camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
the scenario is I want a pair of glasses for for daytime/twilight wildlife viewing. I'd be able to budget maybe $400 for my bino's in this case and the 10x30's fit squarely into that, which makes me wonder whether the 10x that's stabilized with 30mm of aperture would trump the non-stabilized 10x42's in the same price range.
what are your thoughts?
PS - EdZ, if you feel this would be better off in CloudyDays, feel free to shift it over there. thanks! 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
Edited by camvan (05/24/08 05:10 AM)
|
avare
member
Reged: 08/07/07
Posts: 28
|
|
The 42 mm objective would give you a larger eye pupil of around 4 mm which would be a definite advantage for astronomical viewing. Unless you are in a very unstable environment like a boat, I would not consider IS of value at 10x power, unless you have relatively shaky hands.
Andre
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2109
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I'd be able to budget maybe $400 for my bino's in this case and the 10x30's fit squarely into that, which makes me wonder whether the 10x that's stabilized with 30mm of aperture would trump the non-stabilized 10x42's in the same price range.
I own both the IS 10x30s and 10x50s, and I've hardly used the 10x50s since buying the 10x30s. Yes, the extra 20 mm of aperture does make a difference for viewing faint fuzzies at the edge of visibility, but the difference is much smaller than people who haven't actually compared them expect.
For daytime use, of course, your pupils are smaller than 3 mm, so there's effectively no advantage at all to 10x42s.
And yes, IS makes a huge difference even at 10X. That's especially true for astronomy, but it's true for everything that I view. But one nice thing about the IS 10x30s is that they're still great binos even if the batteries run out.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2066
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
I own a variety of bins and just got a 15x50IS. I was undecided about keeping them because with the IS, there's a fuzziness that comes and goes. The steadier you hold them, the less it's there. They are excellent bins with the IS off and the net effect of IS is to improve what you can see, despite the fuzzies. Just before I read your post I was outside with them and thinking a smaller lower power pair would be great for general purpose use. The 50mm is kind of bulky and heavy for that. For me, the IS would certainly be a benefit at 10x. I know the difficulty of trying to determine whether a buck is legal or not and how much of a help steadying the view can be.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
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
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< Yes, the extra 20 mm of aperture does make a difference for viewing faint fuzzies at the edge of visibility, but the difference is much smaller than people who haven't actually compared them expect. >
Tony ,
I'm glad that someone from such a prominent perch as you sit upon has made that comment .
I remember a few years ago on this forum , when faced with trying to advise someone about their potential purchase of a 10 x 50 binocular , presenting the opinion that there is not THAT much difference between what I see through 10 x 42 and 10 x 50 , and my post being met with very little agreement about the point !
And this from one who prefers 5mm exit - pupils to 4mm exit - pupils at any time of day or night ! :-)
Clear skies
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: 3363
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
I see more detail in my $200 Canon 8x25 IS than my $1,600 Zeiss 7x42 FL's or Pentax 8x42 DCF WP's. And the IS advantage increases at 10x or more.
--------------------
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.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< there's a fuzziness that comes and goes. The steadier you hold them, the less it's there. >
Luigi ,
That was exactly the impression I thought I'd come away with following several separate cursory trials with both the 10 x 30 and 18 x 50 Canons , a few years ago .
Last weekend I took the opportunity to spend a bit more time with a Canon 12 x 36 IS Mark2 , and that only confirmed the same impression as you have .
To MY eyes , in the DAYTIME , the image quality is so noticeably superior with the stabilisation OFF , that I can barely believe that not everyone else who owns them thinks so , too !
I considered it could have been due to flattened batteries or some kind of fault , but it's rightful owner , a fellow CN member , couldn't notice any difference in sharpness or clarity with the IS button ON or OFF ! ?
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
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< I see more detail in my $200 Canon 8x25 IS than my $1,600 Zeiss 7x42 FL's or Pentax 8x42 DCF WP's. And the IS advantage increases at 10x or more. >
Joe ,
I was very disappointed not to see a PHOTO of the Canon 8 x 25 IS attached to that post ! 
--------------------
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
|
Special Ed
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/03
Posts: 3545
Loc: Greenbrier Co., WV 38N, 80W
|
|
I just ordered the Canon 12x36 IS II's. They will replace my 10x50's and from what I've read here and in the mini-reviews thread, I should see just as much if not more. And they only weigh a pound.
Btw, Amazon has a good price on them.
