Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I have on loan a pair of Canon IS 10x42 L. So this morning I had hem out to view the Pleiades for limiting magnitude. Did side by side comparison with Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50, Nikon SE 10x42 and Zen Ray summit 10x42 roof.
Sky brilliant, naked eye mag 5.4
Fujinon 10x50 saw mag 9.8 and 10.05 easily, directly and constant. Saw mag 10.25 averted, numerous times.
Canon IS 10x42 saw mag 9.6 easily. Saw mag 9.8 but not always seen. Saw mag 10.05 only averted and only glimpsed a few times.
Nikon SE 10x42 saw mag 9.6 easily. Saw mag 9.8 directly, but again not always seen. Also noticed 9.8 averted. Saw mag 10.05 averted several times, easier than Canon.
ZRS 10x42 roof saw mag 9.6 directly numerous times. Saw mag 9.8 numerous times averted. No 10.05
All the above mounted
Canon IS 10x42 handheld with IS saw mag 9.6 directly but only suspected seeing mag 9.8 a few times.
ed
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Mark9473
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 3216
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
That's an impressive array of optics, EdZ. The Canon held its ground very well I would say.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63; Docter 15x60
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Canon 10x42 L IS RESOLUTION.
using USAF 1952 line pairs resolution charts
Canon 10x42 normal 8.6 arcsec, boosted 5.4 arcsec,
Fuji 10x50 normal 8.1, boosted 3.8
Nikon SE 10x42 normal 8.1, boosted 3.6
ZRS 10x42 rp normal 8.6, boosted 3.8
The Canon boosted resolution was tested several times just to insure there was no mistake. Image was blurred, almost as if all line pairs were double imaged. Actual decent image was 6.1 arcsec. The reading of 5.4 listed here was poor, barely discernable.
The Fujinon and the Nikon SE left no doubt when precise focus was achieved. I found the Canon the most difficult to focus precisely, never being able to achieve what I would refer to as pinpoint focus.
Out of a dozen 10x binoculars, half have equal or better normal resolution.
Out of a dozen 10x binoculars, ten of them have a better boosted resolution, only two were worse than the Canon.
Canon handheld (IS engaged) 10.8 arcsec. The best 10x handheld after the Canon was the Nikon SE 10x42 which was just one step higher, 12 arcsec. Several other 10x binoculars were between 12 and 13 arcsec.
With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution. The two 12x binoculars that I tested handheld, the Nikon SE and the Nikon AE, equalled the 10.8 arcsec handheld resolution of the Canon IS 10x42.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12908
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution > ---
--- and albeit only by the slightest discernible margin , I suppose that is the one reason why some would claim it to be the very best option currently available for hand - held 10x binoculars !
For me though , taking into account the ungamely relative bulk / unfriendly ergonomics of the instrument , and the fact that batteries are required , that there is more chance of " something " going wrong with the electronics / mechanical components , the restricted warranty and of course it's much higher price , the Nikon SE 10 x 42 probably represents better value for money .
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
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Kenny,
I follow your arguments favoring the Nikon 10x42 SE and for the most part agree with you.
We have to ask Ed which he would rather use for handheld astronomy use. At night, looking at pinpoint sorces of light, I suspect the Nikon would be much harder to use than the Canon.
In daylight viewing, I would agree the Nikon would be hard to beat.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
It's funny how some people are so biased to the Canon IS binoculars and have all kinds of lame excuses for not getting a pair. 
--------------------
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: 12908
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks Joe !
You've just won me a little bet with my better half :-)
BUT -- only just in the nick of time !
When I'd posted my message above I bet her the price of a set of lens caps ( not supplied by Canon ! ) that a man called Joe would post a response within 4.5 hours :-)
Besides , I thought I gave five reasonable reasons as opposed to lame excuses -- and I didn't even mention the fact that the Nikon SE shows superior resolution when mounted !
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
|
MrJim
member
Reged: 08/24/09
Posts: 55
Loc: Mansfield, Texas
|
|
Joe,
Looking at your equipment list,would you typically choose the 10x42L IS WP for casual handheld stargazing?
--------------------
Jim W.
CPC 1100
SV90TBV
PST
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
No lame excuses here, I've had a 10x42L for quite a while now. I showed half a dozen people in my office the moons of Jupiter for the first time with it. These were people who never did astronomy before and they all said how easy the Canon was to use with the IS on compared to with the IS off.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Canon is easy to use with IS engaged. It really slows down the jitters.
However, I find it hard to bring to a precise focus, both day and night. And it does not have the resolution or contrast of the Fujinon 10x50 or the Nikon SE 10x42.
Among other dsos, I viewed M42, M78, M31, NGC7789, M33 and a number of double stars. For image quality, on all of them I would rate the Fuji 1st, the Nikon SE 2nd and the Canon 3rd.
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
|
|
>>>Canon IS binoculars and have all kinds of lame excuses for not getting a pair.<<<
Owned a pair of 15x50 IS for about a year and didn't like them. I didn't like the bulk, weight, eyecups, and the fact that IS significantly reduce resolution over what they bins could do without IS when steadied with my elbows on something, one of the hand holding them steadied against a limb, or door or window frame, etc.. I found I always preferred to take along and use other bins in my collection. Perhaps those are all lame excuses for me selling them. 
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Ed,
I may sound like a nudge, but do you mean that you prefer to use the Fuji or Nikon handheld over the Canon?
As far as optical quality goes I'm not surprised that the Fuji's and Nikon's are superior to the Canon's and probably everything else as well.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
I think if Ed is having trouble getting good focus, especially with IS OFF, this is an indication the bino is in need of repair or replacement.
I have seen way too much IQ variation amoung top brand binos and spotters to pass judgement based on just one sample. If you can't try before buying it really is important to buy from a dealer with liberal return policy in case you get a dud.
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Joe,
Looking at your equipment list,would you typically choose the 10x42L IS WP for casual handheld stargazing?
I use them as a finder for my mounted astro binoculars or binoviewer/scope combo. My favorite use for the 10x42L's is for tracking aircraft flying their landing patterns to Newark airport from my backyard and they are by far the best that I have seen for that.
--------------------
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
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Joe !
You've just won me a little bet with my better half :-)
BUT -- only just in the nick of time !
When I'd posted my message above I bet her the price of a set of lens caps ( not supplied by Canon ! ) that a man called Joe would post a response within 4.5 hours :-)
Besides , I thought I gave five reasonable reasons as opposed to lame excuses -- and I didn't even mention the fact that the Nikon SE shows superior resolution when mounted !
Kenny
That is a total joke that you are somehow going to see alot more in the 10x42 Nikon SE's than the 10x42L's with Canon L series optics.
--------------------
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:
< With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution >
Quote:
and albeit only by the slightest discernible margin
Ummm ...
If the 8% difference between 8.1 and 8.6 is considered to be a big deal, moving all the way from the very best 10x binoculars down to the middle of the class, then the 9% difference between 10.8 and 12 can hardly be called "the slightest discernable margin."
But in any case, I don't see how one person's handheld tests can be very useful for anybody else. People vary wildly in their handholding technique -- and probably also in the physiological stability of their hands.
For me -- maybe not for anybody else in the world -- the difference between any of the Canon IS binoculars with IS engaged compared to any handlheld binoculars without IS is so vast that it's simply not worth discussing. A totally different experience.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1276
|
|
For standing up flatfooted swaying in the breeze, sure I can understand the advantage of IS, even at 30mm.
But I'm a confirmed lean back in the chair with back, head, and elbows braced user. As far as I'm concerned, I have to observe that way to get comfortable enough looking near zenith to take my time and see much anyhow. And in the process, my 10x50 Fujinon gives a view that is really steady, to be perfecly honest not truly motionless, but so motionless that I am quite satisfied with the stability. And compared to a 10x30, I have about 3x the light gathering power.
Tony, do you really prefer the small IS even for that kind of usage?
Ron
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
For me -- maybe not for anybody else in the world -- the difference between any of the Canon IS binoculars with IS engaged compared to any handlheld binoculars without IS is so vast that it's simply not worth discussing. A totally different experience.
You're hardly alone. 
--------------------
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
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1590
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi Kenny,
I agree with you that the IS design in that something could go "wrong" the very next time that I turn them on. But, at its price point, I would really be P.O., should that happen.
Concerning the batteries, I use Eneloop NiMH cells, and I have never had to replace them yet. Odd, even to me.
