Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
There have been some discussions of the various types of Image Stabilization Designs used in today's modern binoculars. Canon, Nikon, and Fujinon all make Image Stabilized binoculars.
But do some IS designs have advangates over others ? There have been some assertions that Canon's IS system using what the writer calls " mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms" may lead to some softness of te image.
The full report is at : Canon Soft Bag Prism Article
As I stated in another thread, currently I am not in the market for an Image Stabilized binocular. Nevertheless I am intrigued by various posts asserting that the "soft prism design" of Canon may cause possible image degradation when IS is activated.. This is in contrast to some other competing designs by Fujinon and Nikon, for example, which use an alternative IS or vibration reduction (VR) system which does nor rely on "soft prisms". In other words, the traditional rigid prisms are employed.
Ken Rockwell goes on to say :
Quote:
These Fujinons impressed me because they have stabilization as well as the sharpness of the other high-end non-stabilized binoculars. They are the best of both worlds. They don't get softer with stabilization ON.
These Fujinons use solid-glass shifting prisms to stabilize the image. Canon uses mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms, which is why I suspect the Canons get softer with IS active. With IS, the Canons often have a constant dithering of the edges; artifacts of the interaction of the IS system with the motions it's attempting to counter. The Fujinons have none of these problems and lock down a sharp, rock-stable image. The Canons fade in and out of sharpness.
Does anyone have any comments re the pros and cons of the soft vs. rigid prism IS/VR approach to stabilization ? This is not a post about why IS is bad and why non-IS binoculars are better. Instead I am asking for feedback, contrast, and comparison of the various competing IS systems from Fujinon, Canon, Zeiss, Fujinon, and others.
--------------------
Ancient Orange Astro C-90 Celestron
Ancient Meade 2080 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
Vixen ED115S APO 4 1/2 in Refractor & GPD2 Mount.
Meade ETX125 Mak
Unitron 60 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Unitron 100 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Stellarvue 80mm NHNG on Vixen Portamount
Meade 80mm DS-80AT F/11 GoTo Refractor (yardsale)
Vixen 16x80, Zeiss 10x40, Tasco #124 7x50 WA, Leitz 8x20 Roof Prism, Olympus 10x25 Roof Prism
Canon 12x36II, & lots of other wacko binoculars
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Someone paid big bucks for the Fujinons and wants to justify the extra bucks by saying the image gets soft with the Canon IS binos. Well I had my 15x50's out today for several hours during the day and night and they are the best handheld 15x binoculars on the planet IMHO. The birds I looked at during the day looked like they were 3 ft away from me and I could see all the detail that was there with ZERO softness. And at night Saturn,M42 etc looked fantastic just like a mounted bino. Poor guy, I guess he is sweating his purchase now. 
--------------------
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
|
Erik D
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3042
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
My only other encoutner with a IS bino other than Canons is the Zeiss 20X60. For ME IS feature is of the most value in binos greater 15X magnification and bigger than 50mm. So the 20X60 IS configuration makes a lot of sense to me. However, I would not spend $4K+ for a 60mm bino. Putting a pair of $500 20X80s on a tripod works just fine. Never considered the smaller and more expensive Nikon or Fujinon IS models either. I think the Canon 12X and 15X models offer better value.
To some spending over $500 for ANY hand held binos is an extravagance, to others $1,200 for a pair of 10X42 plus another dozen binos is perfectly justified. We each have our comfort zone for optics purchase. I currently have a dozen+ binos, none of them are perfect or "best'' for anything. I have not looked thru enough binos to make that kind of statement. Whenever someone on CN tells me they are thinking of getting a pair just like mine I try to relate the positive and the negative of my experience. A model that was "just right" for me 3 years ago may not be for others today. A "best buy" in a magazine review could have a glaring fault in actual field use. (I know because I bought one... ;-))
We should be able to discuss the pros and cons of each design without giving or taking offense.......... It's a hobby, not a contest of equipment ownship.
We have been discussing Canon IS binos on CN going back as 2004. Here is a thread by someone who has tested various models of Canon, Nikon and Fujinon: Canon, Fujinon, Nikon IS
There are dozens of other threads and many reveiws of the Canon IS models here on CN. I think it's safe to say the IS function works better in the smaller 8, 10 and 12 X Canons than the higher power 15/18X models. Those who feel swayed when they look thru higher powered Canon IS are not imagining it. I have seen it myself each time I used my friend's 18X IS.
ERik D
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
Thanks for the link Erik_D. I had done an earlier search, albeit a poor one, but apparently missed that set. These IS binoculars so remind me of the very early generation Digital Cameras. If folks can recall the bulky digital cameras that Kodak and Apple had available. Very crude looking. Then along came companies like Agfa and Nikon with small swivel bodies like the Nikon 900 series. And..in 2007.. wow ..look what we have now.
I am hoping that these so called IS binoculars will improve, become less bulky, and have improved performance. Given progress in electro-optics...I am sure they will.
I want:
1) Smaller Relative Size given the Objective Diameter & Power
2) Lighter Weight
3) Improved Ergonomics
And progressively lower prices as the technology becomes more affordable to implement.
--------------------
Ancient Orange Astro C-90 Celestron
Ancient Meade 2080 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
Vixen ED115S APO 4 1/2 in Refractor & GPD2 Mount.
Meade ETX125 Mak
Unitron 60 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Unitron 100 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Stellarvue 80mm NHNG on Vixen Portamount
Meade 80mm DS-80AT F/11 GoTo Refractor (yardsale)
Vixen 16x80, Zeiss 10x40, Tasco #124 7x50 WA, Leitz 8x20 Roof Prism, Olympus 10x25 Roof Prism
Canon 12x36II, & lots of other wacko binoculars
Edited by Ortho2000 (03/27/07 11:15 PM)
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
You must be kidding, Canon IS binoculars have had great reviews for many years.
--------------------
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
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
Joe wrote:
Quote:
You must be kidding, Canon IS binoculars have had great reviews for many years.
Yes I agree. Great for now, just not great enough for me.
I am sure that early digital cameras also received great reviews, but they were not quite what certain photographers were looking for. In other words, not great enough for them at the time. I have a lot of Canon L series lenses, most with "IS", and some of the earlier generations of these lenses got great reviews as well. Nevertheless, many were still criticized for having very slow auto focus, or for being too noisy.
