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
Tad S.
super member
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 136
Loc: SW Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Does anyone bother to mount these 15x50 and 18x50IS binoculars? I know this is counter to their intended purpose, but it seems to me that when available, a mount should be used. I would imagine, that the 18x50, if mounted on a smooth parallelogram mount, with the IS engaged, would be a dream to use. The view would be mostly-steady to begin with, because of the mounting, and any shaking introduced by moving the parallelogram arm would be effectively cleaned up by the IS. The result should be a rock-steady, flat, sharp view.
Michael, I am glad you asked this. I have been wondering the same. I have been eyeing the 15x50IS and comparing with the Chinese series-8 15x70 and the Fujinon 16x70. I know comparing these is a hot-button issue based on the reviews. But I have been wondering about the relative qualities of the non-IS aspects of these three.
I have a super monopod system (bogen 322RC2 head/3245 leg) that I have been very happy using with my 12x50s and 20x80s, but would like something with a little more reach than the 12x, less physical length than the 20x80*, and better edge correction than either. I nearly ruled out the non-IS candidates above due to short ER, but reports from EdZ and others have indicated that eyeglasses are marginally doable with those. Anyway, I am interested to hear comments on how these IS models fare mounted, particularly in comparison to the other premiums in that range. I would bet that the IS would have some utility on a monopod, perhaps being an additive stabilization effect with the one supportive leg.
--Tad
*This monopod/head system holds the 20x80s very well, but the length of the barrels and higher weight are less amenable to a monopod, in general.
--------------------
Orion XT8i, Vixen ED80Sf, Oberwerk BT-80/45
20x80 Oberwerk Std., 12x50 Nikon AE,
10x42 Celestron Regal LX, 8x40 Pentax PCF WP
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 9980
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
From what I've read ( and I've read a LOT ! ) it would seem to me that it would do no harm to look upon Canon 15 x 50 binoculars as simply WORLD - CLASS 15 x 50 binoculars - -
- - period - -
- with the stabilisation feature a BONUS , which works perfectly for some - very well for others and with reservations by other users .
Is this true ?
Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 190
|
|
Quote:
I have been eyeing the 15x50IS and comparing with the Chinese series-8 15x70 and the Fujinon 16x70. I know comparing these is a hot-button issue based on the reviews. But I have been wondering about the relative qualities of the non-IS aspects of these three.
--Tad
Hi Tad
I owned (and still own some) several good ''high powered'' binos already - Fujinon 16x70, Zeiss 15x60 (Older classic) Takahashi 22x60mm - Nikon 18x70mm- and now I got a 15x50 IS - I can tell you (forgiven here the IS feature I am talking just about their optical quality) these 15x50's from Canon really rock...the optical quality regarding sharpness and border performance it's just incredible - stars remain sharp almost at the very very extreme edge also the color correction(CA or color fringing) is very good-you need to look for it to find some... very very minimal - these are the best among those you asked for (it's lighter, deliver a very good AFOV of 65º, a good eye-relief, excellent optical correction, and many things more) so I can tell you these binoculars are optically awesome and you get as a bonus their IS system…
If you are thinking about the optical quality (IS or Non IS) these are very good - for me a truly premium.
regards Pedro
|
rick rian
Seeker of Truth
Reged: 08/03/04
Posts: 12328
Loc: SE Minnesota
|
|
Quote:
From what I've read ( and I've read a LOT ! ) it would seem to me that it would do no harm to look upon Canon 15 x 50 binoculars as simply WORLD - CLASS 15 x 50 binoculars - -
- - period - -
- with the stabilisation feature a BONUS , which works perfectly for some - very well for others and with reservations by other users .
Is this true ?
Kenny
I agree Kenny, World Class is the perfect description, IMHO ... 
--------------------
Rickster
NexStar 8i, TV85, Canon 15x50is
Time is precious, waste it wisely.
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 1591
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
The optics really are excellent. But as for using them on a mount, I already have 16x70 Fujinons that are also excellent. For me, the point of IS is to obviate the need for a mount. It does that, but at the expense of wavering sharpness. I'm not sure if these fit into my bino lineup.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT (due July!)