Just my observations, and I am happy with my two Canon IS binoculars--even tho I don't buy Canon digital cameras. Go figure.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
But I'm a confirmed lean back in the chair with back, head, and elbows braced user.
Me too, assuming that a chair (preferably a lounge chair) is available. Second best is lying on my back on the ground, which is a pretty decent approximation.
Quote:
In the process, my 10x50 Fujinon gives a view that is really steady, to be perfecly honest not truly motionless, but so motionless that I am quite satisfied with the stability. And compared to a 10x30, I have about 3x the light gathering power.
Tony, do you really prefer the small IS even for that kind of usage?
I'd say that I *especially* like IS in this usage. When I'm well braced and steady, the IS really locks the binos -- almost indistinguishable from having them on a tripod. The difference between that and having them pretty close to steady, as you describe, is *huge*.
Do I prefer them to 10x50s? Hard to say. Remember, I don't own Fujinons, and maybe the difference between those and my Celestron Ultimas might push me over the edge. For viewing galaxy fields, the extra light-gathering capability of the 10x50s gives them the edge. For viewing double stars and open clusters, the stability of IS gives the IS 10x30s the edge. They're both extremely enjoyable experiences -- and quite different.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
You guys can argue all you want about what is nicer handheld or what's your favorite way to observe, seated, standing braced. That's not an arguement I care to participate in.
When IS is engaged, it provides a more still, less motion induced image, never any doubt about that.
However, when IS is NOT engaged the image quality does not match up to these better binoculars. And finally when IS is engaged, image quality is somewhat degraded from the non-IS image. Under no circumstances did engaging IS improve image quality. What IS does is make a slightly lower quality image more still.
Some comments above referred to the momentary blur when panning. I noticed this when panning both slow and fast.
I already mentioned the difficulty in achieving precise focus. That's with IS turned off. I also noticed it far more difficult to achieve focus with IS turned on. In fact, I could never achieve best focus with IS turned on.
In response to the comment above that it must be the binocular and test results cannot be based on a sample of one. If you'd care to provide me with multiple samples of all binoculars, and pay me to lose my day job, I'd be happy to accomodate you. But frankly, other than rare occasion, no one, no where, is spending their time testing multiple samples of any particular binocular. Zen Ray tried that with me just recently and found their second sample no better than the first. This is the second size of IS binocular I've been testing. Regarding resolution, both show similar results.
Effective Aperture Canon 10x42L IS
I measured this two different ways. I used the recent method proposed by Glenn, flashlight thru the eyepiece, and then I used my method, target Laser thru the objectives. With Glenn's method I got 38mm. With my method I got 37mm.
So I checked the exit pupil. First I simply held up the Nikon SE 10x42 for a visual comparison. Well, there is no comparison. The SE 10x42 pupil was easily seen as quite a bit larger than the Canon. Then I measured with precise calipers and I got a measure of 3.8mm. If the Canon is truly 10x then it could be 38mm aperture.
But I don't think the Canon is actually 10x. I will note that in all observations the image thru the Fuji 10x50 seemed considerably larger. However, I will note, the Fuji is 10.4x.
I suspect the 10x42 L IS is actually less than 10x with a 37mm aperture. That would agree with my observations and my measures.
At any rate, aperture of the Canon 10x42 L IS is not more than 38mm.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3459
|
|
Quote:
Second best is lying on my back on the ground, which is a pretty decent approximation.
You'd want to be reeeel careful down here in Florida doing that... no telling what might crawl on ya'!
--------------------
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
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
>>>...when IS is engaged, image quality is somewhat degraded from the non-IS image...momentary blur when panning. I noticed this when panning both slow and fast.<<<
A few have previously mentioned these deficits in this forum and generally have been booed down by the preponderant IS fans. Also notable in this regard is Gary Seronik's posts pointing to his undiscerning IS review on his website.
The issue isn't really whether these artifacts are there, but whether the utility of IS outweighs them.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Ed,
In 2007, I measured my sample of the 10x42 IS L as having a clear aperture of just under 38mm vertically, just under 40mm horizontally and ca 39mm diagonally along both diagonal axes. My sample of the Nikon 10x42 SE measured 42mm horizontally and diagonally, but only 38mm vertically.
Resolution of the Canons, unfortunately, seems to vary sample to sample much more than for most other (optically simpler) binoculars. Jan Meijerink in his Twentse test had a very good sample that resolved about as well as the best 10x binoculars he has tested. My sample, picked after trying out some five samples, resolves very well for the right tube and less well for the left due to internal miscollimation of elements within that barrel. The right barrel, boosted with a 3x booster, resolves just one element less than the best 10x42 binoculars I have measured (Nikon SE, Zeiss FL& first generation Victory, Swaro EL). At my usual 10m distance, the 3x booster shows me group 2, element 5 as resolved with the Nikon SE. My Canon resolves 2/4 easily with right tube, 2/3 with left. The first sample of the Canon I tested only resolved 2/1 for either tube, and the image through the booster looked surprisingly poor given how adequate the naked eye image was. Much like what you report here.
When people ask me about the Canons, I generally say that you have to try before you buy, and possibly need to try several units, but if you get a good one, it is one of the best pieces of optics you can have and, at least for me and a few others I know, very addictive. I also always advice against buying one over the net unless there is a full refund option for dissatisfied buyers.
BTW, a sharp unit also has exceptionally good contrast. Mine has better apparent contrast and much lower CA than my Nikon SE.
Kimmo
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
You guys can argue all you want about what is nicer handheld or what's your favorite way to observe, seated, standing braced. That's not an argument I care to participate in.
It's really not something one can argue about, since the preference is obviously personal -- like so much of binocular observing. At best, one can state one's preference, and suggest things that other people might like to try.
Quote:
In response to the comment above that it must be the binocular and test results cannot be based on a sample of one.
This is always a problem; nobody has the resources to buy and test ten of a particular commodity. But frankly, at the price point of the Canon 10x42s, they ought to weed out any bad apples *before* they sell them.
Standing back a bit and looking at the issue of testing: measuring aperture, magnification, and so on is, at least in theory, completely objective. There may be problems with the test methodology, but it should be possible to identify those and either fix them or derive good error bounds.
Tests involving one's own eyesight -- such as limiting magnitude or resolution -- are inherently subjective. There are two problems here: the possibility of unconscious bias and the possibility that different people respond differently to identical situations.
Unconscious bias isn't a personal criticism: it's a major problem throughout science. It's why only double-blind experiments are considered acceptable for medical research. It would be great if one could design experiments where one didn't know which binoculars one was looking through, but that would be almost impossible to arrange.
Having said that, this kind of subjective judgment still has lots of value. And since it's very hard to measure things like binocular resolution and contrast objectively, there isn't much choice.
But when you start testing binoculars handheld, it introduces such a huge individual factor that I have to question how meaningful the tests are. Some people have big hands, some small. Some people find it easier to hold light binos steady, some heavy binos. And so on. By all means keep on doing these tests -- it's one data point, which is better than no data points. But they can't possibly carry the weight of (say) aperture measurements.
--------------------
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:
>>>...when IS is engaged, image quality is somewhat degraded from the non-IS image...momentary blur when panning. I noticed this when panning both slow and fast.<<<
A few have previously mentioned these deficits in this forum and generally have been booed down by the preponderant IS fans. Also notable in this regard is Gary Seronik's posts pointing to his undiscerning IS review on his website.
The issue isn't really whether these artifacts are there, but whether the utility of IS outweighs them.
No, there are many other possibilities to consider.
Let's set panning aside. Obviously, any IS system is bound to have trouble when you start to pan. If you could tell it that you're planning to start panning, it might be able to compensate. But naturally, the first instinct of the IS to resist the motion -- and then possibly get in trouble overcompensating. I still like panning with IS binoculars -- it's given me some of my best views of the ISS, for instance. But *nobody* claims that they work as well when panning as when you're holding them still.
As for degradation when you're trying to hold them still -- the possibilities for variation here are legion. First, it's a well-known fact that IS binoculars work really badly when the batteries are getting low. Second, there may be variation from one unit to another. Third, there may be variation in exactly what kinds of motion one's own hands induce. Maybe IS can compensate perfectly for *my* shaky hands but not for yours. Fourth, there seem to be at least two quite different image-stabilization systems within the Canon IS line. The image stabilization in my 10x30s feels *very* different from the image stabilization in the 15x50s.
