EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 15318
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
To allay any questions of batteries, I put new ones in when I got home. The others were old. I'll continue to try observing.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3927
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
To allay any questions of batteries, I put new ones in when I got home. The others were old. I'll continue to try observing.
edz
Something else to be aware of is that these binos eat batteries really fast -- especially alkaline cells, and especially when it's cold out. Both NiMH and lithium cells work vastly better than alkalines in them, for whatever reason.
The IS 10x30s are much more forgiving toward the batteries. And all Canon IS binos that I've tried start to growl and chatter when the batteries get low.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 4343
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
I just took my 15x50s out for some testing, and I have observed the "fuzzy" effect that has been described. I found it easiest to observe the effect when looking at some leaves but also when reading the label and looking at some bar codes of a some food product visible in the kitchen about 40 feet away. There's a transient loss of resolution that is insufficient to interfere (for me) with reading but is noticeable. I think it's imperfect correction for shakes. If I increase the shakes it comes more often and stays longer. I put the binoculars on a mount and repeated the test with and without the IS. I think the view was slightly better without the IS, but I was not able to see the fuzzy effect that way.
I suspect there are a number of reasons why not everyone notices this, mostly having to do with personal factors and viewing habits, not to mention whether you're in a glass half-full or glass half-empty mood.
--------------------
Mike
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 36mm QX, 25mm Tak Or, 13mm Ethos, 9mm BGO, 6mm ZAO-II, 5.1mm XO, 2x TV Barlow.
- Filters: Baader M&S, 6-piece color set, ND.6, ND.9
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt with 20mm Meade 5K SWA + GSO 3x Barlow
- Binoculars: 15x50 image stabilized, 12x50 roofs
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3389
|
|
Quote:
I suspect there are a number of reasons why not everyone notices this, mostly having to do with personal factors and viewing habits, not to mention whether you're in a glass half-full or glass half-empty mood.
Yes, by the time your glass is half empty, a lot of things could look fuzzy!
--------------------
By day the universe is like a kiss,
at night the deep transparent skies
carry us upwards, outwards, into space.
Lie on your back on cooling grass and stare.
P.K. Page
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3942
|
|
Quote:
IS binoculars aren't meant to make mounts obsolete. What they do is improve and extend the range of what binoculars can be used sans mount. To me, that makes them very desirable and flexible. They preserve the freedom that attracts many people to binoculars in the first place.
Peter- I think you nailed the whole issue on the head. It would be foolhardy to expect IS to improve on a mounted fine world-class binocular, and to me, it sounds like that is what some people are expecting. That simply isn't gonna happen! It is merely a way of breaking free of a mount, and I challenge anyone to handhold a standard high quality binocular and get as good and enjoyable view as I do on IS. Unless you get a bad example! Or weak batteries! And I haven't had what I feel excessively short life out of my batteries. Then I don't use cheap batteries.
And Edz- I think almost everyone here agrees that your reputation for fairness and objectivity when it comes to reviewing binoculars is robot-like, methodical and as unbiased as they come. I reread Joe's comment, and nowhere in there did I see it as directed towards you.
Wes
|
Mike Hosea
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/24/03
Posts: 4343
Loc: "Metrowest" Boston
|
|
Quote:
We can meet up and try our 15x50s side by side if you'd like. I'm only about 30 miles west of Boston.
Now that I've seen the effect, I think comparing our 15x50s will not be much help to anyone, but maybe someday you could show me the rest of your toys. 
--------------------
Mike
- 7" f/6.7 home-built Newt and equatorial platform
- 36mm QX, 25mm Tak Or, 13mm Ethos, 9mm BGO, 6mm ZAO-II, 5.1mm XO, 2x TV Barlow.
- Filters: Baader M&S, 6-piece color set, ND.6, ND.9
- 120mm f/8.3 home-built grab-n-go Newt with 20mm Meade 5K SWA + GSO 3x Barlow
- Binoculars: 15x50 image stabilized, 12x50 roofs
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 2075
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Edz - I hope you saw my earlier comments in this and other threads on IS about disengaging and re-engaging the IS.
Turning it on and leaving it on provides the worst possible performance at least in my experience with canon IS binoculars (I've had 3 pairs of different models, but now just have the 18x50's). I have found it makes a very significant difference if you shut the IS off, focus as carefully as you can on an object and then engage the IS and fine-tune if necessary. The images are at least twice as sharp that way and I see none of the coma/flaring artifacts that are otherwise commonly seen. Stars are absolutely pin-point in the center of the field
Sure the views are going to be sharper if tripod-mounted, but the difference is not that great if you are careful to engage the IS at the object you are viewing. I have seen 3 of the stars in the Trapezium and find that with care and persistence, I can split stars in the 9/10" range handheld in my 18x50's which would be completely impossible in any non-IS binoculars.