I am sure the current Canon IS binoculars have been widely well received, but I personally find the weight and bulk just a bit too excessive for my liking. Many others feel likewise. The ergonomics of pushing and holding certain buttons I think has come in for certain criticisms as well, as has battery life, and extended function in extremely cold weather conditions.
For me, I am going to wait for the next generation of IS binoculars. Yes, it may be a while. For those of you who follow the many photography forum discussions such as those on dpreview.com , you know that image stabiization advances are progressing rapidly. Some systems offer IS in the lenses, while others stabilize the image on a CCD or CMOS sensor. And yes, I know digital cameras differ from binoculars, but the point is that electro-optical design continues to advance. I simply am confident that major IS binocular progress lies ahead, if only initially in terms of reducing bulk and weight.
Perhaps tonight, as I type this, some academic "thinking outside the box engineer" in Beijing, Graz, Berlin, or Pasadena is sketching out a radically new hybrid design for the next generation of IS Binoculars. All I have to say to him ( or her ) is... Schea Schea, Vielen Dank, Danke Sehr, and Like Thanks Tons Dude. 
Edited by Ortho2000 (03/28/07 12:09 AM)
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 2016
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Quote:
For me, I am going to wait for the next generation of IS binoculars.
Well...no existing technology is ever as good as technology that will appear in the future. But if you wait till that better technology appears, there will be an even better technology just around the corner.
Is there some image degradation when the IS feature is turned on in the Canon IS binoculars? Yes. Is it a big deal? No. The degradation is very slight but it is observable. If you compare a tripod-mounted Canon with IS turned off with IS turned on, you will see that the image is sharper when the IS is turned off. However, If you are handholding the binoculars, you cannot possibly tell the difference! Tripod-mounting a Canon IS binocular rather obviates the need for IS though, so this is of only academic and not real-world interest.
The Canon optics are of very high quality - with IS shut off, these binoculars perform as well as several premium binoculars priced not much less, and when turned on, it still beats the pants off any other non-IS, handheld binoculars in the same magnification range regardless of price.
--------------------
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
.......or Pasadena. Like Thanks Tons Dude.
I love it ! Guess you just had to grow up in Southern California to fully appreciate that one. 
Jitter
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
.......or Pasadena. Like Thanks Tons Dude.
I love it ! Guess you just had to grow up in Southern California to fully appreciate that one.
Jitter
--------------------
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: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
For a real explanation of vari angle prisms read this:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/tmworld/contents/images/47280.pdf
No "wet bag prisms", no sleight of hand.
--------------------
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
Edited by Les (03/28/07 11:28 AM)
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
My observations so far on the limited experience I've had with IS........being as I am looking for the pair that best suits my needs.
First and foremost, they ALL give a better view than any other hand-held bino, "stability wise". i.e., you can better resolve any and all targets better with IS than with comparable non-IS when hand-held. Optically speaking, THAT particular quality depends on the model.
I spent some time with the Canon 12x36 last couple of weeks, and I like that one...... ALOT ! It seems to be the best bang for the buck of the entire field of IS available on the market at present. Up or down in the Canon line, and you see "the differences" pretty quickly. Personally, I think the 12x36 IS II from Canon is a good central-point referrence standard for their line.
I also have had the chance previously to use the Fujinon 14x40 Techno Stabi quite a bit, having had one on loan for awhile. Compared to the Canon, it has significantly more compensation range, a full 5 degrees as opposed to ~0.8 or so on average for the Canons. Depending on the application, this can be a huge benefit, while in others it might prove to be a distraction. But contrary to some reports I've heard and read, the Fujinon actually has very good optics compared to some of the Canons, using Fuji's same proprietary coatings as used on higher end non-IS Fujis.
With that said, I've found that IS proves the general theory of binoculars of all shapes and sizes in that "there are always compromises". What I eventually had to ask myself was whether "the compromises" were worth the added benefits, optically, weight, size, and "other"-wise. Personally for me, the stability FAR AND AWAY outweighs any trade-offs involved, and it's mostly a matter of just finding which IS currently offered provides the widest ranges of uses and features that I find desirable for my own uses with the fewest number of those trade-offs.
Haven't had the opportunity to try out the 10x42L Canon yet (looking forward to doing so), but right now my two favorites are the Fujinon Techo-Stabi 14x40 and the Canon 12x36 IS II. This of course is not in taking their relative costs into consideration, but just basing my likes and dislikes on "what is there" rather than "what's it cost?". Both of my preferences are of very good quality, with the Fuji having the preferred optics and IS system for the widest range of uses, the Canon the preferred weight, size, and cost/performance value. Considering 12x vs 14x, I really don't need "both", so am still weighing the pros and cons, though I am still leaning toward the Fujinons.
Another thread brought up a good point concerning IS however. What kind of long-term reliability and durability are we looking at ? No doubt, non-IS would rate higher in this category.......fewer mechanical parts = less to go wrong over time, obviously. This is another pro/con factor to look at, and whether the added benefits of IS outweigh the possibility, or even likelihood, that IS binos will need more attention, maintenance, or more frequent replacement than non-IS.
Simple bottom line....."Is it worth it?" when the benefits and disadvantages are all weighed into your consideration ? For some of us who appreciate the technology as it "is" at present, it "is" worth it. And like others have mentioned, the technology will be improving for a long time to come, so why keep waiting for next generation while missing out on present enjoyment ? How many of us refuse to buy a computer because the next ones released will be better than the last. Technology obsolesence is unfortunately a fact of life we have to live with. But it's always better than never improving at all. Just think about that the next time you look through a pair of WWII era binos and compare them with a Nikon SE or Zeiss FL.
Jitter
Edited by Jitter (03/28/07 11:39 AM)
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
First and foremost, they ALL give a better view than any other hand-held bino, "stability wise". i.e., you can better resolve any and all targets better with IS than with comparable non-IS when hand-held.
Now, if I had said that, the missiles would be coming in from all directions
Quote:
a full 5 degrees as opposed to ~.08
You slipped the decimal point - 0.8 degrees.
Canon is an acknowledged leader in image stabilzed optics. The technology is mature and been around for years. If there are those who can't justify the cost to benefit ratio that is understandable.
--------------------
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
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
You slipped the decimal point - 0.8 degrees.
You're rite.....write.....right......CORRECT.  .08 wouldn't help much, would it ?
Jitter
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2180
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
"mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms"
We have often seen on this list that opinion--if unusual enough--can out shine facts, but:
1) I am a big Fujinon fan.