Finally, one's own eyes have their own compensation systems. Maybe some people's eyes can compensate perfectly for any jitters introduced by the IS, while others can't. Maybe some people's visual acuity isn't good enough to see the jitters.
So all in all, I'm inclined to take both sides at their word. I believe it when you say that you experience significant image degradation when you press the IS button, and I also believe the people who see no such degradation. The two statements are *not* necessarily contradictory.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 566
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
I generally use a 10x50 like Ron Harper above - in a lounger with elbows braced. While not totally steady it gives very satisfying views and i'm happy, but i'd love to try the 15x50 IS for astronomy someday.
Also concerned about the long term durability of the IS mechanics - 2 year warranty is not very reassuring.
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
GaryS
super member
Reged: 10/30/06
Posts: 191
|
|
Quote:
A few have previously mentioned these deficits in this forum and generally have been booed down by the preponderant IS fans. Also notable in this regard is Gary Seronik's posts pointing to his undiscerning IS review on his website.
The issue isn't really whether these artifacts are there, but whether the utility of IS outweighs them.
I'm not sure what you mean by my review being "undiscerning." You may not agree with my recommendations, but that's another issue.
The point of my review is to help readers decide which Canon ISB (if any) might work out best for them. So far as I'm aware, this is the only review that actually has a hands-on comparison of every binocular in the Canon line. If you're not interested in Canon ISBs, then naturally, the review isn't going to be very useful for you. (As an aside, I have never "booed down" anyone for their binocular choice. That would be silly.)
Finally, your last point, is exactly right. As I point out in my review, there *are* image artifacts. However, in my *opinion*, the benefits of image-stabilization vastly outweigh these imperfections.
Regards,
Gary
--------------------
Sky & Telescope Contributing Editor
SkyNews Columnist & Blogger
www.GarySeronik.com
A place for stargazing enthusiasts.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12908
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I much prefer reading the more interesting posts above to the " oh yes it is , oh no it isn't " types that threatened to degrade this useful thread .
If the Fujinon 10 x 50 FMTSX has an actual magnification of 10.4x , then it's little wonder it apparant resolution outperforms binoculars that have a true 10x magnification , or possibly even a tad less .
So is the exit - pupil of the Fuji less than 5mm then ?
I must admit that I was wondering about the actual effective aperture of the Canons only this morning and am surprised no - one previously seems to have picked up on the diminished exit - pupil size of such an expensive model .
But if two different methods show the aperture to be a mean 38mm and precise caliper measurements read a 3.8mm exit - pupil , then how can the true magnification be significantly less than 10x ?
As it happens , I'm not sure my 10x Nikon SE has quite a FULL 10x magnification -- it seems to be just a bit less than that based on my tests with square cards at short focus distance -- and if anything that should show a GREATER than 10x magnification -- and I also suspect the exit - pupil to be slightly larger than 4mm. , so if other specimens have the same TRUE magnification as mine , it's all the more surprising that the model seems to perform so outstandingly in various resolution tests by people more technically competent than myself .
All interesting stuff !
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Previous documents will show I measured
Fujinon 10x50 as 10.4x with 4.9mm exit pupil
Nikon SE 10x42 as 10.2x with 4.2mm exit pupil.
For the measured specs to work out exactly, these values would vary by less than 1/10th mm in exit pupil or perhaps by about 1/10 th x magnification, perhaps closer than I can get. FWIW, I don't report exit pupils to less than 1/10th mm, so it may not be in measurements, it may be in rounding off values reported.
The Canon (I haven't measured magnification) measures 37mm aperture by one method and 38mm by the other. As a check, exit pupil measures 3.8mm, easily seen visually as much smaller than the Nikon SE.
If the Canon is indeed 37mm in aperture, then the magnification may be 9.7x. that would agree with the 3.8mm exit pupil.
The visual scale difference between the Fujinon and Canon leads me to believe the Canon is less than 10x, as I just would not expect to be able to see a difference of only 4% in magnification, but 7% maybe.
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:
In 2007, I measured my sample of the 10x42 IS L as having a clear aperture of just under 38mm vertically, just under 40mm horizontally and ca 39mm diagonally along both diagonal axes. My sample of the Nikon 10x42 SE measured 42mm horizontally and diagonally, but only 38mm vertically.
This is an important point. It's natural to assume that binoculars effective apertures have to be circular -- but it ain't necessarily so. This has the potential to introduce some serious errors if you assume that the "circles" are the same regardless of which direction you measure them.
Divide the aperture as measured horizontally by the exit pupil as measured vertically, and you may get some whacky results.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
What IS does is make a slightly lower quality image more still.
EXACTLY the point. Which is why it outperforms on apparent resolution when used as intended - handheld with IS ON.
EdZ, your exit pupil measurements for the 10x42L are in line with those that were submitted by several owners a year ago on this forum. I believe all were under 4mm. Mine was closer to 3.9mm.
--------------------
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Divide the aperture as measured horizontally by the exit pupil as measured vertically, and you may get some whacky results.
Quote:
My sample of the Nikon 10x42 SE measured 42mm horizontally and diagonally, but only 38mm vertically.
FWIW, this would show an exit pupil 10% squashed and out of round. Other than cat's eyes exit pupils on binoculars with prisms so tilted as to make them not a round exit pupil, but a cat's eye shape, I have never seen any binocular that did not have prism problems and yet displayed an out of round exit pupil.
If I had a Nikon SE that showed an exit pupil as an elipse 3.8mm x 4.2mm, I'd send it back.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Ed,
Please let us know if and when you do decide to send your 10x42 SE back. I don't think my unit is defective.
Kimmo
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
If the Fujinon 10 x 50 FMTSX has an actual magnification of 10.4x , then it's little wonder it apparant resolution outperforms binoculars that have a true 10x magnification , or possibly even a tad less .
Oh paleeez, are YOU telling me you are going to be able to see more resolution with an extra 0.4x ? Maybe TeleVue should come out with a 13.4mm Ethos, 13.8mm Ethos etc for people that want to get their cookies seeing the difference in 0.4x increments. 
--------------------
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the Fujinon 10 x 50 FMTSX has an actual magnification of 10.4x , then it's little wonder it apparant resolution outperforms binoculars that have a true 10x magnification , or possibly even a tad less .
Oh paleeez, are YOU telling me you are going to be able to see more resolution with an extra 0.4x ? Maybe TeleVue should come out with a 13.4mm Ethos, 13.8mm Ethos etc for people that want to get their cookies seeing the difference in 0.4x increments.
Well Joe, matter of factly, yes. But, if you are not ever in the habit of measuring anything, it's doubtful you would be able to note that.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12908
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Oh paleeez, are YOU telling me you are going to be able to see more resolution with an extra 0.4x ? >
Well , I certainly wouldn't be the first person to report seeing a noticeable increase in image scale when comparing a Swarovski 8.5 x 42 to a Nikon 8 x 42 !
Otherwise , why would Swarovski ( or Swift before them ) have put so much effort into producing the 8.5x models ?
My answer has to be YES ! -- with all other things being equal -- I do not consider a 5% difference in magnification to be totally negligible nor humanly indiscernible .
In any case , although you obviously missed it , the point was intended as being " in defence " of the Canon , in that particular round of comparitive testing , and not yet another " imaginary " attempted " attack " upon it !
Image stabilisation is a wonderful invention , but putting resolution per se aside for a moment , through my eyes , based upon my own experiences , from my heart , I cannot honestly agree overall that the images I've seen through Canon IS binoculars have been as impressive or satisfying as what I've seen through certain binoculars of stated equal or similar magnification from manufacturers such as Leica , Nikon , Swarovski and Zeiss .
Nothing you can say or imply will ever change these personal impressions or opinions , Joe , so PALEEEZ don't waste your time trying ! :-)
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
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Well , I certainly wouldn't be the first person to report seeing a noticeable increase in image scale when comparing a Swarovski 8.5 x 42 to a Nikon 8 x 42 !
Right, I could just imagine the looks you would get in a group of people looking at birds or whatever and telling a person with 8x42s if they want to see a noticeable increase in image scale to upgrade the 8x42s to 8.5x42s. 
I will be going on vacation soon and I will use my 10x42Ls as a finder for my 28x110s that do have a very noticeable increase in image scale. I guess you guys belong to the club that would buy a set of 13mm,13.4mm and 13.8mm eyepieces since there is a noticeable increase in image scale.
