this.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
EdZ...
Thanks for doing the brief test. I have to run now and will not return to my computer until this evening after supper. I will try to study your test results at that time.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I am not surprised at EdZ's report. There are some trade offs with the IS binoculars. I still prefer the freedom of using binoculars without needing to add a tripod. Binoculars are the ultimate portable tool for astronomy, nicely complimenting naked eye views. If I need a tripod, I'd just as soon take out a small telescope.
Clear skies, Alan
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Hi Kimmo,
Quote:
in my experience the difference with a good pair is much less than your unit's almost 12%.
In this instance I did not attempt averaging best/OK or OK/suspected to get any half-step readings. So I'm limited to the 12% steps on the resolution charrts. But I would say, the visual difference between the two was quite noticable, so I doubt it would tighten up to less than 12% difference. I should also note, I picked my best 15x70 to use for the comparison.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I compared the handheld readings to many other hand held readings I've gathered.
Obie Ultra 15x70
handheld 8.7 arcsec (131 apparent)
Canon 15x50 IS
handheld 9.8 arcsec (147 apparent)
handheld w/IS 7.8 arcsec (117 apparent)
I have recorded more than two dozen handheld readings from 10x50s to 15x70s that all were between 120 and 136. I've recorded ten handheld readings between 107 and 119 with a variety of binoculars, including 7x50s, 8x40/42, 8x42roofs, 10x42s, 10x42roofs, and 10x50s.
As I said earlier, this was not bright light. My experience tells me in better light, every one of the readings I recorded would be one step better. Giving the benefit of doubt, and adjusting one step (12%) better for lack of light, it would put the Canon IS at 131 handheld and 104 handheld with IS turned on.
Even with that adjustment, that would not include the Canon 15x50 among the top "better than the mean" binoculars for normal handheld resolution.
With that, it would just barely move the IS handheld reading in front of the best handheld readings I've recorded with these other binoculars, but only by a very small (3-7) percent. These others do not have the benefit of the slowed sway, but have noticably better resolution, so make it easier to see handheld images.
William Optic 7x50 ED (107)
Nikon ProStar 7x50 (107)
Oberwerk Mariner 7x50 (110)
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp (112)
BTW, images merge dead on with the Cannon. Images in my Obie Ultra are off by about 15 arcseconds, and still, the Obie has better measurable resolution than the Canon.
all data for this sample only.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
harbinjer
super member
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 127
Loc: Southeastern Minnesota
|
|
The fine image vibration could be an artifact of persistence-of-vision. Meaning that in old CRT monitors, if slow refresh rate didn't bother you, than you might not see the vibration, your brain might just average it out. Whereas people who had to set their monitors to the max refresh or at least 80 Hz, they might notice it. I know that CRT's are rarer now days, so it might be harder to use as a test.
My friend did an experiment in high school with a blinking red light that would blink faster and faster until the person saw it as a steady light. I don't remember what his conclusions were. But there must've been some good variability.
Do you think that might be the difference between the observers who see the vibrations and those who don't? It would certainly explain a lot to me.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
considering how much variability can exist in what people see, or at the very least variability in how people define what they see, (Some people describe poor edge correcton as sharp to the edge; some people do not see several arcminutes miscollimation.), I'm not the least bit surprised to see data that does not necessarily agree with some interpretations of image quality.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
All I know is that I see it come and go, hand-held with the IS on. I haven't actually noticed it when looking at stars, but reading small print from across the room, the letters will fuzz a bit for a moment and then resharpen. Looking at trees, I see the crisp, complex edges of insect-eaten leaves sharply in one moment and then fuzz slightly for a second or two before resharpening. The magnitude of it does not really bother me--I find it easy to overlook. As a contact lens wearer, both of gas perms and soft at various times, I am accustomed and forgiving of temporary anomalies and probably overlooked it entirely before because I subconsciously attributed it to my own vision.
I would like to note that reading small print from across the room is not something that I feel that I can really do with hand-held binoculars without the IS feature, regardless of resolution. This is probably not a challenging test for resolution for decent optics, but it is certainly some kind of performance test for the entire system from optics to perception. It's one that I think carries over in astronomical observation since it facilitates looking at one area and then examining the area next to it, and next to that, and so on. I can do this with the IS view, but I with non-IS binoculars I invariably end up jumping around looking here and there because it's too tedious to do anything else. YMMV (obviously!)
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
l1n1234
member
Reged: 04/20/09
Posts: 10
|
|
Quote:
With that, it would just barely move the IS handheld reading in front of the best handheld readings I've recorded with these other binoculars, but only by a very small (3-7) percent. These others do not have the benefit of the slowed sway, but have noticably better resolution, so make it easier to see handheld images.
William Optic 7x50 ED (107)
Nikon ProStar 7x50 (107)
Oberwerk Mariner 7x50 (110)
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp (112)
Edz,
Are you saying that even with the IS engaged handheld the Canon 15x50IS is barely better than these binoculars above handheld? Do you feel the "Wow" factor of things not jumping around make people report the extra sharpness they perceive from the IS feature?
Thanks so much, for giving us some objective measurements to help compare these binoculars.