2) I like the Canons beter.
3) They out sell the Fuji's about 8 to 1 in our store.
4) I have never seen the Canon images "go soft."
5) I have to--with all due respect--question the motivation for his comments.
Cheers,
Bill
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
We have often seen on this list that opinion--if unusual enough--can out shine facts, but:
And, Bill, you can be sure that the same misinformation in the beginning of this thread will be requoted again without the subsequent posted corrections. That's just the way the Internet works 
Quote:
I have to--with all due respect--question the motivation for his comments.
You're too much of a gentleman I offer NO respect for the totally clueless remarks in that review.
--------------------
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
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Hi Bill,
Just wondered if you had ever been inside the Canons and Fuji, and how they compare mechanically as far as durability. Thanks.
Jitter
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 13824
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
"mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms"
refers to the type of IS prism system that Canon employs in their binoculars. It is accomplished with an oil filled bellows that acts as a compressive pad between the prisms. Therefore, the reference mushy (because it compresses between the prisms) fluid filled (because it is a bag filled with oil) wet-bag prisms (because that mushy wet bag is between the prisms.)
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2180
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
>>>You're too much of a gentleman I offer NO respect for the totally clueless remarks in that review.<<<
Too much of a gentleman!? Can I get that on a certificate I can show the cheap bino crowd?
I did, however, misspeak. I said:
"5) I have to--with all due respect--question the motivation for his comments."
I should have said that I question his sources or his interpretation thereof. There is so much Blarney on the list that comes about innocently enough.
Cheers,
Bill
P.S. "Gentleman?" . . . Wait 'til I tell Debbie.
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
...and one can only wonder how the same author would describe an exquisite oil filled APO objective lens.
The terms "mushy" "wet" and "bag" are filled with emotional connotations that go far beyond describing the design. The author was clueless in his review because he was merely quoting yet another "source".
--------------------
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
Edited by Les (03/28/07 02:41 PM)
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Hi Ed,
Does the optical path pass through that oil-filled system ? Just curious.
Jitter
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2180
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
Quote:
Hi Bill,
Just wondered if you had ever been inside the Canons and Fuji, and how they compare mechanically as far as durability. Thanks.
Jitter
Nope; I don't do electrons. 'Wish I did. Chris was an ET. Right after I had to let him go, he was making MORE than I make after 20 years at Captain's, and I think he has already had a raise!
I told the turkey that as a young man with a young family, if he were here for 5 years, I would be forced to fire him for his own good. Optics ain't what they used to be. 
Cheers,
Bill
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Jitter,
Yes it does. Picture is in the link I posted previously.
--------------------
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
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
Les wrote:
Quote:
The terms "mushy" "wet" and "bag" are filled with emotional connotations that go far beyond describing the design. The author was clueless in his review because he was merely quoting yet another "source".
I must agree that I do not like the way the article characterized what is in effect a dampening and stabilization system of traditional prisms. Some readers might interpret Canon's system as employing mushy blobby prisms. I am only quoting exactly what was read. I am pleased that a CN forum like this one can put things into better perspective.
My personal objection to Canon's current IS binocular lineup is based on it's weight and bulk. It just is not the binocular for me.
--------------------
Ancient Orange Astro C-90 Celestron
Ancient Meade 2080 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
Vixen ED115S APO 4 1/2 in Refractor & GPD2 Mount.
Meade ETX125 Mak
Unitron 60 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Unitron 100 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Stellarvue 80mm NHNG on Vixen Portamount
Meade 80mm DS-80AT F/11 GoTo Refractor (yardsale)
Vixen 16x80, Zeiss 10x40, Tasco #124 7x50 WA, Leitz 8x20 Roof Prism, Olympus 10x25 Roof Prism
Canon 12x36II, & lots of other wacko binoculars
Edited by Ortho2000 (03/28/07 06:27 PM)
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
My personal objection to Canon's current IS binocular lineup is based on it's weight and bulk. It just is not the binocular for me.
Then why even bring up the 53.2 oz Fujinon 14 x 40 Techno Stabi when the Canon 15 x 50 IS is 41.5 oz and 12x36 IS II 23.3 oz ?
--------------------
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
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
I think you got it Joe....... they're pricing these things by the pound! 
Seriously though, I think there are some of us who really don't object to the weight difference in the different models. It's all relative to a point. Few of them, if any, are any heavier than a non-IS with even a lightweight tripod attached, and even with the extra weight, are much more portable and user friendly.
Jitter
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
Some readers might interpret Canon's system as employing mushy blobby prisms.
Some readers DID. Hence the title of this thread.
--------------------
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
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
Joe Oqiba wrote:
Quote:
Then why even bring up the 53.2 oz Fujinon 14 x 40 Techno Stabi when the Canon 15 x 50 IS is 41.5 oz and 12x36 IS II 23.3 oz ?
Joe I hope you did not misread my posts. Perhaps I did not express it clearly. In my original question, in the initial posting that started this thread I presented the following:
Quote:
As I stated in another thread, currently I am not in the market for an Image Stabilized binocular. Nevertheless I am intrigued by various posts asserting that --snip--
--snip-- Instead I am asking for feedback, contrast, and comparison of the various competing IS systems from Fujinon, Canon, Zeiss, Fujinon, and others. --snip--
I later in a subsequent posting also noted:
Quote:
I am hoping that these so called IS binoculars will improve, become less bulky, and have improved performance. Given progress in electro-optics...I am sure they will.
I want:
1) Smaller Relative Size given the Objective Diameter & Power
2) Lighter Weight
3) Improved Ergonomics
I never stated or inferred that the weight or size of the Fujinon or Nikon stabilized systems were acceptable to me either. I similarly find them too heavy and bulky for me
In summary, I am prompting a discussion of the different approaches to image stabilization, based on a recent review I had found, one which incidentally had been referenced in another thread here on the binoculars forum. The link to the prism stabilization issue was a convenient reference.
Let me again make it clear, that these criticisms of excess weight and bulkiness (at least for me) are targeted at all the current lines of larger-sized stabilized binoculars which are most popular for general astronomy applications.
If the current size and weight and bulk works for you, great.....have at it. It does not work for me. As I also alluded, this is where the current state of the technology stands.
--------------------
Ancient Orange Astro C-90 Celestron
Ancient Meade 2080 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
Vixen ED115S APO 4 1/2 in Refractor & GPD2 Mount.