--------------------
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
|
Tom Reichel
member
Reged: 01/05/09
Posts: 10
Loc: SE Michigan
|
|
To all,
Can we all agree to disagree.... and ramp it down a notch..
I think we owe continuing thanks for all that EdZ does.
End of rant 
Hoping for clear skies...
Tom
SE MI
--------------------
Tom
SE MI N42 W83
A couple of Dobs
More Bins and
Expanding used ep collection
|
KBK
member
Reged: 08/05/09
Posts: 68
|
|
As soon as I get a pair I'll be stripping them and rebuilding them.
One of my specialties (years and years of continual single cause analysis...day in-day out) is getting the absolute best out of 'mechano-electronic-optical' systems.
I'll see what I can do.
FYI, I finally had a chance to handle a set of the Canon's. It was the 10x30's in a local store. This is the first time I handled a set of this sort of stabilizing binos. I was frankly, underwhelmed.
As for electronics, I'd say that as an expert in micro-vibration control as well, that I've got even odds on the magnetic systems being superior, but any associated differing implementation of the optics (compared to the canon systems) may interfere with the potential validity of such an off-the-cuff comment.
Be aware, binos are a new area for me, but I have the background to wrestle them to the ground, potentially.
--------------------
It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this...is the key
to it all.
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Kenny .As you know i have the 15,12,10 Canon IS .2 Swaros a Leica and have had 2 Nikon SE,s.
I do not have the technical expertise of yourself Edz or Joe .
I only have my eyes to go by & firmly believe the IS,s are a match for any other bin i have owned.
I will give you that the Swaros 15 are my favorite bin .
But that is as much for there exellence of construction as their views.
My Canons are all clear to just about the very edge .
Which very few of the other 20 or so bins i have are .
Im kinda exited today as my Mia Exceeds should arrive tomorrow.
You remember i sold my Nikon SE,s Because i found myself using the 12 IS Canons far more often .
The only thing the Canons lack that prevent them being the very best is waterproofing.
Love your posts always Brian.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
I guess you guys belong to the club that would buy a set of 13mm,13.4mm and 13.8mm eyepieces since there is a noticeable increase in image scale.
I'm left wondering here whether the redirect (changing the subject from the pertinent discussion), and the persistent laughing is just a way of trying to make more noise than the facts presented in the information above?
Prior to this, I'm not aware that anyone has ever posted in these forums, or published in a review, any measured information regarding these binoculars. We have however read accolades from a number of people, such as, these are the best, these are outstanding, this glass is superior, etc.
These binoculars have problems similar to many others, and in fact, in some cases have issues that others don't have. They have a neat feature, IS, and reading many of the reviews previously posted, it becomes obvious that little testing was done and lots is said about the uniqness of the IS feature. In fact if it weren't for the IS feature often discussed, there is little of substance available on these binoculars.
I won't dissuade people from purchasing an IS binocular if that's what you want to invest in, but that feature alone does not make this optically premium. In fact from what I've found, there are numerous other avenues to persue for better optical performance.
For an aperture reduced to 10x38 binocular that does not have the resolution of some other models, even some far less costly models, I would say, at $1500 these are grossly overpriced and the buyer is purchasing a feature, not optical quality.
Perhaps it's time we present our readers with actual performance measures on these binoculars and stop relying on "greatest thing since sliced bread" reports. In the mean time let those who choose to laugh so loud in hopes of drowning out the facts keep on laughing. You can't laugh away reality. When it comes down to the facts, others will know what they need to make an informed decision. Hopefully you will get the information you need from reading reviews like Kimmo's or from information posted here, and not from a "sliced bread" report.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Kenny .As you know i have the 15,12,10 Canon IS .2 Swaros a Leica and have had 2 Nikon SE,s.
I do not have the technical expertise of yourself Edz or Joe .
I only have my eyes to go by & firmly believe the IS,s are a match for any other bin i have owned.
I will give you that the Swaros 15 are my favorite bin .
But that is as much for there exellence of construction as their views.
My Canons are all clear to just about the very edge .
Which very few of the other 20 or so bins i have are .
Im kinda exited today as my Mia Exceeds should arrive tomorrow.
You remember i sold my Nikon SE,s Because i found myself using the 12 IS Canons far more often .
The only thing the Canons lack that prevent them being the very best is waterproofing.
Love your posts as always Brian.
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Edz .As im retired i spend quite a few hours each day peering thru binoculars .
Just now after reading you post i went to compare my 15X56 Swaro with the 15 IS Canon & must still stand by what i said the Canons are optically exellent & are actually clear to the very edge .
Its kinda like comparing my PT cruiser with our new Malibu.
I dont know the technical aspects of the 2 cars but do know the new Malibu is a superior car.
Still love the PT convertable tho .
And Edz As i said to Kenny i really appreciate your great tech info posts .
Even tho i havnt always got the bino tech savvy to understand some of them.
Brian.
|
KBK
member
Reged: 08/05/09
Posts: 68
|
|
As well, I mess with differing Piezoelectric g and load sensors. This is what is being used in these binos, IIRC, with regard to running the motor system. with knowledge of the whole package, as a design exercise, I'd say that the design is really reaching into the absolute limit of what can be done with this sort of motor/sensor technology. We're seriously into noise floor and lower limit issues for these types of sensors. We are also in to a mechanically run and activated electronically controlled feedback system, so there will always be delay of some sort in it's action, thus: The dragon is always chasing it's tail-- and never quite catching it. Which is why I'm saying that the chances are that the magnetic one can be superior with regard to micro jitter issues. The magnetic ones are direct and immediate as the magnetic themselves complete the task directly at the point of the issue--no delay. Once again, though..this would only be potentially true, if all else, like the optics, were identical.
We are talking piezoelectric sensors and there are MULTIPLE grades and qualities. I'd wager that the sensors in a single sensor $4000 load cell for a 10,000th of a gram scale are not being used in $1500 retail binos. We are talking sensor the quality that is in a $50-100 (retail) tiny scale, which is all they'd ever use in these binos..otherwise the binos would be $10,000 retail.
Calibration of said sensors is also key and there is variation. I'd say that there may actually be variation between given sets, but that is pure speculation -but it is knowledge based. But it is something I'd definitely check on before buying a bigger set at the $1500 end of the Canon scale.
The canon system, ie, the feedback system itself, as a loop--and the point of the whole thing operating in the noise floor of the individual components. If you want an idea of how that is in the real world... just go turn up your stereo when there is no signal, on the phono input (if you still have one) and you will hear the hiss and rumble of the noise floor of the Fet transistors that are usually there to amplify the minute phono signal. This is what the designers of these binos are dealing with, before they can take that signal and then amplify it, and then create an anti-signal to send to the motors to move the lens/sac assembly in the requisite direction:
A combination of operating in the noise floor, mechanical motion and the always existent electro-mechanical delay of implementation of the corrective action could and would easily create a micro jitter.
There is also no doubt in my mind as to the issue of the fluid sac/lens assembly (as a single piece) being a limit re resolution.
I feel that the bino can be saved a bit with some more correct aspects of contrast improvement being implemented in some areas, but that the optics package is the final arbiter with regard to overall sharpness issues.
Basically, as is, I cannot see me ever using them as a replacement for true tripod mounting, unless I specifically require the ability to resolve an image in a handheld scenario.
In that scenario, then they are perfect as nothing else will serve.
As for ultimate resolution, I certainly don't see it here.
--------------------
It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this...is the key
to it all.
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
EdZ,
I am trying really hard to understand.
Quote:
With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution.
Quote:
For an aperture reduced to 10x38 binocular that does not have the resolution of some other models, even some far less costly models, I would say, at $1500 these are grossly overpriced and the buyer is purchasing a feature, not optical quality.
As an observer, what matters to me is what I can see when I hold my binos up to the sky. That's where the Canons deliver. That's the FEATURE I am looking for. Not 3x boosted performance on an optical bench. I appreciate that you have made the measurements that confirm the resolution that can be obtained handheld with IS on.
--------------------
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
|
GaryS
super member
Reged: 10/30/06
Posts: 191
|
|
Quote:
I won't dissuade people from purchasing an IS binocular if that's what you want to invest in, but that feature alone does not make this optically premium. In fact from what I've found, there are numerous other avenues to persue for better optical performance.