Lo Net.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
All I know is that I see it come and go, hand-held with the IS on. ....reading small print from across the room, the letters will fuzz a bit for a moment and then resharpen
I noticed exactly this same occurance on the resolution charts. Almost like my autofocus camera was varying the autofocus.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
With that, it would just barely move the IS handheld reading in front of the best handheld readings I've recorded with these other binoculars, but only by a very small (3-7) percent. These others do not have the benefit of the slowed sway, but have noticably better resolution, so make it easier to see handheld images.
William Optic 7x50 ED (107)
Nikon ProStar 7x50 (107)
Oberwerk Mariner 7x50 (110)
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp (112)
Edz,
Are you saying that even with the IS engaged handheld the Canon 15x50IS is barely better than these binoculars above handheld? Do you feel the "Wow" factor of things not jumping around make people report the extra sharpness they perceive from the IS feature?
Thanks so much, for giving us some objective measurements to help compare these binoculars.
Lo Net.
Yes, that is exactly what I find. Now be mindful, that represents only 4 out of over 60 binoculars. And there were perhaps 3 or 4 others that are still pretty close to the Canon. But that is a possibility, it may make some sense that what people perceive they see is finer resolution when it is really stillness of image.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
WOW--These results are good to know and document.
For me, this is not a consideration since I prefer to view with small light binoculars (handheld) or larger models mounted/supported in some way so I can free up my hands, record a sketch or observation in my Sky Notebook, and return to the same view.
However, for the binocular seeker, these test results give cause for a pause of consideration before making the buying decision. On the other hand, people purchase binoculars for a variety of reasons--not always for optical performance.
Thanks, EdZ.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
However, for the binocular seeker, these test results give cause for a pause of consideration before making the buying decision.
They wouldn't give me pause.
I used the IS 15x45s extensively before I sold them, including a complete Messier survey. I've spent quite a lot of time with borrowed 15x50s, and the IS 10x30s are my favorite binoculars by a large margin.
When I use these binoculars at night, as soon as I press the IS button, large numbers of hitherto invisible stars pop into existence. That's even true for the 10x30s, which presumably benefit least from IS, and even when I'm planted in a lounge chair with both elbows on the armrests, with relatively little visible image shake before I press the IS button.
I'm sorry that the IS doesn't do much for Ed. But it certainly works wonders for me.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Prof. EdZ,
Thanks for the review. Is it the apparent resolution that these 7X50's are edging out the Canon 15X50 IS or actual angular resolution?
PS i find rechargeble batteries like Sanyo eneloop batteries with 2,000 mAh Ideal for the IS bino's and camera flash units.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
it may make some sense that what people perceive they see is finer resolution when it is really stillness of image.
I never suspected superior resolution to, say, a Nikon 12x50 SE, which was the principal competitor I considered purchasing. Any 7x50 is out of the question for my skies, IMO. To each his own, but I don't dig gray backgrounds. Anyway, I think, rather, that there are inherent advantages to a steadier view (regardless of whether we're talking about tripod mounting or IS) that go beyond what the resolution chart can reveal. Applying resolution with image steadiness as a variable is a dubious thing, indeed. It requires hand-waving about how making out this type of ultra-simple detail extrapolates to being able to discern something more complex. While that's obviously true if everything else is held constant, it's not so obvious when you introduce "shakes" as a variable. The more complex the pattern you're trying to "see", the more important I think it is to have a steady enough view to form an awareness of the pattern (rather than a heightened awareness of disjointed detail instead). There are also other factors that impinge. I find shakes a lot less bothersome when looking at a bird that occupies the center of the view surrounded by a scene that I can tune out if I want. Then it's just a matter of "tracking" the bird visually in the view as a result of the shakes. It seems much more odious on a star field, where the object of my attention is either the entire cluster or some faint object in the field. Then the shakes are a constant distraction.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I did a brief experiment between today's chores. I tacked a dollar bill to a pole about 50 feet away. With my 7x42 SLCs I could see the serial number was nice and sharp and should easily have been readable. Because of the unsteady view, however, I could not easily read it. I did make out a few numbers, but it was not easy.
With the 10x30 IS pair, the serial number was easy to read. A pair of 15x50 IS brought more detail into view.
If you don't want to bother with a tripod - and I certainly don't - then the IS is really magic and an immense improvement over normal hand held views. To me the question about how they compare to a tripod mounted pair of binoculars is of little interest. I've been the tripod route. I didn't like it, and I have no intention of going there again. (Well, someone could tempt me with a pair of 25x150 right angle binoculars). Most binoculars are simply not agreeable to overhead views, no matter how they are mounted. Mounting straight through binoculars for looking high in the sky is, IMHO, a bit like putting wheels on a horse.
Clear skies, Alan
Edited by Alan French (05/12/09 06:12 PM)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< When I use these binoculars at night, as soon as I press the IS button, large numbers of hitherto invisible stars pop into existence. >
Tony ,
I look upon you with far too much respect to even consider doubting what you believe for one moment , but must say that considering my own experiences with hand - held vs. mounted 10x binoculars , that revelation does surprise me a little ! :-)
I have long been a preacher of the benefits of mounting even 7x binoculars in the daytime , have often raised my eyebrows and bitten my lip whilst reading of members here who enjoy hand holding 20x and 25x binoculars for astro use and yes , I have seen a few more stars in a given field of view purely as a result of the steady image , but " large numbers of hitherto invisible stars " would be stretching my own experience a little even with a tripod mounted vs. hand - held 10x binocular , let alone with the lesser advantage of electronic image stabilision .