Meade ETX125 Mak
Unitron 60 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Unitron 100 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Stellarvue 80mm NHNG on Vixen Portamount
Meade 80mm DS-80AT F/11 GoTo Refractor (yardsale)
Vixen 16x80, Zeiss 10x40, Tasco #124 7x50 WA, Leitz 8x20 Roof Prism, Olympus 10x25 Roof Prism
Canon 12x36II, & lots of other wacko binoculars
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
More in line with the subject matter and less along the lines of the bash-trashing between brands.......
Not sure if this is the same type component used in the Techno Stabi bino, but I would suspect from it's inception name, that is possibly the case. This lens stabilization system was introduced in 2000, not long after the Techno Stabi binocular line.
http://www.fujinon.co.jp/en/news/001002.htm
It seems that rather than liquid-filled bellows that adjust the angle of the prisms, the Fujinon system moves a correction lens within the optical path to compensate for motion as shown in the diagram at the link.
Thought this might help answer the original questions in this thread.
Jitter
Edited by Jitter (03/28/07 10:29 PM)
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
It seems that rather than liquid-filled bellows that adjust the angle of the prisms...
Jitter,
I believe the article I referenced said that the adjustment is via electro-mechanical means like head positioning on a disk drive. The oil bellows - AKA "wet bag" - is probably for damping.
--------------------
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
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
"It does not work for me."
Alan French has an ally.
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 588
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
canon 15x50 41 0zs swaro 15x56 47 ozs
nikon 12x50 se 31 ozs canon 12x36 23 ozs
The canon is dont look that weighty compared to some other of different brands.
Brian.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 11911
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I think that whether or not ANY binocular " works " for any given individual , whether it be image stabilised or not , is a result of far more than simply WEIGHT of the instrument.
Quality of optics aside , any or all of just the shape , size and balance of a binocular , the position of the focuser , the type of eyecups , eye relief and nose relief can seem sufficiently unfriendly to disatisfy a potential user , regardless of the WEIGHT of the instrument .
Then there is the fact that SOME people , myself included , simply don't particularly trust or particularly like ANY item , optical or otherwise , the operation of which depends upon BATTERIES .
As part of my job , I use upwards of half a dozen expensive , professional intruments on a daily basis , which incorporate batteries , re - chargeable or disposable , and failure of the instruments to operate correctly and accurately as a result of battery related problems is one of the most frustrating aspects of my job .
Regards , 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
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 588
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Kenny the IS,S will still work without the batteries .Still good optics .But of course no image stabilization.
Basically you get a bin that is as good as most but with the option to use the IS also.
& the canon 12,s are lighter than my minox 10,s & 12 se nikons.
But i must admit the rubber eye cups on the 15 canons are not as comfortable as the turn out type on the swaro & the minox .The 12 IS ,cups are softer & better for me than the 15 IS.
Probably because i have close set eyes.
Off to Cancun in 11 days time .Hope there is plenty to bino at there.
Luv to Kathy.
Brian.
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1665
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Brian,
I daresay there'll be plenty to bino at Cancun. Oh, at night? There should be stuff to look at at night too.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 105
|
|
On the topic of soft vs. rigid prisms, while I agree that calling the Canon vari-angle prisms a "wet bag" etc. borders on ignorant slander, there is nevertheless some truth to it. Except for the 8x25 IS, the other Canons employ a "vari-angle prism" which essentially consists of two optical flats (pieces of optical glass which are as flat as technically feasible, i.e. do not operate as lenses) which are surrounded by flexible bellows and have a fluid (I do not know the consistensy of the fluid, but clear oil seems plausible) between them. One of the glass plates is fixed in position, while the other moves suspended from three points to guide-rails, moved by small magnets. What results is a unit which, when the glass plates are both parallel, essentially allows light to pass through without bending it, but when the moving plate is deviated from parallel, a shallow-angle prism is created, the orientation of which is constantly adjusted by a microprosessor fed by gyroscopic motion sensors. Whenever the vari-angle prism is not flat or close to it, it does in fact slightly degrade the image. This can be seen rather easily if one uses a booster behind the eyepiece (as I have done, on several different Canon units). If one uses the binoculars at their nominal magnification (as is intended, of course) the visibility of these "stabilization artefacts" as I have called them, varies depending on the visual acuity of the user, how much shake there is on the binocular body, and individual specimen variations in how well the binocular was collimated at the factory. In my present two pairs, a 15x50 and 10x42 L, the periodic softening is low enough to not unduly bother me (it is very slight indeed in the 10x42), and for me the benefits of the IS far outweigh it. With the 10x42, if I were to think that the artefacts are too much, I can simply choose to use them un-stabilized and still have image quality which truly is second to none. In practice, I end up having the IS engaged for all but the most quick and casual of looks.
The Fuji I can unfortunately not say much upon. I have tried it once, and was not all that impressed, but this should not be taken to mean much. More recently, I have tried one of the Nikons, but even with the stablest hold I could muster, there was a jitter in the image that, while not very prominent, was much more annoying to me than the Canon artefacts.
Kimmo
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 13824
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Thank you Kimmo for that very good explanation. It helps much more in the understanding of what takes place in the system. Personally, I put greater value on explanation of how concepts or systems work than I do in comments such as "these are the best I've ever used".
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
If the current size and weight and bulk works for you, great.....have at it. It does not work for me. As I also alluded, this is where the current state of the technology stands.
How long have you tried the Canon 12x36 IS II's ? If you have not then you have no clue what you are talking about.
--------------------
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
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Something I have noticed regarding the perceived "weight" issue with IS binos, is that while some models seem to be condemned on their weight alone, there are other much admired non-IS models on the market where the same weight (or greater) NEVER seems to be raised as an issue.
Like Kenny says, there is alot more to it than just the weight. If you like it and it works for your intended purpose, buy it and use it. If you don't or it doesn't, leave it be. Simple enough.
Jitter
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
As part of my job , I use upwards of half a dozen expensive , professional intruments on a daily basis , which incorporate batteries , re - chargeable or disposable , and failure of the instruments to operate correctly and accurately as a result of battery related problems is one of the most frustrating aspects of my job .
My Scion xB uses a battery and my diesel Excursion has two of them so maybe I should be worried about going on a trip with them. All I know is a pair of AA's are alot lighter than any tripod.