I think to some extent this discussion dances around the fact that different observers value different characteristics in their binoculars. Some (possibly Ed falls into this camp) put a premium on raw optical performance. Others are prepared to surrender some of that for the sake of features such as image stabilization. It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways) that either perspective is valid -- it all depends on the individual's priorities. No one can decide what those should be for another person.
I have more than a dozen binoculars in my house, but when I go observing I tend to choose the same ones over and over. I get the greatest use out of my 15x45 and 10x30 image-stabilized binoculars (ISBs). I have other binoculars that are optically superior, but for me, the freedom from having to use a binocular mount is important enough that I choose the ISBs most of the time. I know many skilled observers who make a similar choice. I also know equally skilled observers to take a different route. As I said before, different priorities lead to different (and equally valid) choices.
On the specific topic of the Canon ISBs, it's clear that Ed has provided a unique resource that is potentially a real boon to the technically minded among us. His central point (if I may do Ed the injustice of summarizing his finely detailed work) is that there is no optical free lunch -- you gotta give something to get something. The point that has to be considered is if the thing given (some optical quality) is outweighed by the thing gotten (image-stabilization).
I only speak for myself when I say that I find the optical shortcomings of the Canons I've looked at to be so minor that the gain in utility represented by the image stabilization makes the choice a no brainer. Just because optically superior choices exist, it doesn't follow that the Canons are *BLEEP*. Simply put, for my observing situation, I see more with the ISBs than with other binoculars. At the end of the night, that's all that matters to me.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Gary
--------------------
Sky & Telescope Contributing Editor
SkyNews Columnist & Blogger
www.GarySeronik.com
A place for stargazing enthusiasts.
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
I have to second that Gary.
Brian.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Gary's assessment is pretty fair.
From my point of view, I do not see more with the Canons. I've had the Canon 15x50s for 6 months and now the Canon 10x42L. I have several other choices of binoculars like sized to each of those Canons that, IMO, provide better views. I therefore almost never reach for the 15x50s and have better choices to see more than to use the 10x42L. For me, I just don't put a lot of value on the choice to view without a binocular mount. I'd rather have a better binocular, have it mounted, and see a higher quality view.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
94bamf
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/15/08
Posts: 720
Loc: Kansas City,Mo
|
|
Quote:
With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution. The two 12x binoculars that I tested handheld, the Nikon SE and the Nikon AE, equalled the 10.8 arcsec handheld resolution of the Canon IS 10x42.
edz
Great thread guys, great work as always Edz.
I think the quote of Edz above is kinda interesting, maybe Edz can clarify it a bit. I think maybe you are saying that atleast handheld, some 12x binoculars can equal the resolution of the Canon binos with the IS on? So even assuming the added shake of holding a 12x binocular, they can still match the resolution because of the added magnification? So I am wondering if this is the real advantage of the 15x50 Canon IS bins? Assuming equal optical quality, would it be safe to assume that no binocular "handheld" could match the 15x50's resolution handheld with IS on?
Ken
--------------------
Telescopes:
Celestron C6 SCT on CG4 mount
Skywatcher 8 inch F/5 Newt on a GEM
Celestron 8 inch Starhopper Dob
Celestron Oynx 80ED
Celestron C130 Mak
Celestron C102HD
Binoculars:
Nikon 7x35 Action
Nikon 7x50 Action
Zen Ray Summit 10x42
Celestron 10x42 Noble
Orion 10x50 Scenix
Celestron 10x50 Noble
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II
Celestron 15x70 Skymaster
Oberwerk 20x60
Zhumell 20x80
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Both handheld 12x50s equaled the resolution of the handheld (IS engaged) Canon 10x42. Not only that, both 12x50s could see considerably deeper magnitude.
I wouldn't say the canon 15x50 handheld isn't equalled. Although I don't practice it very much, I done some very good observing with hand held Fujinon 16x70. The Canon 15x50 doesn't come close to matching the resolution of the Fujinon 16x70.
I've had some pretty remarkable handheld resolution with the Oberwerk Ultra 15x70.
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:
Would it be safe to assume that no binocular "handheld" could match the 15x50's resolution handheld with IS on?
No doubt that depends a great deal on who is doing the handholding -- and possibly also on who is doing the resolving.
Also, exactly what counts as handholding? Viewing something near the horizon with your elbows resting on a surface at chest height comes pretty close to the stability of a tripod mount. But if your target is halfway to the zenith, you'll lose a lot of that stability. If you're viewing from a lounge chair with no armrests, you'll lose still more stability. Viewing from a straight-backed chair, still more. Viewing standing, yet more.
Nonetheless, I bet there are people who can handhold binoculars from a standing pose more steadily than I can handhold them in a lounge chair.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Paul G
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/08/03
Posts: 2277
Loc: Freedonia
|
|
Quote:
I think to some extent this discussion dances around the fact that different observers value different characteristics in their binoculars. Some (possibly Ed falls into this camp) put a premium on raw optical performance. Others are prepared to surrender some of that for the sake of features such as image stabilization. It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways) that either perspective is valid -- it all depends on the individual's priorities. No one can decide what those should be for another person.
I have more than a dozen binoculars in my house, but when I go observing I tend to choose the same ones over and over. I get the greatest use out of my 15x45 and 10x30 image-stabilized binoculars (ISBs). I have other binoculars that are optically superior, but for me, the freedom from having to use a binocular mount is important enough that I choose the ISBs most of the time. I know many skilled observers who make a similar choice. I also know equally skilled observers to take a different route. As I said before, different priorities lead to different (and equally valid) choices.
On the specific topic of the Canon ISBs, it's clear that Ed has provided a unique resource that is potentially a real boon to the technically minded among us. His central point (if I may do Ed the injustice of summarizing his finely detailed work) is that there is no optical free lunch -- you gotta give something to get something. The point that has to be considered is if the thing given (some optical quality) is outweighed by the thing gotten (image-stabilization).
I only speak for myself when I say that I find the optical shortcomings of the Canons I've looked at to be so minor that the gain in utility represented by the image stabilization makes the choice a no brainer. Just because optically superior choices exist, it doesn't follow that the Canons are *BLEEP*. Simply put, for my observing situation, I see more with the ISBs than with other binoculars. At the end of the night, that's all that matters to me.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Gary
I think that is a good point. I tired of mounting binoculars some time ago (if I go to that much trouble I'll set up a scope) and hand hold 100% of the time. I use a variety of Zeiss and Leicas up to 15x60 hand held for both birding and astronomy and only recently picked up the Canon 10x42L IS. While my Zeiss and Leicas have better optics, there is no question in my mind after side-by-siding them on a variety of targets that I see noticeably more detail in the Canons.
--------------------
Gus
Tasco 4.5 Reflector EQ Telescope
|
94bamf
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/15/08
Posts: 720
Loc: Kansas City,Mo
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Would it be safe to assume that no binocular "handheld" could match the 15x50's resolution handheld with IS on?
No doubt that depends a great deal on who is doing the handholding -- and possibly also on who is doing the resolving.
Also, exactly what counts as handholding? Viewing something near the horizon with your elbows resting on a surface at chest height comes pretty close to the stability of a tripod mount. But if your target is halfway to the zenith, you'll lose a lot of that stability. If you're viewing from a lounge chair with no armrests, you'll lose still more stability. Viewing from a straight-backed chair, still more. Viewing standing, yet more.
Nonetheless, I bet there are people who can handhold binoculars from a standing pose more steadily than I can handhold them in a lounge chair.
I understand the variables, I was aiming the question more to the conditions Edz used for testing these handheld. It seems obvious that by whatever method he uses for handholding, that resolution is quite improved by his measurements when being mounted. Under those circumstances it seems you would get to a point with larger binoculars that you could not maintain stability to gain more resolution while being handheld, even with the extra aperture and magnification.
I don't have any premium binoculars, but from the specs I have seen, it seems once you get over 10x50's they get heavy pretty fast. In my case, I doubt I could hold my 20x80's still enough handheld to see more than I could with my 15x70's handheld. Considering the Canon IS 10x42's bested the other 10x binoculars in handheld resolution, which are obviously much lighter than a premium pair of 15x70's, 16x70's, etc, It seemed fair that maybe the 15x50's would also do the same with binoculars of the same or close magnification, especially when you consider the extra weight of the bigger bins..