Eon-120ED refractor
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
|
Joe Ogiba
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 2982
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have used my 18x50 Canons on a p-mount, but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system.
Why would you need IS on a p-mount ?
You wouldn't. Don't miss the point he is trying to make. More can be seen with this binocular when it is used on a mount without the IS engaged.
edz
I know that, but he said "but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system." Why use the IS at all when mounted. BTW I use my low buck 15x70's on my Unimount and have never mounted my 15x50's.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion 120ST
Apex 127
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.
|
Tad S.
super member
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 136
Loc: SW Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
From what I've read ( and I've read a LOT ! ) it would seem to me that it would do no harm to look upon Canon 15 x 50 binoculars as simply WORLD - CLASS 15 x 50 binoculars - -
- - period - -
- with the stabilisation feature a BONUS , which works perfectly for some - very well for others and with reservations by other users .
Is this true ?
Kenny
I agree Kenny, World Class is the perfect description, IMHO ...
and
Quote:
I concure that the edge sharpness of the Canon IS binoculars is simply one of the best--no matter how they are used!
Best regards,
Dave.
and
Quote:
I love mine. The optics are superb, the 'IS' system works as advertised and the sharpness to the edge is right on the money. ...
Rickster
and
Quote:
I owned (and still own some) several good ''high powered'' binos already - Fujinon 16x70, Zeiss 15x60 (Older classic) Takahashi 22x60mm - Nikon 18x70mm- and now I got a 15x50 IS - I can tell you (forgiven here the IS feature I am talking just about their optical quality) these 15x50's from Canon really rock...the optical quality regarding sharpness and border performance it's just incredible - stars remain sharp almost at the very very extreme edge also the color correction(CA or color fringing) is very good-you need to look for it to find some... very very minimal - these are the best among those you asked for (it's lighter, deliver a very good AFOV of 65º, a good eye-relief, excellent optical correction, and many things more) so I can tell you these binoculars are optically awesome and you get as a bonus their IS system…
If you are thinking about the optical quality (IS or Non IS) these are very good - for me a truly premium.
regards Pedro
Okay, thanks guys. I'm starting to get the impression that the 15x50IS optics are on par with that of the Fujinon 16x70s. If one were to compare the two, would this be a fair summary?
Sharpness--pretty close
Contrast--pretty close?
Edge performance--pretty close
TFOV--edge to the canon (4.5* vs 4.0)
Limiting magnitude reach--I am guessing the fujis win (70mm vs 50mm objectives)
Weight--canons are much lighter
Eye relief--canons are more amenable to eyeglass wearers
Daytime use--canons win due to center focus
Hand-held Stability--duh, the canons
Price--fujinons win, being about $250-300 less ($600-700 vs $850-1000)
I know that these factors have different weights for different people, but since it is not possible for me to try each to compare before deciding, I am just trying to weigh the pros and cons of each. Are there other considerable differences? I had originally thought these were closer in price; if I go for the canons, I'll need to keep saving. 
Sorry if I am hijacking this thread. I guess it was originally about problems with the IS degrading the view. At least it is still related to qualities of the 15x50IS.
--Tad
--------------------
Orion XT8i, Vixen ED80Sf, Oberwerk BT-80/45
20x80 Oberwerk Std., 12x50 Nikon AE,
10x42 Celestron Regal LX, 8x40 Pentax PCF WP
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 9980
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Tad ,
I recall Todd Gross reporting at least 8 years ago that in his ( has to respected ) opinion , the Canon 15 x 50 IS had superior " edge performance " to almost every other binoculars he'd tried , and that it was a very close call between the Canon 15 x 50 sample he had and a sample of a Fujinon 16 x 70 FMTSX which he also had at the same time , with the Fujinon still " just " managing to " pull a little more detail " fom the sky , due mainly to the extra aperture ( from memory ).
Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 190
|
|
Hi Tad I don't know if I could really help but...there is my opinion.
I used to own a Fujinon 16x70mm and now I own a Canon 15x50 IS - let me explain that I am a guy who likes to use binoculars under the daytime (to watch some airplanes, landscapes, etc) as also under the night sky (to some casual stargazing, looking for some details on the Moon, etc) – I am talking here FORGIVEN the IS feature, just optical quality, weight, etc…
For ME the Canon IS is much better than the Fuji 16x70mm ''TO USE'' mainly because I don't like to use binoculars tripod mounted...WEIGHT - the Fuji is very hard to hold still without a tripod for even a short time due to its 2,10kgs...FOCUSER – the Fuji’s individual focuser it’s a pain (when hand held), Canon do a very easy and nice job with their central focuser – CA (Chromatic aberration) Under the day time the Fuji show a very apparent level of CA (false color) including at the FOV center and of course at the borders while in the Canon it is pretty absent at the center and just visible at the very edge – FIELD OF VIEW – The FOV in the Canons is a bit large and the field stop border is very black and sharp while in the Fuji it’s a bit difficult to reach and the field stop border is not so sharp and show some false color just on it – EYE RELIEF – Much better in the Canon EYEPIECES – The large barrels of the Fuji are a problem for who own a big nose or narrow set of eyes – I have 66mm IPD and the Fuji was a problem for me –I found them uncomfortable, in the Canon it’s possible to change the rubber eyecups and get a very comfortable use. EDGE PERFORMANCE – In the Fuji the flat field is evident and does a good job but in the Canons the stars remain really as tight pinpoint until the extreme edge – I prefer the Canon here – SHARPNESS – I found the Canon the sharpest – CONTRAST – I can’t tell anything here because I don’t remember the Fuji contrast level but I would say both have good contrast - BRIGHTNESS – I have not tried both side by side under the night sky but I believe the 70mm will do a better job due to the large aperture BUT not as some kind of miracle - the Canon deliver a very bright night image too.
If you are looking for a binocular to use just under the night sky and tripod mounted the Fuji would be fine BUT if you are looking for some binoculars to different purposes the Canon IS would be much better IMO.
IF I must choose today one of these to buy I would buy the Canon 15x50’s without a doubt – I would like just to point here – I don’t have mentioned the IS feature since the Fuji are not stabilized…the IS help a lot mainly under the night sky!
Cheers Pedro
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 190
|
|
Tad
Let me just to complete...I mentioned the Fuji weight but not the Canon weight...for hands the Canon while not quite light is very good for some casual use.
The Canon's are not waterproof nitrogen filled as the Fuji but they are advertised as suitable to use even under heavy rain.
If you are a very sensitive (and don't like as me) to CA and would like to get one for almost all purposes go to Canon...and get the IS feature as an extra help and fun.
Pedro
|
Mike Harvey
professor emeritus
Reged: 03/01/04
Posts: 559
Loc: Orlando, FL.
|
|
I, too, sold my Funjinon 16X70 FMT-SX's after getting a pair of the 15X50 Canon IS.
That pretty much speaks for itself.
Mike Harvey
|
Neil Weiner
member
Reged: 08/29/04
Posts: 98
|
|
Batteries are fresh and strong.
(1) I sort-of remember that when I engaged the IS (green light on without holding button), and then tilted the bino from horizontal to vertical (from viewing to neck-hanging) the IS automatically disengaged. But mine no longer does that.
(2) IS button seems a bit sloppiy compared to when new. Requires a bit of attention to press for effect.
For viewing, IS seems to work fine.
Has snyone experienced (1) or (2)?
Did it deteriorate, or stay stable?
Has anyone sent one in for warranty service?
How did it go?
Should I risk sending them in for a checkover before the 3-year warranty expires?
|
Rick
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 2440
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
Quote:
I had originally thought these were closer in price; if I go for the canons, I'll need to keep saving.