Also , interestingly , you wrote :
< That's even true for the 10x30s, which presumably benefit least from IS, >
I dare to suggest that there is a plausible argument for quite the opposite !
In my admittedly limited experience with them , the Canon stabilisation technology seems to work far better in the 10 x 30 than on the 12 x 36 and especially the 18 x 50 , so in a way , the 10x benefit the MOST !
( always contrary ) Kenny :-)
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< With my 7x42 SLCs I could see the serial number was nice and sharp and should easily have been readable. Because of the unsteady view, however, I could not easily read it. I did make out a few numbers, but it was not easy.
With the 10x30 IS pair, the serial number was easy to read. A pair of 15x50 IS brought more detail into view. >
Hi Alan ,
It would have been even more interesting to know if you could also have seen any more detail with the hand - held Canons respectively with the I.S turned off than you could through the 7 x 42 !
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Hi Alan ,
It would have been even more interesting to know if you could also have seen any more detail with the hand - held Canons respectively with the I.S turned off than you could through the 7 x 42 !
Kenny
Kenny,
Hand held, without the IS engaged, the image of the dollar bill is quite obviously more detailed in the 15x50s than in the 7x42s - but the shake is worse at 15x and reading anything is difficult.
Tripod mounted the 15x50 IS clearly shows finer detail than the tripod mounted 7x42s. I can not come close to reading "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER" in the 7x42s. It is easy to read in the 15x50s (again, both tripod mounted).
Image scale counts for a lot, and I've long been convinced that magnification - if the view is steady - is the main factor in what you can see through binoculars. Certainly my experience as a birder bears this out. I can identify distant birds in my 12x36 IS that are not identifiable in the 7x42s.
Clear skies, Alan
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!" Scottie, Star Trek III.
I have observed what Alan describes when viewing open clusters in dark and not so dark sights(Queens New York). Recently I was showing my In-Laws m45 and when they pressed the IS they understood what the WOW factor was.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Since I had mounted the 15x50s on a tripod, I took the opportunity to compare the views on the tripod without the IS engaged, and in my hands with the IS engaged. I could not see any difference in the detail visible in the two views.
Clear skies, Alan
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks for your prompt and informative reply , Alan .
< I can identify distant birds in my 12x36 IS that are not identifiable in the 7x42s. >
I'm sure you can !
I'm not a " twitcher " per se myself ( English slang for birder ) but for DAYTIME use ( and most of the hundreds of birders I've seen appear to have been out in good lighting by day rather than at twilight when the birds are resting in their nests ) I am frankly a little surprised that a lot more of them don't use Canon image stabilised binoculars .
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Alan,
I did a slightly different experiment. I Mounted the 15X50 IS focused on a distent spiderweb than turned the IS on and off several times. It moved and did that slow role and refocused the first time, but subsequent activations and deactivations left the image unchanged and in perfect focus.
CS
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Well I'm glad EdZ has finally gotten his hands on a pair of Canon IS to test. The effects he describes for transient fuzziness have been documented in this forum for years. They are inherent in the action of the vari angle prisms because as they ratchet through their corrections, prism faces will not be exactly parallel introducing phase errors. On my 10x42IS this fuzziness comes and goes with a period of a couple of seconds. I see the coma on stars come and go with the same period. It looks like atmospheric seeing but it is not. As I have previously reported, there is no fuzziness observed when I tripod mounted them (don't do that! ;-) ) although I did observe some jumps in the FOV over a five minute period.
I have never had problems observing at the zenith. As for resolution, I can split Mizar (14+ arc seconds) handheld within half a minute of observation.
There was a time several years ago when Joe O. and I were the only ones singing the Canon praises. So glad to see so many others on this forum enjoying theirs now.
My Canons are my favorite optical toy. And for the record, they are waterproof, as the recommended washing instructions are to leave them in a pail of water overnight.
One may debate whether 10x is optimum for this IS system, but mine never ceases to WOW others at star parties.
New readers of this forum should recognize that many regular contributors here are far more skilled in steady handholding of binos than most of us. For me, they were just what I needed to really enjoy handheld views.
--------------------
Les
Canon 10x42L IS
Oberwerks BT80/45, Helix Hercules mount on Oberwerks Standard Tripod
Swift 8x44ED Ultralite
Questar 50th Anniversary Model, 501 head on Manfrotto 475 tripod
Stellarvue SV90T 90mm Fluorite refractor Bogen 3236/Televue Tele-Pod Head
Questar 7 Astro
Vixen GP-DX on Baader Surveyor Tripod
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3459
|
|
Quote:
With my 7x42 SLCs I could see the serial number was nice and sharp and should easily have been readable. Because of the unsteady view, however, I could not easily read it. I did make out a few numbers, but it was not easy.
With the 10x30 IS pair, the serial number was easy to read. A pair of 15x50 IS brought more detail into view.
THIS is what the IS experience is all about. So what if a binocular has twice the resolution- if you can see better with the one with lesser resolution? 