Ken
--------------------
Telescopes:
Celestron C6 SCT on CG4 mount
Skywatcher 8 inch F/5 Newt on a GEM
Celestron 8 inch Starhopper Dob
Celestron Oynx 80ED
Celestron C130 Mak
Celestron C102HD
Binoculars:
Nikon 7x35 Action
Nikon 7x50 Action
Zen Ray Summit 10x42
Celestron 10x42 Noble
Orion 10x50 Scenix
Celestron 10x50 Noble
Pentax 12x50 PCF WP II
Celestron 15x70 Skymaster
Oberwerk 20x60
Zhumell 20x80
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12908
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Even though I don't know the answer to it for anyone else , let alone EVERYONE else , I think Ken's question is very well thought out and makes much sense .
Perhaps others may think not ! :-)
Even when using the following method to stabilise the view ( which for me works surprisingly well for 10x binoculars ) at 15x , vibrations still cause the image to be distinctly less steady than when the same 15x binocular is actually mounted to a sturdy , grounded tripod .
It is the main reason I have on several occasions recommended the Canon 15 x 50 IS to people who have expressed a desire for 15x or higher magnification binoculars , but with a definite desire NOT to wish to mount them .
Kenny
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
While my Zeiss and Leicas have better optics, there is no question in my mind after side-by-siding them on a variety of targets that I see noticeably more detail in the Canons.
I just wonder what comfort the owners of these "CN approved" 10x optics take in knowing that they own the very best when kept in their case or tripod mounted.
I tried to bite my tongue, but the blood was beginning to flow - sorry.
--------------------
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
|
etudiant
newbie
Reged: 11/01/06
Posts: 4
Loc: New York
|
|
KBK
Thank you for an informative post. You identify the kind of design constraints that really drive the IS component of this product and explain why the performance may be quite variable.
Do you think there is any way to separate the optical train from the IS dimension, so that there could be agreement on the optical merit of these binocs without blurring the issue?
|
Djarum
sage
Reged: 03/12/09
Posts: 219
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I guess you guys belong to the club that would buy a set of 13mm,13.4mm and 13.8mm eyepieces since there is a noticeable increase in image scale.
I'm left wondering here whether the redirect (changing the subject from the pertinent discussion), and the persistent laughing is just a way of trying to make more noise than the facts presented in the information above?
Prior to this, I'm not aware that anyone has ever posted in these forums, or published in a review, any measured information regarding these binoculars. We have however read accolades from a number of people, such as, these are the best, these are outstanding, this glass is superior, etc.
These binoculars have problems similar to many others, and in fact, in some cases have issues that others don't have. They have a neat feature, IS, and reading many of the reviews previously posted, it becomes obvious that little testing was done and lots is said about the uniqness of the IS feature. In fact if it weren't for the IS feature often discussed, there is little of substance available on these binoculars.
I won't dissuade people from purchasing an IS binocular if that's what you want to invest in, but that feature alone does not make this optically premium. In fact from what I've found, there are numerous other avenues to persue for better optical performance.
For an aperture reduced to 10x38 binocular that does not have the resolution of some other models, even some far less costly models, I would say, at $1500 these are grossly overpriced and the buyer is purchasing a feature, not optical quality.
Perhaps it's time we present our readers with actual performance measures on these binoculars and stop relying on "greatest thing since sliced bread" reports. In the mean time let those who choose to laugh so loud in hopes of drowning out the facts keep on laughing. You can't laugh away reality. When it comes down to the facts, others will know what they need to make an informed decision. Hopefully you will get the information you need from reading reviews like Kimmo's or from information posted here, and not from a "sliced bread" report.
edz
I realize that I am new to binoculars, and really, new to the topic of IS binoculars. I also think on one hand it is important to understand the optical quality of such instrument but at the same time cannot dismiss the revolutionary features that may come with the instrument.
To diverge from the topic a bit, Zoom SLR lenses(and even prime) have had lens stabalization for years now. When comparing two lenses, its just as important to understand how good the lens is optically, but also how good the IS feature of said lens is as well. It is quite common that when comparing two camera lenses, one may have better resolution and edge sharpness than another with IS off, but worse resolution when IS is on versus the other lens. This of course is more indicative of how good the IS is than the quality of lens.
The question becomes with regard to camera lenses is specifically to do evaluate them strictly on optical performance only or the system as a whole?
There is always the argument from many that since the system has IS that it should be evaluated when IS is on. But this argument, specifically with cameras, falls flat when in most cases, that with the same lens, images are sharper with IS off and on a tripod than with IS on and handheld or IS on and on a tripod. In fact, many manufactures recommend disabling IS when the camera is on the tripod.
So, my diverging ramblings get me to the point that it becomes increasingly difficult to judge optical systems as electronics and technologies become integrated into these systems.
And finally, I think Ed has done a fantastic job of taking an in-depth review of these binoculars.
Dj
--------------------
Celestron Astromaster 130eq with a 60mm finderscope
Bushnell Legend 10x50
TMB planetary 5mm EP
Enhanced Wide Angle 6mm EP
Plossl 10mm EP
Plossl 32mm EP
Ultima 2x barlow
Baader M&SG and UHC filters.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
From my tests
For purposes of these tests, handheld means just that, held free while standing, no bracing to a wall or surface, generally elbows tucked to gain some stability.
60 % of all binoculars experience a 40% to 50% drop in resolution going from mounted to handheld.
The other 40% expands that range from about a 33% drop to a 60% drop.
What is meant by a 40% drop in resolution?
The Bushnell Legend 8x42 Roof can see 10.3 arcseconds mounted and 14.5 arcseconds handheld. Therefore (14.5-10.3)/10.3 = 41% drop in resolution. The value is divided by 10.3 and not 14.5 because the "drop" in resolution is compared to the better resolution.
From my years of tests, these are the best, average and worst mounted resolution for these binoculars size groups:
7x35/50--- 10.8 --- 11.5 --- 12.1
8x32/40/42--- 10.3 --- 10.8 --- 11.5
10x42/50/60/70--- 8.1 --- 8.6 --- 9.7
12x50--- 7.0 --- 7.2 --- 7.2
15x70--- 5.8 --- 6.0 --- 6.5
16x60/70/80--- 5.8 --- 6.0 --- 6.0
20x60/70/80--- 4.4 --- 5.0 --- 5.4
As you can see, there is a wide range within any power group. There is no gain from 42mm to 50mm or 60mm. At these powers, resolution is dependant on only two things, power and lack of aberration. Also, the best within any power group will always exceed the best of any lower power group 16-15 excepted. In fact, in some cases even the worst within some power groups can beat out the best in the next lower power group.
My data for handheld is not quite as extensive but here matching data for handheld where available by size groups:
7x35/50--- 15.3 --- 16.0 --- 17.2
8x32/40/42--- 14.5 --- 15.3 --- 17.2
10x42/50/60/70--- 11.0 --- 12.9 --- 15.4
12x50--- 10.8 --- 10.8 --- ???
15x70--- 8.7 --- 10.0 --- 12.1
Likewise, as you can see again, there is a wide range within any power group. Also, the best within a power group can exceed the best of any lower power. But the worst within any higher power groups cannot beat out the best in the next lower power group.
Here’s some specific binoculars to compare:
Canon 15x50 --- 6.9 MTD --- 9.8HH --- 7.8HH with IS engaged
Canon 10x42 --- 8.6 MTD --- ???HH --- 10.8HH with IS engaged
Oberwerk Ultra 15x70 --- 5.8 MTD --- 8.7HH
Nikon SE 12x50 --- 7.2 MTD --- 10.8HH
Nikon AE 12x50 --- 7.2 MTD --- 10.8HH
Fujinon 10x50 --- 8.1 MTD --- 12.9HH
Nikon A7 10x50 --- 8.6 MTD --- 11.5HH
ZenRay ZRS 10x42 --- 8.1 MTD --- 11.5HH
Nikon SE 10x42 --- 8.1 MTD --- 11.0HH
A few stats to take away from all this:
The Oberwerk Ultra HH is not very far behind the Canon 15x50 w/IS
The SE 12x50, AE12x50 equal the resolution of the Canon 10x42 w/IS and show deeper faint stars.
The resolution of the SE10x42 hand held is just a hairs breadth behind the Canon 10x42 w/IS.
Readers of this thread would be interested that the same kind of discussion took place back in May when I posted the results of my tests on the Canon 15x50. Search 15x50-edz for a lengthy tread on “How close is Canon IS to mounted”. The answer is Canon with IS is not quite as good as mounted. In fact if you take the data from above you will find that both the Canon 15x50 w/IS and the Canon 10x42 w/IS have 33% LESS resolution w/IS than an equal powered mounted binocular.