When you consider the price of the mount needed for the Fuji 16x70 FMT, the price equation tilts in favor of the Canons.
clear skies,
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
Edited by Rick (05/14/08 06:35 PM)
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 1591
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Canon 15x50 IS, ~$890 @ Adorama. Standard shipping was very cheap.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT (due July!)
Eon-120ED refractor
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 9980
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Hello Pedro old friend ! :-)
You deserve a medal for your recent posts , which have been very enlightening .
You are a great credit to English speaking Brazilians !
Kind Regards and clear skies
Kenny
--------------------
Two eyes and a preference to use both
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
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1695
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I, too, sold my Funjinon 16X70 FMT-SX's after getting a pair of the 15X50 Canon IS.
This does not surprise me. There is a huge loss of spontaneity when one moves from hand-holding to a mount.
One of my favorite observing environments is using the 18x50 Canon's on a 360° Swivel chair that leans back so I can view the Zenith without difficulty. Few situations match this level of freedom, and the 18x50's under dark skies serve up so many objects, that there are always new things to explore. I have gone through all the Messier objects (although I need to go through Virgo a bit more to sure of accurately cataloging all them), and have over 300 NGC objects listed in my observing log.
I think with effort a company could make similar binoculars with a bit more aperture (60mm) for only say an 8oz. (255g) increase in weight (if low weight was made an absolute priority along with premium optics) and that would still be acceptable, but for now I think the 18/15x50's provide a superb viewing experience that few binoculars can match.
--------------------
|
ronharper
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 889
|
|
I guess my observing style of sinking firmly back into a big chair with just-right armrests and my 16x70 is kind of unusual. The 70mm f/4 achromats of course are not super sharp, so when I go after double stars and such, I stop down to 50mm, approaching scopelike, and presumably Canonlike, neat bright star images. Lovely, but a bit annoying to think with an IS I could do it from a lightweight collapsible chair (I tried a Suntracker and found it too shaky). But, when I let the whole 70mm loose, it's like lighting the afterburner. Convenience and comfort are arguably as important as what is seen, but 50mm is definitely missing a lot, like, half the light.
Ron
|
Tad S.
super member
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 136
Loc: SW Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Hello Pedro old friend ! :-)
You deserve a medal for your recent posts , which have been very enlightening .
You are a great credit to English speaking Brazilians !
Kind Regards and clear skies
Kenny
Yes, Pedro! Thanks for your first-hand comparisons, and thank you, Kenny, for your comments and direction to Todd Gross' review, all very helpful. And Mike H, your additional endorsement confirms the title of this thread as a misnomer.
Concerning the price of these binos, I have seen a few poorly-rated internet retailers under $800, and 9/10-rated sellers (e.g., digital photo club) for around $850. Still, the versatility of these make them seem worth the extra cash over the $600 fujinons. Although, I do appreciate the classic, pebble-finish, high-quality heft. I am looking for something that I will hold on to forever. Rick mentioned the cost of a mount, which is a consideration, but fortunately, I am already set in that department.
I should probably just feed the pig and cogitate for a while, or at least until the tax rebate/stimulus check arrives. Thanks, for all the info!
--Tad
--------------------
Orion XT8i, Vixen ED80Sf, Oberwerk BT-80/45
20x80 Oberwerk Std., 12x50 Nikon AE,
10x42 Celestron Regal LX, 8x40 Pentax PCF WP
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1181
|
|
Hi TAd, et. al.,
My final comment on an interesting thread. I have the Canon 10x30IS and the Canon 15x50IS and a FUJI 7x50 FMT-SX.
In all honesty, I used to grab the FUJI off the shelf. These days, I almost always go for one of the Canons. NO problems with either, AND they still have the original Enelope NiMH cells in them, which I installed over TWO YEARS AGO!
Anyway, these are my preferences for a quick GAG. Just my simple thoughts on the matter in question.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 190
|
|
Hello Kenny my friend!
I hope you're fine there in England (lovely country my friend).
Thanks for such kind comments I am just trying to do my best and honest!
cheers Pedro
|
|
10 registered and 21 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: 1950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