Quote:
It would have been even more interesting to know if you could also have seen any more detail with the hand - held Canons respectively with the I.S turned off than you could through the 7 x 42 !
Using Canon IS bino's without the IS enabled is kind of like buying a Corvette- and taking out 4 of the 8 spark plugs!
Lab results are one thing, but they don't always tell the whole truth. Kind of like a statistician can make statistics say anything he wants. As in "There was once a horse race with only 2 horses... a Russian horse- and an American horse. (This is from the "Cold War" era!) The American horse won, the Russian horse lost. The American papers reported 'The American horse won, the Russian horse lost'. The Russian news reported 'The Russian horse came in second, the American horse- next to last'!"
It would be similar to buying a motor driven tracking mount with GPS- and then using it manually- cranking the knobs to track. WHY??? The whole point of IS- is freedom from mounting. And now I'll kindly shut up! 
(Man... this could be difficult!!! )
Wes
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I was just out with my 12x36 IS II, 10x42L and 15x50 IS and they are amazing for seeing fine detail handheld. The 10x42L's are the best binoculars I have ever used for tracking planes and I was just tracking some as the sun was setting and could read the tail numbers on business jets flying over my house in their landing patterns to Teterboro Airport that is about 30 miles away. If I am going to setup my tripod for astro use I use my 80-110mm binoculars and not try to see what I could see up there with 50mm binoculars.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Here's something we can probably all agree on - the green LED "on indicator" is too darn bright at night!
Clear skies, Alan
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Yes, and it should have been red!
--------------------
Les
Canon 10x42L IS
Oberwerks BT80/45, Helix Hercules mount on Oberwerks Standard Tripod
Swift 8x44ED Ultralite
Questar 50th Anniversary Model, 501 head on Manfrotto 475 tripod
Stellarvue SV90T 90mm Fluorite refractor Bogen 3236/Televue Tele-Pod Head
Questar 7 Astro
Vixen GP-DX on Baader Surveyor Tripod
|
beachchairbill
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/06/08
Posts: 508
|
|
If you can see the green light your not looking through the 15 x eyepieces.
Beachchairbill
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1590
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi EdZ,
Good report, as I have always wondered about a comparison like this myself.
However, I have to wonder if you could duplicate the test results with another Canon unit. I mean, the results encrouch on one another!
Could all of this possibility revolve around product variability? At any rate, a valuable contribution.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
If you can see the green light your not looking through the 15 x eyepieces.
Beachchairbill
No, but my wife was.
Clear skies, Alan
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1947
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
|
Quote:
snip...I would like to note that reading small print from across the room is not something that I feel that I can really do with hand-held binoculars without the IS feature, regardless of resolution. This is probably not a challenging test for resolution for decent optics, but it is certainly some kind of performance test for the entire system from optics to perception... snip
Mike,
I think you hit the virtual nail on the virtual head (or brain)!
"Perception" is always part of any "real world" optics evaluation, whether or not that's recognized, no matter what the methodology or "bench test numbers" turn out to be, because binoculars are not used on a bench (except to watch pigeons in the park :-), but rather are used "in the field" where you have to deal with variable sky/weather/lighting conditions, how alert you are that day/night, whether or not you just ate or if you didn't eat (some people get more shakes if they are hungry, others get more if they've just eaten), if your target is moving or still, etc.
Only an android could control for ALL the "human factors" in hand held evaluations of bins.
With IS bins, this goes double, because of the hand/eye/brain complexity that IS bins adds to the "equation".
And even then, you have sample variation to factor in. Here too, this goes double for IS bins, because you not only have the usual optics and mechanics variations, but also IS circuitry variations.
I compared two 10x30 IS bins. One belonged to a fellow club member, and the other I bought from a seller who cherry picked them as the best stabilized from the five samples he tested.
The "cherry sample's" stabilization was much better than the club member's, which kept
Dancin' in the moonlight
Feelin' nauseated and uptight
It's such a strange and unnatural sight
Seein' stars dancin' in the moonlight
In fact, the "cherry sample" was so good, the seller later asked to buy the bins back from me (and fool that I am, I sold them back!).
All of these "human factors" are going on behind this discussion of hand held vs. Canon IS bins.
The bottom is line with Canon IS bins is:
(1) if you don't get a good sample, it's impossible to evaluate how well the IS feature works for you, and
(2) even if you do get a good sample, you have to accept the fact that Canon IS bins, for all their merits and convenience, are never going to provide as steady an image as a mounted bin, and
(3) therefore, even if they bench test as good as a premium bin of the same configuration, in actual use , your "mileage" will not only vary, but will be less, and
(4) the IS bin will not be an "heirloom" you will pass on to your grandchildren, because the IS circuits will probably have fried long before they grow up (though at least a day after your warranty runs out :-).
If you accept all of the above, and also the small exit pupils on all but the 10x42 model, and if the image "swimming" doesn't drive you batty, then sell your tripod/parallel mount/skywindow, buy a 10x+ Canon IS bin and pray you get a good one, because the only way you could possibly beat the results of a good sample IS bin "in the field" is to use a lower 6x or 7x non-IS bin with ergonomics that fit you like a glove.
Now I will go crawl back in my hole (oh, sorry, Bill, I thought this was my hole! :-).