I would be interesting knowing if you see this making a difference in your observations...
--------------------
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1957
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
[in part]
IS binoculars aren't meant to make mounts obsolete. What they do is improve and extend the range of what binoculars can be used sans mount. To me, that makes them very desirable and flexible. They preserve the freedom that attracts many people to binoculars in the first place.
Exactly. Normal 10x binoculars are simply not steady enough in my hands to provide a view I am happy with. The ability to use 12x, 15x, and 18x without a tripod is a real joy, and the views provide far more detail than I get with my 7x42s.
Clear skies, Alan
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1957
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Many questions here in this one question! The 10x42L is advertised as weatherproof, the 15 & 18X are advertised as water resistant.
The newer 15 and 18x50s are described as "All Weather." According to the manual they can be used in heavy rain.
Clear skies, Alan
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1957
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
As a birder since 1965, and having bought new binoculars from time to time, I've come to the conclusion that the only proper way to pick a pair is to try it in person. Reviews can provide some valuable information, but they will never tell you if it is a pair you will be happy with. I've tried a couple of binoculars that were highly recommended by a number of people, but they were not to my liking.
I know it often isn't easy to find a pair to try for yourself, but I'm convinced it is worth the time and trouble.
Clear skies, Alan
Edited by Alan French (05/11/09 11:21 PM)
|
kwkee
sage
Reged: 08/17/03
Posts: 294
Loc: Far East
|
|
Guys....
Just want to ask something quick about the Canon I. Do you need to keep pressing onto the button is order to engage the IS function? Or do you press once to engage and press another time to disengage?
Thanks
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 15318
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
I have found it makes a very significant difference if you shut the IS off, focus as carefully as you can on an object and then engage the IS and fine-tune if necessary. The images are at least twice as sharp that way and I see none of the coma/flaring artifacts that are otherwise commonly seen.
That's the method I've been using. BTW, I found it impossible to hold the IS button down and attempt to refocus the right diopter. with my left hand.
Last night I viewed Saturn. I compared the 15x50 to my 15x70 Ultra.
I mounted the 15x70 Ultra and could see the points of the rings sticking out both ends. I handheld the Ultras and Saturn was swimming around rapidly and I could no longer hold it steady enough to see the points.
I mounted the Canon 15x50. Without IS turned on I could barely see what I thought were the points of the rings sticking out. With IS turned on I could not see the points sticking out and the disk grew to be slightly misshapen.
With the 15x50 off the tripod, when I turned IS on, it would settle the rapid movement to a slow easy to follow sway. But the image was no better. Saturn looked slightly out of focus and I could not improve it by refocusing the main focus dial.
So I tested these two with/without tripod on a resolution chart. I suspected readings were probably a step low all the way around since these are not in bright light. That's normal for lower light level. FWIW, the best reading I've ever achieved with the Ultra was one half step lower, 5.8 arcsec (84 apparent). The finest readings I've ever achieved with mounted regular 15x70s was 6.5 arcsec, with the Nikon SE 12x50 7.0 arcsec (84 apparent). Lower apparent readings are better.
Obie Ultra 15x70
mounted 6.2 arcsec (93 apparent)
handheld 8.7 arcsec
Canon 15x50 IS
mounted 6.9 arcsec (104 apparent)
handheld 9.8 arcsec
handheld w/IS 7.8 arcsec
FWIW, I tried handheld first and could not focus either binocular fine enough on the moving target to do this test. I needed to rest the binocular on the banister to get decent focus. Also I tried several of these readings several times, so these are the best readings I got, I had some worse readings.
Comments on above. Without a doubt the IS engaged is causing the lines to blur. It's still better than the 15x70 handheld, but not as good as the Canon mounted and not near as good as the Ultra mounted.
The Ultra handheld could not be held steady enough to see as fine a detail, but the image quality was better. The lines that I could see were sharp and dark. The lines I saw in the IS were fuzzy bblurred and grey.
If all you ever compare is the handheld difference in the images, my guess is that you will be so wowed by the difference in the images swimming (or not swimming with IS), that only few would be looking for the finest detail to see which really has finer image quality. The target size I'm seeing finest details on ranges from 10mm to 7mm at a distance of 100 yds. 10mm was the poorest reading. So, comparing the quality of images requires the observer to see a 7-8mm target at 100 yds and the lines are about 2mm thick. That's much smaller than Saturn in the test above.
edz
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 111
|
|
Ed,
Sample variation plays an even bigger role with the Canons than with "ordinary" binoculars. Although I have always seen a slight drop in resolution from non-IS tripod-mounted tests to hand-held tests with IS engaged, in my experience the difference with a good pair is much less than your unit's almost 12%. I hope you get to try a better sample.