--------------------
Michael Rosolina
8" f/10 Orange Tube SCT
4.25" f/4.2 Astroscan Reflector
SVP 3.6" f/13.6 CA Reflector
40mm PST f/10
APM Germany HD 15x70 binoculars
Canon 12x36 IS II binoculars
Mark I Eyeball
My CN Gallery
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< I just ordered the Canon 12x36 IS II's. >
I predict you will be very pleased .
Even if the I.S were to fail for any reason , consider it a little bonus :-)
Fine optics !
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
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
I wish I could afford the 12x36's...but alas, the doubling of price is a difficulty! 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2703
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Cam, by now you'll be used to the fact you'll get as many opinions as posts, but I'll offer you mine anyway.
Since you specifically mention twilight wildlife viewing, then I'm convinced you should go for the largest exit pupil, 6 mm if not 7. Twilight is the time of day when exit pupil plays the largest role in what you see.
It is no coincidence that 8x56 binoculars are popular with hunters that go out in twilight. Personally I find that my 7x50s beat anything else in twilight.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3363
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
< I see more detail in my $200 Canon 8x25 IS than my $1,600 Zeiss 7x42 FL's or Pentax 8x42 DCF WP's. And the IS advantage increases at 10x or more. >
Joe ,
I was very disappointed not to see a PHOTO of the Canon 8 x 25 IS attached to that post !
Kenny, see photo here
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
one of the reasons the 10x30 IS are so attractive is their light weight! most 10x42's or even 7 or 10x50's weigh considerably more and weight is an issue.
I highly doubt I'd use them in twilight, but there is the possibility.
any recommendations for lightweight bino's in the said sizes, Mark?
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3363
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
The Canon 8x25 IS is the lightest IS binocular made and is made in Japan.
--------------------
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.
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
Quote:
The Canon 8x25 IS is the lightest IS binocular made and is made in Japan.
and 8x25 is not sufficient for my needs.
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2066
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
For me, I find larger objectives only buy a few more minutes of hunting in twilight. I prefer high quality 8x32 roofs for hunting and general purpose daylight use. They're lightweight and compact.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
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
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
what 8x32's Luigi? 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1674
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4588
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-8x32-Waterproof-Binoculars-Strap/dp/B00004THDA
http://excelsis.com/1.0/entry.php?sectionid=21&entryid=100
If you recall my wife has the Katmai 6x32mm.
I have handheld the Katmai 8x32mm and would NOT recommend it because it shakes ALOT, a result of it being toooo lightweight.
Edited by hallelujah (05/25/08 12:17 AM)
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2066
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Zeiss Victory 8x32 T FL. They replaced my older (18 yrs?) Leica 7x42 Trinovids as my main glass. They're expensive but you can find some very good 8x32s under $500. I think you're on the right track with the 10x30 IS. If their optics are like the 15x50's they should be excellent with the bonus of IS.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
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
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
Special Ed
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/03
Posts: 3545
Loc: Greenbrier Co., WV 38N, 80W
|
|
Quote:
I wish I could afford the 12x36's...but alas, the doubling of price is a difficulty!
I heard that! I started out thinking I would get the 10x30's--they are plenty big enough for my purposes (daytime viewing and as an auxiliary finder scope at night). I liked the large FOV, too. After after lots of thought and extensive research (I am the opposite of an impulse buyer), I found them as low as $315 (USD) and knew they were worth the price. But I have $100 more in my new binoculars budget than you do and I found the 12x36's for $515. The FOV is still generous and I'm hoping the extra aperture will help make those faint comets and such a little easier to spot.
Quote:
< I just ordered the Canon 12x36 IS II's. >
I predict you will be very pleased .
Even if the I.S were to fail for any reason , consider it a little bonus :-)
Fine optics !
Kenny
Thanks, Kenny. I don't buy new stuff very often so I'm excited about this purchase. I've had my 10x50's for more than 15 years and they have done a workmanlike job, even though they aren't even listed as recommended for astronomy anywhere I've ever seen. People who look through them day or night are amazed at the view--but I've found that most people have never looked through binoculars with even decent optics, much less really fine optics. I'm looking forward to this upgrade. 
As always, the discussions, reviews, and comparisons posted here have been most helpful.
--------------------
Michael Rosolina
8" f/10 Orange Tube SCT
4.25" f/4.2 Astroscan Reflector
SVP 3.6" f/13.6 CA Reflector
40mm PST f/10
APM Germany HD 15x70 binoculars
Canon 12x36 IS II binoculars
Mark I Eyeball
My CN Gallery
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
I only wish I had the $$$ for the 12x36's, otherwise I'd be pretty sure that's what I'd grab! you got a very nice deal. I'm glad!
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 