--------------------
B'rock, son of Grilka
Member of the House of Kozak
Klingon Poet-Warrior
----------------------------------------------
"The character of a Klingon poet-warrior is measured not only by the metal of his blade--but also by the mettle of his words."
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
With that, it would just barely move the IS handheld reading in front of the best handheld readings I've recorded with these other binoculars, but only by a very small (3-7) percent. These others do not have the benefit of the slowed sway, but have noticably better resolution, so make it easier to see handheld images.
William Optic 7x50 ED (107)
Nikon ProStar 7x50 (107)
Oberwerk Mariner 7x50 (110)
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp (112)
Edz,
Are you saying that even with the IS engaged handheld the Canon 15x50IS is barely better than these binoculars above handheld? Do you feel the "Wow" factor of things not jumping around make people report the extra sharpness they perceive from the IS feature?
Thanks so much, for giving us some objective measurements to help compare these binoculars.
Lo Net.
Yes, that is exactly what I find. Now be mindful, that represents only 4 out of over 60 binoculars. And there were perhaps 3 or 4 others that are still pretty close to the Canon. But that is a possibility, it may make some sense that what people perceive they see is finer resolution when it is really stillness of image.
edz
EdZ and others,
I'm sensing that there is some misunderstanding potentially creeping in here. Ed, you are so used to recording and reporting apparent resolutions (resolutions relative to magnification, certainly an excellent way of comparing binoculars with different magnifications with one another) that you may not notice that not all your readers follow what you are doing. So, for their benefit, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, what is indicated here is that, when corrected for the magnification differences (comparing apparent resolutions), the best hand-held 7-10x binoculars you have tested out-resolve the 15x Canon. However, we also see that although the Canon hand-held with IS did not resolve as well as the Obie on a tripod, it resolved better than the Obie hand-held. And, if we compare true resolution (not adjusted for magnification, but how small is the actual target detail the eye through that binocular with that magnification can see), we also see that the Canon hand-held with IS shows (significantly) finer detail than any of the 7-10x premium binoculars can, only not by a margin as large as would a tripod-mounted 15x binocular. What I'm trying to get at here is that readers not interpret your results as meaning that you can see more detail with a hand-held 7x or a 10x binocular than with the 15x Canon stabilized.
Please note that I'm not taking issue with any of your measurements and results here, only noting that some people may not have understood fully what you have been doing. I may add that my experience with the Canons is similar to Alan's in that whenever I have looked at the night sky, engaging the IS does indeed bring to view dim stars that were not perceived before. I will also add that both my former 15x50 as well as my current 10x42 have been good samples. In addition, I have had them re-collimated professionally to optimally align the stabilization prisms with the rest of the optical train. All of the image artifacts you describe are familiar to me also, but their severity is very unit-dependent. They are also more visible in the models with higher magnification.
As some kind of a personal bottom line, I could perhaps say that the Canon IS image is closer to mounted view than to non-stabilized hand-held view, but exactly how close depends on the cherry/lemon aspect, as well as on the user's own ability to hold binoculars steady, as well as on magnification. But, currently using the 10x42 IS L, for me it is so much better than any non-stabilized hand-held binocular that I'm not even thinking of ever replacing it with anything but the even better IS models I'm sure will eventually succeed it.
Kimmo
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Kimmo, you understand it correctly.
If resolution values for various binoculars were compared using direct readings of resolution, it would appear that higher powered binoculars would always win the comparison, simply because at these powers, resolution is almost entirely dependant on power. For instance, let's say we have a 7x50 reading 12 arcsec, a 10x50 reading 9 arcsec and a 15x50 reaing 6.5 arcsec. Obviously the 15x binocular can see much smaller objects, simply by nature of its higher power. Stop here and one might think the 15x has the finest resolution. But the question is, does it have finer resolution than, and how does it compare to, other sizes of binoculars?
To make that comparison I use apparent resolution. By this method we now can compare the 15x binocular to the 10x and 7x. We find the 7x50 can see 7x12=84 arcsec apparent, the 10x50 can see 10x9=90 and the 15x50 can see 15x6.5=97. Now we see the order, or the degree of fineness of resolution observed, has reversed. We also find, for its power, the 7x50 is more capable then either of the other two binoculars.
If the 10x and 15x binoculars were to equal the ability of the 7x50, they would need to see resolution of 8.4 arcsec and 5.7 respctively. Will the 7x50 ever see resolution as small as the 15x50? Probably not, but for its size it does outperform the 15x50.
The fact that a binocular sees smaller or deeper objects simply by nature of its higher power is not in itself an indication of "better". It is better if it measures ahead of where it should be on the scale, putting its performance in perspective with what can be seen by all other powers.
FWIW, having measured many binoculars with sizes ranging in power from 6x to 25x, I find the lowest apparent resolution values range from 76 to 97 arcseconds apparent, quite a broad range, but more important a fairly clear indication that best readings are not necessarily limited by the eye, at least not for all the 65 other binoculars that didn't achieve a reading of 76.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I'm not a " twitcher " per se myself ( English slang for birder ) but for DAYTIME use ( and most of the hundreds of birders I've seen appear to have been out in good lighting by day rather than at twilight when the birds are resting in their nests ) I am frankly a little surprised that a lot more of them don't use Canon image stabilised binoculars.