For adjusting the diopter with the IS engaged, do the "short click" to engage the IS and leave it on (for up to 5 minutes). This works with the 15/18x50 and the 10x42, but not on the other IS models which require you to continuously press the button to keep IS on.
Kimmo
|
Luigi
Postmaster
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 5272
Loc: MA
|
|
Tried the zenith with mine last night and the bins worked the same as on the horizon.
EdZ measurements are about as quantitative as any for bins. Most reviews are much more subjective. With the IS fuzzies, we're down to the point were personal sensitivities and preferences dominate the discussion, just as with many other attributes of optical gear; edge of FOV sharpnes, Newt coma, reafractor color, mount stability, G&Gness... What's perfectly fine for some is intolerable for others. It's not so much whether you can discern it but rather whether it bothers you. There's a lot of variety in what's available because because of this.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1929
|
|
EdZ...
Thanks for doing the brief test. I have to run now and will not return to my computer until this evening after supper. I will try to study your test results at that time.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
Alan French
Night Owl
Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 1957
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I am not surprised at EdZ's report. There are some trade offs with the IS binoculars. I still prefer the freedom of using binoculars without needing to add a tripod. Binoculars are the ultimate portable tool for astronomy, nicely complimenting naked eye views. If I need a tripod, I'd just as soon take out a small telescope.
Clear skies, Alan
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 15318
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Hi Kimmo,
Quote:
in my experience the difference with a good pair is much less than your unit's almost 12%.
In this instance I did not attempt averaging best/OK or OK/suspected to get any half-step readings. So I'm limited to the 12% steps on the resolution charrts. But I would say, the visual difference between the two was quite noticable, so I doubt it would tighten up to less than 12% difference. I should also note, I picked my best 15x70 to use for the comparison.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 15318
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I compared the handheld readings to many other hand held readings I've gathered.
Obie Ultra 15x70
handheld 8.7 arcsec (131 apparent)
Canon 15x50 IS
handheld 9.8 arcsec (147 apparent)
handheld w/IS 7.8 arcsec (117 apparent)
I have recorded more than two dozen handheld readings from 10x50s to 15x70s that all were between 120 and 136. I've recorded ten handheld readings between 107 and 119 with a variety of binoculars, including 7x50s, 8x40/42, 8x42roofs, 10x42s, 10x42roofs, and 10x50s.
As I said earlier, this was not bright light. My experience tells me in better light, every one of the readings I recorded would be one step better. Giving the benefit of doubt, and adjusting one step (12%) better for lack of light, it would put the Canon IS at 131 handheld and 104 handheld with IS turned on.
Even with that adjustment, that would not include the Canon 15x50 among the top "better than the mean" binoculars for normal handheld resolution.
With that, it would just barely move the IS handheld reading in front of the best handheld readings I've recorded with these other binoculars, but only by a very small (3-7) percent. These others do not have the benefit of the slowed sway, but have noticably better resolution, so make it easier to see handheld images.
William Optic 7x50 ED (107)
Nikon ProStar 7x50 (107)
Oberwerk Mariner 7x50 (110)
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp (112)
BTW, images merge dead on with the Cannon. Images in my Obie Ultra are off by about 15 arcseconds, and still, the Obie has better measurable resolution than the Canon.
all data for this sample only.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
harbinjer
super member
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 175
Loc: Southeastern Minnesota
|
|
The fine image vibration could be an artifact of persistence-of-vision. Meaning that in old CRT monitors, if slow refresh rate didn't bother you, than you might not see the vibration, your brain might just average it out. Whereas people who had to set their monitors to the max refresh or at least 80 Hz, they might notice it. I know that CRT's are rarer now days, so it might be harder to use as a test.
My friend did an experiment in high school with a blinking red light that would blink faster and faster until the person saw it as a steady light. I don't remember what his conclusions were. But there must've been some good variability.
Do you think that might be the difference between the observers who see the vibrations and those who don't? It would certainly explain a lot to me.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 15318
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
considering how much variability can exist in what people see, or at the very least variability in how people define what they see, (Some people describe poor edge correcton as sharp to the edge; some people do not see several arcminutes miscollimation.), I'm not the least bit surprised to see data that does not necessarily agree with some interpretations of image quality.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