--------------------
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
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
The difference in weight between 15x50 Canon and 14x40 Fuji isnīt that noticable if you take them in your hands. Maybe the side strap at the Fuji that works just the way like at a camcorder helps to reduce the weight issue. The jitter of the 14x40 Fujinon is something I got surprisingly fast used to. The 14x40 Nikon Stabileyes at its special "land mode" didnīt show any jitter to me at all. It is also reduced at the 12x32 Fujinon Technostabi. It is true that due to the active movement of the roof prisms there is no softening at the image of the Fujinons when the IS is on work.
BTW both, the 15x50 Canon and the 14x40 Fuji have a high stray light sensitivity when viewing against glare.
For astro use one should consider something that nobody seemed to mention here so far. The difference in exit pupil size is quite noticable when viewing at the night sky. Both binos are suitable more for bright skies. But the Fuji with its 2,8 mm behaves even more like a pocket binocular in that respect. The background sky is very dark but nebulas and even stars are quite dim under a 4,5 - 5 mag sky. So I would prefer this binoculars for use in the city.
Steve
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 13824
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Defense or criticism of binocular attributes and why you select them or avoid them should be isolated to the first hand experiences or facts you have on the binoculars in the discussion. Pot shots at other people or their reasons of choice will be cause for moderation.
Bring this thread back to a civil discussion.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
"some models seem to be condemned on their weight alone"
I would trade my Fujinons for a Canon 18x50 IS (because of weight alone) in a heartbeat.
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
Whenever the vari-angle prism is not flat or close to it, it does in fact slightly degrade the image. This can be seen rather easily if one uses a booster behind the eyepiece (as I have done, on several different Canon units).
Kimmo,
That is an interesting test and observation. The test was performed with tripod mounted glasses and you observed these "stabilization artifacts"? I have reported several times on CN and my Amazon review that when HANDHELD I see a periodic softening of the image at the limit of my visual acuity. I have felt that this is of little consequence since even with the softening I see better than I would with a handheld non IS glass.
--------------------
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
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 105
|
|
Les,
I've used the booster both on a tripod-mounted and on a hand-held binocular. I have discussed the artefacts briefly in a test report of the 15x50 IS which I wrote some years back for the birding magazine Alula. It can be found on the Alula website (www.alula.fi) , both in Finnish and in English, if you are interested in reading it.
One of the advantages of tripod-mounting the binocular is that you can center it on a target and lock the video head in place. This allows you to see the prisms at work when you engage the IS, as typically the optical axis will begin to wander a little, eventually (hopefully, at least) settling on the target being centered again. In a well-collimated unit, the image quality is best when the vari-angle prisms are centered on the true optical axis, and with a booster you can plainly see the image quality deteriorate whenever the image has wandered off-center, getting progressively worse the further off-center it is. It seems that the stabilization algorithm is, understandably, not optimized for a stable, tripod mounted condition, and the stabilization can have some trouble keeping the image centered. A tap on the tripod usually brings the unit back to its senses if it seems unable to find its bearing again.
Now, I have used this tripod-mounted boosted image study not to find fault in the system by artificially imposing impossible conditions on it, but rather to magnifiy and to make more ascertainable the effects I see to some extent in normal use as well. In normal, hand-held use it is much more difficult to see what precisely is happening when the image seems to "soften" a bit.
Steve,
It is interesting to hear your comments on the Fujinon and Nikon models. Perhaps you could write an even more detailed account on your impressions, since especially on the Nikon StabilEyes there is almost no user information around.
Kimmo
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Thanks Kimmo for the further details. Was the 10x42 IS one of the glasses you tested in this manner?
--------------------
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
|
Dipole
sage
Reged: 12/21/06
Posts: 398
Loc: Right behind you
|
|
Here is my opinion (<- remember that)
I've been in photography for many years and have used/owned many Nikon/Pentax/Canon cameras. From that standpoint I am very familiar with the writings of Ken Rockwell, the author of the original link about "mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms".
If you read Ken's entire site you will see some very useful photography info, but you'll also find a strong bias toward Nikon and against Canon. He is an avid Nikon user who has made comments along the lines that professionals use Nikon so when you a Canon you know your talking to an amateur. Now in fairness to Ken, in the last year he has toned down his anti-Canon stance a bit. He's even removed/edited some of his more ridiculous claims against Canons quality and usefulness. Still, he's a Nikon user and has a strong allegiance to them. Aside from that bias Ken does have some very informative articles on his site. I especially appreciate his articles concerning the value of the equipment versus the ability of the user.
Don't get me wrong, Nikon makes awesome gear, but so does Canon. I just think you need to understand the source of the "mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms" comments and put it in perspective.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 11911
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< My Scion xB uses a battery and my diesel Excursion has two of them so maybe I should be worried about going on a trip with them. >
Joe ,
Batteries on motor vehicles are designed to be automatically re - charged by an alternator or similar such device , so your analogy is a poor one , really .
Regards , 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: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Hmmm, I wonder what all the car batteries and jumper cables are for at the car parts stores. I prefer to carry a spare pair of AA's than a tripod with my handheld IS binoculars when traveling.
--------------------
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
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
Kimmo,
the Nikon 14x40 Stabileyes binoculars use the technology of Fujinon image stabilisation. AFAIK Nikon use a licence by Fujinon to build their own Stabileyes series. However, they introduced some modifications of the IS within their 14x40. It offers two different ways of stabilsation: the so called "LAND" mode and the "ON BOARD" mode. The use of the former mode is pretty similar to the Canon IS binos. It is fast, reduces shakings of higher frequence, but the amplitude of its reduction range is low. The On Board mode works just like the Fujinon Technostabi. It reduces movements of high amplitude at the expense of a lost of speed which causes the jitter you noticed. The shaking of hands has another frequence than those introduced by cars, boats and so on. If a manufactorer wants to reduce the shaking made by hands he has to aim pretty exactly at this frequence. BTW this is exactly what Zeiss did with their 20x60S bino. Its weight has pretty much to do with the shaking frequence of human hands.
At the very first trial of the 14x40 Technostabi in a shop I got the same impression like you since I found the jitter really annoying. But I got used to it while a longer period of using time. It is in fact quite impressive to use this jitter in a deliberate way, surfing across the milky way.
I have to say that I didnīt get a chance to compare the optics of Nikon and Fujinon side by side so far. From memory I would guess that their optics are identical.
Steve
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
This is CN, an astronomy forum yes...
I had written earlier:
Quote:
If the current size and weight and bulk works for you, great.....have at it. It does not work for me. As I also alluded, this is where the current state of the technology stands.