Birders are a very conservative bunch. And I must admit that I sympathize.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Here's something we can probably all agree on - the green LED "on indicator" is too darn bright at night!
It sure is! Every time I use my binos under a dark sky, I swear I will put tape over the LED, and every day the next day I forget.
Fortunately, in this case, two wrongs do make a right. When I was bicycling to work this morning, I noticed that my pack was unusually heavy, and realized that I'd forgotten to remove the binos that I had been using the previous night. So as soon as I read Alan's note, I borrowed some black tape from the ever-fully-equipped Dennis di Cicco, and covered the pesky LED for good.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a " twitcher " per se myself ( English slang for birder ) but for DAYTIME use ( and most of the hundreds of birders I've seen appear to have been out in good lighting by day rather than at twilight when the birds are resting in their nests ) I am frankly a little surprised that a lot more of them don't use Canon image stabilised binoculars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birders are a very conservative bunch.
Not the birders I know! They are a very demanding bunch, not conservative in any way (financially, politically, educationally, or socially), and have high performance expectations for their optics. It is questionable that an image stablized binocular is capable of offering the optical performance of a 7x or 8x top-of-the-line binocular from the big four (Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, or Zeiss).
Additionally, the trend for birder binoculars is lightweight roofs in 7x and 8x size. There are indications that 7x (and 6x) sizes are gaining in popularity among birders.
Regarding distant viewing such as shore birds or hawking, many birders are highly skilled with a spotting scope on a light tripod, and can have the bird in the spotter viewfinder--focused and identified--as quick with a spotting scope as with a binocular--if not quicker. This is a fact I did not believe until I purchased a Kowa spotting scope (30x66, scope & tripod wt 61 oz) and learned the technique. Daytime spotting scopes deliver amazing views and many are more durable than the outdoor shoes on your feet.
Finally, following an eractic flight path with an image stabilized optic may be one headache birders want to avoid.
I just do not see IS binoculars having much of a chance in the birder market.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
Edited by BobinKy (05/13/09 10:55 AM)
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Prof. Edz,
Thanx for the explanation. You had explained it before in the small bino review I believe which is why I jumped on the Celestron Regal LX 8X42 for $175.00 with an apparent resolution of 83. The Obies have a 40% larger apperature than the Canon 15X50 IS, so I would have expected a bigger difference in actual resolution.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Tony,
A red Sharpie or you wifes nail polish will cut the brightness as well.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I see the Canon IS and Televue Ethos have the same problem with some people.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Not the birders I know! They are a very demanding bunch, not conservative in any way
Conservative and demanding are not mutually exclusive. If anything, the opposite. Professional violinists, for instance, are as demanding as they get, but most would prefer to use a Stradivarius over a modern instrument -- arguably precisely because they're demanding.
Quote:
It is questionable that an image stablized binocular is capable of offering the optical performance of a 7x or 8x top-of-the-line binocular from the big four (Leica, Nikon, Swarovski, or Zeiss).
Certainly, you're welcome to question that. You can question anything -- especially sight-unseen.
Quote:
I just do not see IS binoculars having much of a chance in the birder market.
How much money do you want to put on that prediction?
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
If you can see the green light your not looking through the 15 x eyepieces.
The problem happens when I glance away momentarily, and also happen to have my finger in a spot where it's illuminated by the LED. Doesn't happen often, but it doesn't have to happen often to be a major annoyance.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I've been birding longer than I've been doing serious amateur astronomy - probably close to 50 years, and I think the IS are great for birding. I have a very fine pair of 7x42 binoculars, but much prefer the more detailed views seen through my 12x36 IS binoculars. They are nice and light, and the only objections a "serious" birder might have is that they are not waterproof and their close focus in not very good.
The argument that the optics in IS binoculars are not in the same class as the high end Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, Nikons, and so on is probably true. However, the 12x magnification certainly provides far more detailed views than the best 7 or 8x binocular.
I've tried scopes, and own a fine dedicated birding scope and a marvelous small astronomy scope that I use often for birding. Experience is that I simply hate carrying a scope in the field. They are fine from my back deck or the beach at camp, but when I am wandering around looking for birds I'd much rather be carrying binoculars.
Clear skies, Alan
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
(3) therefore, even if they bench test as good as a premium bin of the same configuration, in actual use , your "mileage" will not only vary, but will be less.
I agree with almost everything you've said except for this.
Regardless of bench tests, I get much better results from the IS binoculars in actual use.
Why? Because I can't get clear views of astronomical objects unless I'm comfortable. And the only ways for me to be genuinely comfortable when viewing an object more than 25 degrees above the horizon through an instrument with a straight-through view are to recline in a lounge chair or lie down on the ground.
Either way, a conventional tripod simply doesn't work. And no mount that can suspend binos over a lounge chair is quite as stable as a simple tripod -- especially when there's a wind.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
This is an ... how shall I say it ... interesting thread. We are about as entrenched in our perspectives on IS binoculars as people get. I guess we should agree to disagree.
. . .
I also find it interesting that two binocular observers with international reputations who do a bit of publishing--Phil Harrington and Gary Seronik--each sit on opposite ends of this seesaw. Gary prefers IS binoculars and Phil does not. You can read their columns, books, and websites to find out why they maintain the perspectives they do.