Canon 15x50 = (7.8 - 5.8)/5.8 = 34% lower
Canon 10x42 = (10.8 - 8.1)/8.1 = 33% lower
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
Edited by EdZ (09/29/09 06:58 PM)
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
I admit the reduced aperture of the 10x42L IS is surprising. Made me run and test my 18x50IS!
But again, the fact Ed cannot achieve good focus tells me there is something wrong with his sample that most certainly is skewing his tests. I think he should return the bino to its owner so it can be serviced and then retest if possible. Maybe one of the other "L" owners can lend theirs?
As we've just seen with new our Polish friends Fuji 16x70FMT, even premium binos can be out of whack.
As for the price, Canon "L" users have always been compelled to throw down the $$$$ for that little red stripe!
Now when are we going to hear more about the 15x50IS Ed? I didn't know you've had it for 6mos! I think an ideal comparable would be the 12x50SE given their similar price point.
thx for your work!
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
For me, I just don't put a lot of value on the choice to view without a binocular mount. I'd rather have a better binocular, have it mounted, and see a higher quality view.
I agree, for astro use I like my BT80-45s,RA-88-SAs,28x110s or binoviewer/scope combo.
deleted photos off-topic for a 10x42 IS thread
--------------------
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
Edited by EdZ (09/29/09 06:17 PM)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12908
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks for that further expansion and explanation of the details of your tests , Ed .
When you say " The Bushnell Legend 8x42 Roof can see 10.3 arcseconds mounted and 14.5 arcseconds handheld." , I would probably prefer " Through the Bushnell Legend 8 x 42 Roof , I can see ------- etc. " as I'm sure not everyone has equal levels of visual acuity .
For example , I may well see similar details of resolution myself when I'm wearing my prescription distance glasses , but I'm certain I wouldn't if I wasn't wearing them !
Then there is the point that Tony F. made so well , about different individuals having different perceptions .
A good example of this involves myself and my good friend Brian ( Medinabrit ).
Brian GENUINELY considers his 12 x 36 Canon IS binoculars to be optically equal to ( and more useful handheld ) than the Nikon 12 x 50 SE that he sold directly as a result of his opinions .
Also Brian can detect literally NO DIFFERENCE in image quality between the Canon IS binoculars whether the stabilisation feature is switched on or off .
Now let no - one misunderstand me here -- I'm not suggesting for one moment that my eyes or opinions are any " better " than Brian's , but TO MY EYES ( and mind ) from the moment I activated the stabilisation on his 12 x 36 Canon IS , to the moment I finally stopped making comparisons , I could actually SEE that the image was sharper WITHOUT the stabilisation feature switched on .
It may have been the condition of the battery , but the point is that I could EASILY see the difference , and Brian couldn't see any difference at all !
I happened to have my Nikon 10 x 42 SE around my neck at the time , too , and as soon as I reverted back to looking through that after the Canon , I whisphered to myself something along the lines " Ahhh -- now THAT'S better ! -- thank goodness for these Nikons ! " .
I tried to make this very point a few posts back in this thread , without being too specific , but unfortunately it seems not to have been properly understood or taken in the right spirit by everyone who has contributed since .
That is a shame .
I don't know if it's just my imagination , or why it is , if true , but I honestly cannot think of any other series of binoculars that some owners seem to be so " aggressively defensive " of than these Canon Image Stabilised models .
Then again , at least SOME owners who like them a lot seem prepared to admit that in their OWN opinion , the actual optics are not quite in the same class as that of some their other binoculars , so thankfully , EdZ and myself are not the only two people in the world who seem to share an opinion on them ! :-)
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Now when are we going to hear more about the 15x50IS Ed? I didn't know you've had it for 6mos! I think an ideal comparable would be the 12x50SE given their similar price point.
thx for your work!
Rick
See Canon 15x50 IS Lim mag vs Fuji 10x50 and
Canon IS 15x50 tests in How close is IS image to mounted view? thread
Ironic what the title of that older thread was. This thread goes much further to answer the question How close is IS image to mounted image.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
Edited by EdZ (09/29/09 06:30 PM)
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
For me, I just don't put a lot of value on the choice to view without a binocular mount. I'd rather have a better binocular, have it mounted, and see a higher quality view.
I agree, for astro use I like my BT80-45s,RA-88-SAs,28x110s or binoviewer/scope combo.
deleted photos off-topic for a 10x42 IS thread
Is posting photos of mounted binoculars in reply to a post on mounted binocular now not allowed ? When did that start ?
--------------------
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
next time try to keep it a little closer to the subject of the topic. Instruments with 15x to 150x more power that weigh in ten times as much are pretty far out there.
--------------------
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
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think to some extent this discussion dances around the fact that different observers value different characteristics in their binoculars. Some (possibly Ed falls into this camp) put a premium on raw optical performance. Others are prepared to surrender some of that for the sake of features such as image stabilization. It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways) that either perspective is valid -- it all depends on the individual's priorities. No one can decide what those should be for another person.
I have more than a dozen binoculars in my house, but when I go observing I tend to choose the same ones over and over. I get the greatest use out of my 15x45 and 10x30 image-stabilized binoculars (ISBs). I have other binoculars that are optically superior, but for me, the freedom from having to use a binocular mount is important enough that I choose the ISBs most of the time. I know many skilled observers who make a similar choice. I also know equally skilled observers to take a different route. As I said before, different priorities lead to different (and equally valid) choices.
On the specific topic of the Canon ISBs, it's clear that Ed has provided a unique resource that is potentially a real boon to the technically minded among us. His central point (if I may do Ed the injustice of summarizing his finely detailed work) is that there is no optical free lunch -- you gotta give something to get something. The point that has to be considered is if the thing given (some optical quality) is outweighed by the thing gotten (image-stabilization).
I only speak for myself when I say that I find the optical shortcomings of the Canons I've looked at to be so minor that the gain in utility represented by the image stabilization makes the choice a no brainer. Just because optically superior choices exist, it doesn't follow that the Canons are *BLEEP*. Simply put, for my observing situation, I see more with the ISBs than with other binoculars. At the end of the night, that's all that matters to me.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Gary
I think that is a good point. I tired of mounting binoculars some time ago (if I go to that much trouble I'll set up a scope) and hand hold 100% of the time. I use a variety of Zeiss and Leicas up to 15x60 hand held for both birding and astronomy and only recently picked up the Canon 10x42L IS. While my Zeiss and Leicas have better optics, there is no question in my mind after side-by-siding them on a variety of targets that I see noticeably more detail in the Canons.
Same here.
--------------------
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
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
As for the price, Canon "L" users have always been compelled to throw down the $$$$ for that little red stripe!
Rick,
Do you have any insight from your side of the world as to why there has been such a significant price hike in this model? Seems like only a year ago they could be had for $400 less. The dollar drop against the yen would only account for a small fraction of that.
--------------------
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
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3033
|
|
I'm also surprised the Canon 10x42 EdZ tested -the only IS with the coveted "L" - tested relatively badly (at least, relative to the best) in terms of focus, resolution, and conformity to specs.
Like many others, I really like the Canons (I have the 10x30, 12x36, and 15x50)-- if they aren't the best, they are pretty darned good, and excellent for my use, which is as an instrument I can use without a tripod.
--------------------
"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
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Well after reading Kennys above post i once again took my 12X IS outside Looking at distant lights & the sky.Try as i might i could not detect any difference IS on off .
This was with then supported on a tripod but not actually fixed to the tripod .
Of course held freehand the IS view was much superior due to the lack of body movement .
And i did shoot pistol bullseye matches for quite a few years,
Sorry guys no one will ever convince me that IS are not the best for hand held bins there are.
Brian.
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
Quote:
Rick,
Do you have any insight from your side of the world as to why there has been such a significant price hike in this model? Seems like only a year ago they could be had for $400 less. The dollar drop against the yen would only account for a small fraction of that.
Les, the Canon IS bins have always been very expensive here more so than their USA prices with the 10x42L ~149,000 yen. I know all the Japanese optics makers had 10-20% price increases in both Fall 08 (higher material/energy costs) and last Spring (FOREX) and I think another 10% is coming in October (both cost of materials and FOREX).