Later..Joe Ogiba wrote:
Quote:
How long have you tried the Canon 12x36 IS II's ? If you have not then you have no clue what you are talking about.
You know Joe, you are right. You make a good point.
The smaller series of binoculars are not half bad. I must share with you however that I personally am not very keen on using a 36mm objective binocular for astronomical purposes. I should have made a more focused comment when I said the following:
Quote:
My personal objection to Canon's current IS binocular lineup is based on it's weight and bulk. It just is not the binocular for me.
The only reason I want an IS Binocular is for astronomy. While I am not currently in the market for an IS astro binocular (due to weight, size, and price), I should have added " larger objective models", and not chracterized the smaller units as necessarily heavy and bulky.
Now let me make it perfectly clear that I have nothing against such smaller objective binoculars, indeed I have a Leitz 8x20 and an Olympus 10x25 (both roof prisms). For astronomy, well a 36mm binocular does not work for me. I want larger objectives, and I never seriously looked at the 12x36. Period.
I should maybe mention that I actually had my hands on a pair of Canon 12x36s at a Washington Redskins football game last season, but this 45 second viewing hardly qualifies as an "experience". I was shooting the game with a Canon 300 mm IS stabilized lens on my DSLR and I wanted to wave the lens and the binocular around just to compare the stabilization effects. The "test" was over in under 60 seconds and I then went back to shooting the game.
Therefore Joe, you are right. Perhaps I should not criticize smaller designs such as Canon's 8x25, 10x30, and 12x36. My personal objection to them for astro use is their small objectives. Is anyone using traditional non-IS 12x36 or similar sized binoculars for astronomy ? Probably not much. Perhaps astronomy hobbyists are settling for the 12x36 because, in part, it gets away from the weight and bulk of the other larger objective models.
So again, with respect to weight and bulk, Canon's current larger objective IS binocular lineup ( >40 mm) does not cut it for me. Ditto for those >40 mm IS units from other manufacturers. Bulky to me means includes size, shape, and therefore ergonomics. Ideally I'd like a svelte, light weight ten to twelve power 50-60 mm IS binocular. Not happening in 2007.
Finally a personal observation, and one which actually gets back to the original backbone of this thread. Regardless of how you feel about weight, bulk, or manufacturer, the posts have helped to highlight the misuse of the term "soft prism" vs. "rigid prism". Those unfortunate words were lifted out of the one article I partially quoted and used as a link in the initial post.
There is a similarly confusing misuse of the words "Image Stabilization" in the field of digital cameras. True image stabilization utilizes actual changes in the light path through the lens, or a change in the orientation of the CMOS or CCD sensor. Some digital camera manufacturers have misused the term " image stabilization" and applied it to cameras which at the touch of a button simply kick up the ISO or sensitivity to help reduce the effects of camera shake.
Mark Twain I think once said something to the effect that the difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.
"Soft prism" or "soft prism stabilization" are terrible misnomers which cause much harm and misunderstanding, and little if any good.
/END of rant
Edited by Ortho2000 (03/30/07 01:32 AM)
|
Dave LoPresti
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/25/03
Posts: 1989
Loc: Preston, Connecticut
|
|
I have had my Canon 18x50's since the summer of 2003. A 3 week vacation to Australia was the first chance to give them some use. I've taken them on long hikes along the coastline and spent many nights gazing under the stars. They still work great for me night or day. (battery swaps a few times, of course)
Since I've never used other IS binocs, I guess I can't say much else but I will say I'm glad I have them.
--------------------
Dave L
Meade 10" SCT
TEC 140 SN291
Coronado SolarMax 90mm <.5Å
WO 80mm ZSFD (10th Ann. red)
Tele Vue Pronto
Coronado PST
Canon 18x50 IS
 Wonderful wife 
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
Dave_LoPresti wrote:
Quote:
I've taken them on long hikes along the coastline and spent many nights gazing under the stars.
How do you carry your binoculars? Like birders around the neck, or in a case stored in your backpack ? I am curious because I have read many posts that assert that 30 ounces are about the upper limit for long term comfort for a bino around the neck. The 18x50s are about 42 ounces.
--------------------
Ancient Orange Astro C-90 Celestron
Ancient Meade 2080 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
Vixen ED115S APO 4 1/2 in Refractor & GPD2 Mount.
Meade ETX125 Mak
Unitron 60 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Unitron 100 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Stellarvue 80mm NHNG on Vixen Portamount
Meade 80mm DS-80AT F/11 GoTo Refractor (yardsale)
Vixen 16x80, Zeiss 10x40, Tasco #124 7x50 WA, Leitz 8x20 Roof Prism, Olympus 10x25 Roof Prism
Canon 12x36II, & lots of other wacko binoculars
|
Dave LoPresti
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/25/03
Posts: 1989
Loc: Preston, Connecticut
|
|
Hi Ortho2000, if I'm on a hike expecting to be out for more that 2 hours, I have a small backpack. This way I can bring water bottle, snacks, and camera etc. And there is a nice soft camera strap on them now 'cause I didn't care for the one that came with stock. At night, I like to sit in a lawn chair when using the Canons.
--------------------
Dave L
Meade 10" SCT
TEC 140 SN291
Coronado SolarMax 90mm <.5Å
WO 80mm ZSFD (10th Ann. red)
Tele Vue Pronto
Coronado PST
Canon 18x50 IS
Wonderful wife
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
You know Joe, you are right. You make a good point.
The smaller series of binoculars are not half bad. I must share with you however that I personally am not very keen on using a 36mm objective binocular for astronomical purposes.
I have no problem using my 10x42L's or 15x50's handheld like thousands of others. edited for personal sarcasm directed at a member If I want more than 50mm for astro use I just mount my other binoculars like my Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series Binoculars.
Edited by Joad (03/30/07 11:21 AM)
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
Joe have you seen these?
http://www.newcon-optik.com/sib20x50m.html
Night Vision, Laser Range Finders, Thermal, Stabilized Imagers, Binoculars, Goggles, Monoculars, Night Vision Scopes by Newcon Optik
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 12505
|
|
I have edited a post here because there is still some personal sniping going on in this thread. Guys, we all have a right to state our personal preferences in binocular use. For example, as I have reported here before, while I think the idea of IS binoculars is the greatest thing since sliced bread, every time I have looked through one (both Nikon and Canon), I have gotten motion sickness. Reading this thread literally makes me a bit motion sick as I think about IS binoculars. It's most unfortunate because I could afford an IS binocular and would love to use one, but I can't. And it would serve no purpose, for instance, for someone to tell me to get over my motion sickness. I am a fifty something man who has always been susceptible to this, and in recent years it has gotten worse. That's all there is to it. Similarly, if anyone finds a given binocular too heavy or not of sufficient aperture for a given use, that is the way that person feels, and that is perfectly legitimate so long as a personal experience is not used to denounce the binocular itself.