. . .
And just as interesting is Joe O's observation--the question of whether to IS or not has parallels with the question of whether to Ethos or not.
. . .
Alan and Tony, I checked the Bird Forum and the question is discussed there as well, particularly in the Canon binoculars subforum.
. . .
Tony, regarding your invitation to enter into an online wager about IS binoculars and the birding market--I must decline. I do not gamble or bet--even though I live in a state which is considered to be the Thoroughbred Racing Capital of the world. I am literally surrounded by horse farms and race tracks. Still I choose not to wager for personal reasons. Although you could easily argue that getting behind the wheel of a car is a gamble we all take.
Tony, nevertheless, I think there may be reasons why the big four have not introduced an IS binocular in the birding market. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the big four are preparing to roll out birding IS binoculars as I type these words. But I am happy with my current birder binoculars. Any advertising space <<purchased by manufacturers or distributors for IS product advertisements>> in the print and online publications I read >> will certainly be money wasted.
. . .
I think this is it for my participation in this thread. If you participated or followed this thread, you know my position. We each have our preferences and perspectives. If you own one or more IS models and enjoy them, then I am glad for you. I believe what is written below my signature: Improve your life with optics. If you do so with IS binoculars then that is good for you. On the other hand, if you decide to avoid the IS path in your optics, well I think that is good also.
Good bye for now.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
Edited by BobinKy (05/13/09 02:44 PM)
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
The weight and ergonomics of my Canon 10x42IS precludes it from serious birding but it is great using when I'm seated and watching in my backyard. The color and detail seen is better than my "birding" 8x44ED Swift Ultralites.
--------------------
Les
Canon 10x42L IS
Oberwerks BT80/45, Helix Hercules mount on Oberwerks Standard Tripod
Swift 8x44ED Ultralite
Questar 50th Anniversary Model, 501 head on Manfrotto 475 tripod
Stellarvue SV90T 90mm Fluorite refractor Bogen 3236/Televue Tele-Pod Head
Questar 7 Astro
Vixen GP-DX on Baader Surveyor Tripod
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
[Partial quote]
I also find it interesting that two binocular observers with international reputations who do a bit of publishing--Phil Harrington and Gary Seronik--each sit on opposite ends of this seesaw. Gary prefers IS binoculars and Phil does not. You can read their columns, books, and websites to find out why they maintain the perspectives they do.
Also note that Terence Dickinson and Alan Dyer weigh in heavily in favor of IS binoculars in their "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide." You can add my wife, Sue, to the "fan" list too.
Clear skies, Alan
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Tony, regarding your offer that I enter into an online wager about IS binoculars and the birding market--I must decline.
I wasn't really serious -- though I wouldn't hesitate to risk the money.
Anyway, here's my prediction. Certainly within 20 years, probably within 10 years, and maybe within 5 years, image-stabilized binoculars will be the rule rather than the exception among dedicated birders. They've already made huge inroads.
If the image stabilization isn't good enough now, then it will be in the near future. And in purely optical terms, there's no inherent penalty to image stabilization.
Quote:
I think there may be reasons why the big four have not introduced an IS binocular in the birding market.
Sure there is -- because Canon got there first, and the other guys don't have the resources to compete with them. I'm sure the development cost for those IS binos was huge.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
What you're measuring and comparing is a metric that relates actual performance to potential visual performance associated with a given magnification. We don't know what the limit is, exactly, but we know when we're closer to it. In short, you're comparing how sharp the view looks. Personally, I would eschew the word "capability" when discussing this concept because the word connotes the absolute rather than the relative, regardless of how you try to qualify it. I very much doubt we could get away with saying a 16mm Brandon was more "capable" than an 8mm Brandon simply because the 16mm has a higher apparent resolution in any given telescope. Pretty much everyone knows the view will look sharper in the 16mm, nevertheless, and saying so will raise no eyebrows. It's just how we word things.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Sure there is -- because Canon got there first, >
To keep this thread as factual as possible , I thought it worth mentioning that Canon was not the first company to manufacture image stabilised binoculars !
Fujinon were the first to do so , in 1980 .
Zeiss followed in 1990 .
Canon entered the arena in the mid 1990s.
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Those Zeiss IS bino are so cheap and compact, I don't know why everyone doesn't run out and buy them.
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
Quote:
The weight and ergonomics of my Canon 10x42IS precludes it from serious birding but it is great using when I'm seated and watching in my backyard. The color and detail seen is better than my "birding" 8x44ED Swift Ultralites.
Field of View may also be an issue with birding - I was using the 12x36is last weekend for some birding - lovely sharp close views, but a narrow view - 5*, I believe.
Next time, I'll take the 10x30is - at 6*
Closeness of focus may also be an issue for birding - the 12x36 and 15x50 need about 19 feet to focus, IIRC.
The 10x30 are focus much closer.
--------------------
"But seeing through a telescope is 50% vision and 50% imagination." - Chet Raymo
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Newt on Matilda
Celestron CF 9.25"
Vixen CF 8" f/4 Newt
Meade 8" SN f/4
Celestron C6 SCT
Skywatcher ED100
Skywatcher ED80
EQ6 Pro "Matilda"
AT Voyager
Canon 15x50is
Mallincam HyperColor Plus
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
In keeping with the newfound levity of this formerly serious thread, I decided to go back and add some comic relief to my paragraph about Gary and Phil on the IS seesaw.