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Just a short note, to point out the importance of sample variation. Please note here that generally when I measure unboosted resolution I tend to get somewhat higher readings than EdZ, mostly due to different acuity and probably also due to setup differences. I just measured the handheld resolution of my sample of Nikon 10x42 SE and my sample of Canon 10x42 IS L, at two indoor distances using the ES resolution target. Distances were shorter than optimum, but longest I can manage in my present home indoors, 9m and 11m. Please note that I find getting a reliable handheld reading very difficult, since in a handheld jittery image the role of guessing and subjective factors is greater. Anyway, the resolution I'm confident of glimpsing through both binoculars handheld was 9.18 arcseconds (line-pair reading) at 9m and 9.45 at 11m. Handheld with IS my sample of the Canon gave 7.3 arcseconds at 9m and 7.5 arcseconds at 11m. Based on my data, I really could not say what Ed said about these two: "The resolution of the SE10x42 hand held is just a hairs breadth behind the Canon 10x42 w/IS." Rather, for these specimen and in this test the difference was about 25%, which for me is quite significant. I have done similar tests with similar results before, with other good samples of the 10x42 IS L and three good samples of the 15x50. I have also tested one mediocre and one really poor sample of the 10x42 IS L, and based on those I have no reason to doubt that Ed is accurately reporting what he sees. I will add that even in the best samples, stabilized view still falls short of the view obtainable with the binocular mounted with the IS off, but the difference is more of the order of 10% or less, and with these samples the baseline (tripod-mounted resolution) is fully on par with other premium binoculars of the same size category. As a further example of this, I'll quote Jan Meijerink's data from his Twentse tests, re-calculated for line-pair resolution from his original single-line figures: Canon 10x42 IS L naked eye, mounted 6.86 arcseconds left and right barrels, Zeiss 10x42 FL 7.1" l, 7.36 r; with 4x booster Canon 3.74" l, 3.88" r, Zeiss 3.48" l, 3.56" r.
I did not have time to do tripod-mounted tests on my units this time, but when I have in the past, I have obtained identical results for the better barrels of my Nikon and Canon, with the weaker barrel in my Canon being slightly worse than the (very good) weaker barrel of my Nikon, with identical (or slightly better for the Canon) readings for viewing with both eyes. Boosted, the better barrels are still very close but the difference between the weaker barrels grows some.
If there is interest, I can write more later when I have more time available.
Kimmo
|
MrJim
member
Reged: 08/24/09
Posts: 55
Loc: Mansfield, Texas
|
|
Thank you all for posting such interesting comments on the Canon IS series. And a special thank you to Gary S. for his excellent and practical description of each bin in the IS lineup. I just ordered the Canon IS 10x42L; they arrive on Wednesday.
--------------------
Jim W.
CPC 1100
SV90TBV
PST
|
KBK
member
Reged: 08/05/09
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
KBK
Thank you for an informative post. You identify the kind of design constraints that really drive the IS component of this product and explain why the performance may be quite variable.
Do you think there is any way to separate the optical train from the IS dimension, so that there could be agreement on the optical merit of these binocs without blurring the issue?
As someone who's job it was, for years, to do BETTER than the competition, with regard to the systems of projection, screens and the associated projection optics and electronics, with the absolute control of the design and execution of the screen, to add that I did single cause analysis on every aspect of the image production for 4 years straight (nearly 7 days a week)- with the whole thing very much like the last two or three man standing after an epic battle to be the best in the world at projection (with all that as a qualifier on the following)...I'd say:
With the extra element over that of a standard Porro in the system provided by the motor controlled lens/fluid sac 'IS assembly', there is simply no way that this extra element can equal a system of comparative design that is without it. I've looked down the barrel of the IS binos from cannon, specifically the 10x30 units that are current. I do not see anything that equals the light absorbing and light controlling assemblies in the better binos. This is not a rant for or against either type of technology, or designs. The execution of the IS seems to elevate the Binos, but the rest seems pretty average.
Under the most demanding lighting situations where the best standard Porros and the Cannon Is can be mounted and stabilized..with the stabilization off, the Canons are definitely good, but the world class Porro is going to be better. Not just any porro, but one that is selected for it's masking, blackening, light control, etc.
One look down the barrel of the canon unit told me that there is -definitely- room for improvement.
To clarify-in my experience with passive optics (meaning no electronics like projector or active LCD elements, etc) and use of the human eye to look at things through them ...resolution and contrast cannot be separated , and if the Canons have the extra element (automatic loss of contrast and resolution) and do not control their light as well is they could (lack of contrast-automatic loss of resolution), then they will simply not be the best.
To be fair..if you add the IS back in, and move it into a situation where the IS is needed for resolution, meaning handheld, then the IS wins, every time. For the eye realizes resolution and contrast over time..and if the image is not still enough in the micro jitter sense..then what we see lacks 'clarity' and the whole thing falls down. As well, there is third component, the amount that the eye pupil is dilated, which creates the given level or ratio of photons activating the given rod/cone, and of course, the contrast available to the eye created by said pupil dilation level. (but that's another whole ball of wax!) To realize contrast and resolution in a given image captured by the eye..a minimal amount of time of image stability must take place. In a handheld scenario, for the most part..with a standard porro..this point is sorely lacking. Which is why the most demanding contrast/image/lighting/colors scenarios like true and proper (serious) marine use usually don't go over 7x50 for handhelds. Which is why Steiner's previous best binos, where all their technology went into..was the 7x50 IF marine 'Admiral' design.
I most definitely want a pair of the bigger Canon Is binos. But I will have them in pieces and be improving them within the first day of ownership.
The best overall Bino in the world is hiding inside the Canon, or, one could say that Zeiss already did it..with their big IS 20x60's. I'd rather buy the 15x50's from canon and rebuild them for the $3.5k-4k savings, thank you very much. Whoops! I forget. The Zeiss/newcon magnetic design has it's extra element in the optical path as well..so..it's a thing I'll have to see for myself.
These things come down to the execution of the finished package--I've spent all my time fixing/improving the execution of the given package.
I am also VERY interested in the Newcon and Zeiss magnetic type units. Theoretically, they have the capacity to be superior than the Canon design. The bomb proof lack of batteries is very appealing to me, for all the right reasons. Whether the optics package is any good, I've no idea - having not seen them.
--------------------
It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this...is the key
to it all.
|
Paul G
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/08/03
Posts: 2277
Loc: Freedonia
|
|
I've used the Zeiss 20x60's. Nice optics but felt big and clunky in my hands.
--------------------
Gus
Tasco 4.5 Reflector EQ Telescope
|
MrJim
member
Reged: 08/24/09
Posts: 55
Loc: Mansfield, Texas
|
|
Gus,
The large size of the Zeiss 20x60s is offset by the smaller size of one's bank balance after the purchase. 
--------------------
Jim W.
CPC 1100
SV90TBV
PST
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
I have the Newcon 16x50 SIB and although the stabilization works as advertised, the optics are not up to the level of a premium porro or roof binocular.
The exit pupil is much smaller than the expected 3.1 mm. Using the reverse flashlight method of measuring effective aperture I measure about 35mm. They also use roof prisms which I doubt are phase corrected. The objectives are cemented achromats with basic MgF coatings. I don't detect coatings on the prisms. I don't have info on the eyepieces but the eyerelief is rather short.
To mate quality optics with a good magnetic damped mechanical IS system is going to take a few bucks. Hence the whopping pricetag of the Zeiss 20x60's. As is, these work fine in broad daylight, but have poor low light performance.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
There are a few used pair of these Zeiss 20x60 for sale in Tokyo now for ~US$3500!
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
KBK
member
Reged: 08/05/09
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
I have the Newcon 16x50 SIB and although the stabilization works as advertised, the optics are not up to the level of a premium porro or roof binocular.
The exit pupil is much smaller than the expected 3.1 mm. Using the reverse flashlight method of measuring effective aperture I measure about 35mm. They also use roof prisms which I doubt are phase corrected. The objectives are cemented achromats with basic MgF coatings. I don't detect coatings on the prisms. I don't have info on the eyepieces but the eyerelief is rather short.
To mate quality optics with a good magnetic damped mechanical IS system is going to take a few bucks. Hence the whopping pricetag of the Zeiss 20x60's. As is, these work fine in broad daylight, but have poor low light performance.
Do you have any information on how the magnetic system works, with regard to specifics? Thanks in advance.
--------------------
It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this...is the key
to it all.
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
KBK, PM Sent.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
|
8 registered and 16 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