--------------------
12.5 inch Portaball
LX10
Oberwerk BT100 45° binocular
Orion binoviewer
35mm Panoptic
A bunch of other eps that work fine
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I would prefer to stay with the same exit pupil on my 15x50's and that would equal an 18x60 size. I don't want to go under 3mm exit pupil for my binoculars and 20x50's only have a 2.5mm exit pupil. My 20x60 Pentax PCF V's work great on my Unimount Light but I also have Oberwerk 20x80's, RA-88-SA's at 20x, Oberwerk BT80 45's with 20x eyepieces etc.
Joe
--------------------
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
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
What I like about the Newcon Optik website is the "MTBF", Mean Time Before Failure.
The MTBF for the Newcon 20x50 is 50,000 hours.
They list the MTBF for the Canon IS at 3000 hours.
Great photos, Joe!
Edited by rushintuit (03/30/07 11:18 PM)
|
Ortho2000
sage
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
|
Joad wrote:
Quote:
Similarly, if anyone finds a given binocular too heavy or not of sufficient aperture for a given use, that is the way that person feels, and that is perfectly legitimate so long as a personal experience is not used to denounce the binocular itself.
I appreciate those words Joad. I've received some private emails, and it's just as you said.
--------------------
Ancient Orange Astro C-90 Celestron
Ancient Meade 2080 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain
Vixen ED115S APO 4 1/2 in Refractor & GPD2 Mount.
Meade ETX125 Mak
Unitron 60 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Unitron 100 mm F/15 Equatorial Refractor
Stellarvue 80mm NHNG on Vixen Portamount
Meade 80mm DS-80AT F/11 GoTo Refractor (yardsale)
Vixen 16x80, Zeiss 10x40, Tasco #124 7x50 WA, Leitz 8x20 Roof Prism, Olympus 10x25 Roof Prism
Canon 12x36II, & lots of other wacko binoculars
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
What I like about the Newcon Optik website is the "MTBF", Mean Time Before Failure.
The MTBF for the Newcon 20x50 is 50,000 hours.
They list the MTBF for the Canon IS at 3000 hours.
Great photos, Joe!
rushintuit, those DO look interesting. I may have access to a pair this weekend to check out. If so, I'll relate such later in the weekend. Can't help but wonder how close they are, mechanically, to the Zeiss IS. The new style sure looks better than the first generation. If the "MTBF" ratings are an accurate indicator of durability rather than a marketing snow-job, then Fujinon appears to be on the short end of the stick.
PHOTO LINK: http://www.newcon-optik.com/gallery/sib20x50_big.jpg
Jitter
Edited by Jitter (03/31/07 07:46 AM)
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 105
|
|
Jitter,
If you get to see them, could you check whether the exit pupil size is at all consistent with the aperture and magnification. Even if you can only do this by visual comparison to a known and reliable reference. I recall in a pat Sky&Telescope test that one of these Russian mehcanically stabilized binoculars was effectively stopped down to much smaller aperture.
Kimmo
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1665
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Kimmo,
I can confirm that the exit pupil in the SIB 16x50 model is smaller than expected. I haven't seen a 20x50 yet, so I'm curious too.
Hmmm.. Looking at the Newcon site, I no longer see the SIB 16x50M in the product line-up.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
Edited by pcad (03/31/07 06:55 AM)
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
"I'll relate such later in the weekend"
I'm interested, thank you!
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
Joe-
I noticed that digital foto club lists the exit pupil for the Pentax 20x60 PCF V at 2.5mm and 3.0mm for the PCF WP II. Can you explain? They also list the V as having a field flattener. Does the WP II also have this feature? Thanks again!
-Steve
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3823
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Steve,
I know both 20x60's have a 3mm exit pupil and the PCF V info on that site doesn't look correct since both should have the same FOV. I wish my 20x60 PCF V's had 65° AFOV because I would use them more since my Oberwerk 20x80 Deluxe have at least 65° AFOV but are in the same body as the 22x100's and very heavy for a non braced 20x80.
Joe
--------------------
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
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
From this comment in the Rockwell article.......
Quote:
Maybe in five years Fuji will modify the stabilization algorithms to add horizontal offset to the prisms as one focuses more closely to correct this. (This is patent disclosure by me for this novel process; let me know if you'd like to take this further.)
Sounds like he might be trying to steal someone's thunder after the fact. Can you say "Papilio" ?
Jitter
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Got my hands on a pair of the Newcons over the weekend, but unfortunately they were the older model of 20x50 rather than the 20x50M. Apparently not too many of the new ones floating around yet.
But I found the mechanical stabilization interesting, much more like has been described in the test thread on the Zeiss 20x60IS. I saw NONE of the experienced or perceived "jitter" or image vibration that others have reported in both the Canon IS and Fujinon Techno Stabi. No doubt that problem is introduced by the electro-mechanic design of those particular glasses, where the Zeiss and Newcon are purely mechanical, without the use of gyros or similar/other "motorized" devices.
The Newcon also had the tell-tale "clunk" of the gimble release when pushing the engagement button, and the stabilization seemed to take affect much quicker than it does in the Fujinons.
Still, being Russian made, they did exhibit the yellowish cast in the optics as experienced with many other such glasses, but this actually did act somewhat as a "filter" while looking at the full moon, making Tycho's ray structure very impressive. At 20x in a hand-held stabilized bino, views of the moon were very nice. I've little doubt that the newer version of the SIB model "M" will prove to be as nice, if not an improvement over the earlier model.
Just a short note on my initial opinion of this binocular, as I only had a short time to give it a go. But I think I just might like the mechanical stabilization better than the electro-mechanical designs due to the absence of "artifacts", enough so anyway that I'm very tempted to order up the new SIB 20x50M for a more detailed study.
Jitter
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 12505
|
|
I'm sure a lot of folks here would be very grateful if you did.
Not that we want to tell you how to spend your money or anything . . . 