I'm out of here. 
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
Quote:
In keeping with the newfound levity of this formerly serious thread, I decided to go back and add some comic relief to my paragraph about Gary and Phil on the IS seesaw.
I'm out of here.
Your glass must be more than half empty!
--------------------
"But seeing through a telescope is 50% vision and 50% imagination." - Chet Raymo
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Newt on Matilda
Celestron CF 9.25"
Vixen CF 8" f/4 Newt
Meade 8" SN f/4
Celestron C6 SCT
Skywatcher ED100
Skywatcher ED80
EQ6 Pro "Matilda"
AT Voyager
Canon 15x50is
Mallincam HyperColor Plus
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Well, perhaps the reason why the big European makers have not started competing with Canon is that Canon has the patents for the vari-angle prism stabilization technology. Once the patent expires, I expect to see much more competition. The stabilized Zeiss 20x60 uses a very different technology which, although not needing electricity, is substantially bulkier and more fragile. Starting from scratch and developing an image-stabilization technology that were compact, worked well and did not infringe on any existing patents is challenging indeed.
On the point of field of view, the 10x42 IS L has a subjective field of 65 degrees and the 15x50 of 68 degrees, both wider than most wide-angle binoculars in their magnification class. So, the technology itself does not limit field of view.
Kimmo
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1722
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The weight and ergonomics of my Canon 10x42IS precludes it from serious birding but it is great using when I'm seated and watching in my backyard. The color and detail seen is better than my "birding" 8x44ED Swift Ultralites.
Field of View may also be an issue with birding - I was using the 12x36is last weekend for some birding - lovely sharp close views, but a narrow view - 5*, I believe.
Next time, I'll take the 10x30is - at 6*
Closeness of focus may also be an issue for birding - the 12x36 and 15x50 need about 19 feet to focus, IRRC.
The 10x30 are focus much closer.
I have rarely found the field of view to be a big issue. If I am looking for warblers in the brush, however, I may grab the 7x42s.
The lack of close focus is the one issue I'd love to see resolved. I had to back up for a Black-backed Woodpecker last summer. (I'm hoping for a repeat this weekend).
The 10x42s have a good close focus, but the change in focus is glacial. It may be related to using moving objectives to change focus. Actually, the 10x42 Ls are, by far, my least favorite model. (I've tried all of them.)
Clear skies, Alan
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The weight and ergonomics of my Canon 10x42IS precludes it from serious birding but it is great using when I'm seated and watching in my backyard. The color and detail seen is better than my "birding" 8x44ED Swift Ultralites.
Field of View may also be an issue with birding - I was using the 12x36is last weekend for some birding - lovely sharp close views, but a narrow view - 5*, I believe.
Next time, I'll take the 10x30is - at 6*
Closeness of focus may also be an issue for birding - the 12x36 and 15x50 need about 19 feet to focus, IRRC.
The 10x30 are focus much closer.
The Canon 12x36 IS II and Nikon 12x50 SE's have the same 60° AFOV and I have not seen too many complain about the AFOV in the 12x50 SE's.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Joe ,
The 5 degree TFOV is the restriction that made me go for the 10 x 42 SE instead of the 12 x 50 when I had a rare opportunity to choose between one or the other .
For general use I have never regretted that decision , but for astro use binoculars exclusively , I have to agree that a 60 degree AFOV is adequate IMHO .
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 3956
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
I find 60 degrees adequate. I'd be fully satisfied with low 60's, e.g. 62-63 degrees or so. When I had the 25x100's, they were under 60, pretty sure, and I was annoyed.
--------------------
Mike
Stuff that I use:
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 6 eyepieces and a Barlow
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt
- Canon 15x50 IS and Eagle Optics 12x50 Ranger binoculars
|
doctordub
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 1024
Loc: New Rochelle, New York
|
|
Mike,
you were on a conference cruise to Cozumel earlier this year, did you see the flying fish of the bow of the ship? I did a conference cruise last April to Cozumel and did a lot of observing from the balcony.
CS
--------------------
Jonathan
TeleVue TV102 on a Vixen Sphinx SXW mount
Meade LX200 10" SCT EMC on LXD55 with Pier
Jason Monolux 60mm F11 Achromat
Canon 15x50 IS
Minox BD 15X58 ED BR
Celestron Regal 8X42 LX
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42, & 40-150
Meade DSI, LPI, Eep Orion color Eep
TeleVue Binovue, barlow,filters, & eps
Siebert Power Mag wheel
ASUS Eee PC
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
I've been quite pleased using my 18x50IS to look at shore birds and waders. I have never felt its 3.7° TFOV limiting, even with large Egrets and Herons only 20m distant. The FOV is still wider than I get with any of my fieldscopes. Yes, it is heavy, but still lighter than any fielscope/tripod combo, and a big fat Neopreme Optech strap fixes that. Most times I prefer it to the Nikon ED50, unless I know I will need the Nikon's greater mag range.
cheers,
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1947
Loc: Vallée des nuages
|
Re: How close is Canon IS image to mounted view?
[Re: Tony Flanders]
# | |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