--------------------
12.5 inch Portaball
LX10
Oberwerk BT100 45° binocular
Orion binoviewer
35mm Panoptic
A bunch of other eps that work fine
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 11911
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Jitter ,
Did you happen to check the size of the exit - pupil in this 20 x 50 ?
Regards , 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: 1665
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Jitter,
I found the Newcon SIB 16x50 to be to dim for general astronomy. There was no problem with the moon of course and some bright open clusters. While I could find some of the brighter DSO's, almost any other bino I had showed more and was brighter. OTOH, It worked great for daytime use.
Like you, I like the way the IS mechanism works. Within it's limits it's very smooth and very effective. I'm going to be looking at the Canon IS binos at NEAF so I can compare the different approaches to IS.
I'd be curious about the exit pupil too. I'm guessing <2mm, based on my experience with the 16x50 version. Even if it's 2.5mm, this would probably be too small for most nighttime users. Again, I suspect it was primarily designed for daytime use.
I found a nice diagram of the inside of the SIB 20x50M. Not super detailed but nice nonetheless. Use this link and click on the illustrated parts catalog link at the bottom of the description.
http://www.newcon-optik.com/sib20x50m.html
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
Kenny,
I would agree with pcad that the SIB would be better suited, for the most part, to daytime use due to the restricted exit pupil. I also fear it will work better for the wider and lower frequency movements better than the higher frequency "vibrations" of flat-footed land usage. For night use, hand-held and not taking IS/non-IS into consideration, the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX is still at the top of my "want list". Those are nothing short of awesome......... But that's just me. If Fujinon could do THAT in a mechanical IS model, getting rid of the "jitter" (Ed could only be so lucky... ) I'd be ALL ears......urrrr, EYES ! Seems only Canon has even approached the realms of "truly" quality optics combined with IS in their 10x42L. I think Joe and other owners would probably agree that the 10x42L is the closest to "perfect" achieved in combined IS/optical quality so far.
Jitter
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 105
|
|
I briefly checked the link Peter provided. The technical specifications make no mention of exit pupil diameter, but whether this is a deliberate omission we cannot know. The "mean time before failure" figures are quite interesting. What should we think they are based on? Have they politely asked Zeiss how long it takes on the average for their 20x60 to fail (and gotten an honest answer), or have they purchased a statistically reasonable number of these ca. 4,500 dollar binoculars and conducted a reliability test? Or perhaps they have access to reliability testing done by some military somewhere?
Likewise, the very impressive resolution figures are offered without any explanation whatsoever. These, at least, could be obtained through testing by Newcon, and the cost would be less prohibitive than for conducting the reliability tests.
Anyway, it'll be very interesting to hear more about the Newcons if someone does more testing or comparing with them.
Kimmo
|
Jitter
member
Reged: 03/08/07
Posts: 69
|
|
"Mean Time Before Failure" = 50,000 hours = 5.7 years of usage, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
I want to meet this "field tester", or at least have a shot of whatever it is that's keeping him awake.
I agree, simply throwing out a bunch of numbers with no explanation does not tend to exude much confidence......i.e. "where do they get this stuff?".
Jitter
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1665
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Kimmo,
I own the SIB 16x50 and in the Manual / instruction sheet the exit pupil is accurately stated as 2.2mm. This makes the effective aperture ~ 35mm. While the 16x50 was on their website the same information was available by accessing the Manual link. This link is not active for the 20x50 models, but I would expect the exit pupil diameter would be accurately recorded there as it was with the 16x50.
The mechanicals are very similar to the 16x50. The biggest difference to my eye are the cones extending behind the objectives. Likely for baffleing purposes, but keeps prying eyes away from the IS mechanism also.
As for MTBF info, who knows. Could be based on accelerated testing or life expectancy of certain critical parts. Unless more detail is provided they are interesting numbers, but I wouldn't base a purchasing decision on them alone.
Jitter, with regard to the frequency that is best damped, I got the impression that it removed all fine tremors extremely well. As the frequency went lower, ie walking, the image had that boatlike, back and forth, drifting motion that some people might find unpleasant.
Peter
Edited by pcad (04/03/07 06:11 AM)
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
The mechanical IS mechanism of the 20x60S Zeiss is based on the principle of a eddy current brake. What I see in the exploded drawing of the Newcon binocular provided looks very similar to the Zeiss construction. A permanent magnet is part of a eddy current brake. Permant magnets use to lose their magnetic properties slowly in the course of time (remanence). Perhaps the lifespan of the mechanical IS could be calculated by the lifespan of this magnetic component.
Steve
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
"I own the SIB 16x50"
The information available on CN is gold!
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1665
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Rush,
You could have looked at my sig. line. It's been there for a while. I'm not the only one with one of these. I've seen it on other sig lines too.
Also I wrote a mini-review of the Newcon-Optik SIB 16x50 in the cloudy days forum. I plan to submit it for the Reviews side of CN when I figure out how to do photos.
Steve, Thanks for the info. After inspecting the IS mechanism I concluded that it almost certainly used magnetism somehow. Now you've confirmed it.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
Edited by pcad (04/03/07 09:05 AM)
|
Silvio
super member
Reged: 04/26/03
Posts: 171
Loc: Gilbert, Arizona.
|
|
Quote:
For night use, hand-held and not taking IS/non-IS into consideration, the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX is still at the top of my "want list".
Jitter
Jitter, I'm in the process of acquiring a pair of the older Swarovski 10x50 SLC's for hand held astro use. These are HEAVY.
Any advice on how to minimize image shaking?
Thanks,
Silvio.
--------------------
TMB 115 LW Refractor
APM 80/480 CNC Refractor
8" F7 Reflector
Kowa 32x82 Highlander Fluorite Binoculars
Canon 18x50 IS Binoculars
Canon 12x36 IS Binoculars
Tasco 7x35 Widefield Binoculars
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 295
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
"You could have looked at my sig. line. It's been there for a while."
Well I see it now! Being impressed now or a while ago, is still being impressed. Did I mention I'm impressed by the wealth of info on CN!
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50SE /// Astromist (HP iPAC 210) /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
Edited by rushintuit (04/03/07 10:31 AM)
|
11steve
super member
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Hamburg, Germany
|
|
Silvio,
donīt hold them in a symmetric way. Put one hand at one barrel at the front and the other close to the eyepiece side. BTW. Those Swaro SLCs are great bins especially if they have the Swarobright coatings yet.
Steve
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 