EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Simple test. Comparison of Canon 15x50 IS while using IS handheld, compared to Fujinon FMT-SX2 10x50 tripod mounted. Sky mag 5.2, about 2AM, target M45 is fairly high.
Canon 15x50 could see mag 10.05 easy, mag 10.25 with some difficulty. Canon also suspected seeing mag 10.37 with a few averted vision glimpses of a few seconds each. Never could hold 10.37. Benefitted from sitting down. Could not glimpse 10.37 while standing.
Fujinon 10x50 could see mag 10.05 fairly easy, mag 10.25 averted. Could hold on to mag 10.25 averted, but could never look right at it. never saw mag 10.37.
Cannon 15x50 = LM 10.37
Fujinon 10x50 = LM 10.25
Next target was a double star at the center of M45. B536 is a fairly equal mag 8 pair separated by 39 arcseconds.
Fujinon 10x50 mounted, clear distinct separation
Canon 15x50 IS, separated, but sometimes appears to be a faint line rather than two.
Image quality here on a faint close pair was better in the Fuji 10x50.
As noted by some users, there is no doubt more faint stars pop into view when the IS is engaged. However, close scrutiny shows the 15x advantage while using IS adds only a very small 0.12mag gain over mounted 10x50. FWIW, typically a mounted 15x binocular (aperture equalized) will increase LM by about 3/10ths to 4/10ths magnitude beyond 10x. FWIW2, I've recorded LM of mag 10.0 using a 12x50 handheld under mag 5.2 skies.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Very interesting
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3460
|
|
Interesting comparison... Another interesting comparison would be, say- the 10x42L to the Fuji 10x50, both handheld- only with the IS active on the Canon. A more direct comparison to see how much the IS actually did for the views.
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1276
|
|
Very interesting Ed. Thank you. That is a surprising result, and seems like there's an optical quality difference.
I had my 10x50 out last night looking through sucker holes, and it continues to amaze me with its sharp and intense stars, appearance of high "contrast" (ha!), and field correction.
I bet the Canon would win a purely "handheld" contest, though. That really is what they're for, after all.
Ron
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Yes, compare the canon to different 10x50 and the difference would probably be greater (in favour of the canons).
The fuji is a remarkable 10x50, the contrast is just incredible and makes it perform like a larger bino IMO.
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3460
|
|
The 10x50 Fuji is indeed a modern benchmark in optical quality. The Nikon 12x50 SE is another. The Canon 10x42L is not quite up to the sheer optical quality of the Nikon (IMHO)- but close. Quite close. I think the Canon 10x42 with IS on would best either of these two in EdZ's test (all 3 handheld). Which is what IS is all about.
Wes
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Yes, compare the canon to different 10x50 and the difference would probably be greater (in favour of the canons).
Yes, it would if compared to another 10x50. In other test comparisons under skies of mag 5.0-5.2, the Fujinon 10x50 went deeper than several other 10x50s by from 0.2mag to 0.4 mag. But that a very strong advantage given to the 15x Canon. That extra 5x adds a considerable amount.
Keep in mind these two points;
Canon IS is said by some to have remarkable optics, so the comparison to the 10x Fuji may not be out-of-line. If optics are equal, then advantage definitely skewed towards the Canon due to its 15x.
A 15x Canon is compared here to a 10x binocular, considerably lower in power. If I were to compare to a mounted 15x50 (masked 15x70), based on numerous previous tests I have on record, the masked 15x70 would drop 0.2 to 0.3 mag below its peak of 10.6 to 10.8 for the full 15x70, down to 10.4 to 10.5. In that case, a mounted 15x70 masked to 15x50 would equal or beat out the Canon 15x50 IS. Advantage goes to the mounted binocular.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
I would have liked to see your results if you tripod mounted the IS bins, with IS on or off. I suspect they would have done much better.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3460
|
|
Quote:
Canon IS is said by some to have remarkable optics, so the comparison to the 10x Fuji may not be out-of-line. If optics are equal, then advantage definitely skewed towards the Canon due to its 15x.
However, it is also been said before (and comparing my Canon 10x42L's and 15x50 I strongly agree) that the 10x42L's have the highest optical quality of the 3 top-end Canon IS models, which is why I think that comparing them (the 10x42L's) with other high quality 10x bino's- such as the Nikon's and Fuji's would be an interesting test.
Wes
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1276
|
|
There's a rule of thumb around here that magnification is more important than aperture, so comparing a 10x to a 15x is is just not appropriate, never mind that the 10x went just as deep in this case.
If we are going to let the IS do what it is supposed to, permit critical handheld observation, and compare the IS to a mounted binocular of similar magnification, I think the apples to apples comparison would be the 15x50 Canon vs the 16x70 Fujinon mounted. Or, is that mean?
Ron
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Judging by the results of this test, yes! very mean!
But like Wes says above, IS is all about handheld - and the Canons, though only going a little deeper with a whopping extra 5x power still outperform the fujis with no need for a tripod, which is very important for some observers on this forum.
And I too would have liked to see some data from the canons mounted, but with the IS off. I suspect they would pull away from the 10x50 further.
Still, interesting results and we thank you EdZ.
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3050
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised at the astro performance. The results are totally predictable by aperture and mag. I always felt the Canon was the alternative to the Nikon 12x50SE anyway given their comparable prices. It's all about the mount, or rather the lack of, that makes the Canon appealing to me.
But if you really want to see the Canon 15x "stomp all over" the Fuji 10x, just use them during the daytime where image scale becomes the dominant attribute!
On the otherhand, as much as Wes may want to see it, I don't think the 10x42L would fare as well against either the Fuji or Nikon 12x for astro use. The 8mm aperture difference just wouldn't compensate for any percieved quality difference the second UD element in the eyepiece group brought by the Canon.
cheers,
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
Edited by Rick (09/14/09 07:00 PM)
|
Wes James
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 3460
|
|
Quote:
On the otherhand, as much as Wes may want to see it, I don't think the 10x42L would fare as well against either the Fuji or Nikon 12x for astro use. The 8mm aperture difference just wouldn't compensate for any percieved quality difference the second UD element in the eyepiece group brought by the Canon.
Rick-
Just to be clear- my comments/feelings are that the Canon 10x42IS with the IS on will beat the others if they're unmounted. It's not about the 2nd UD element- rather the IS. I believe that the IS will more than make up for the difference in aperture.
Wes
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Canon 15x50 vs Oberwerk 15x70 masked to 15x50
Both mounted, no IS engaged
For Limiting Magnitude the Canon saw mag 10.37. The Oberwerk saw mag 10.25.
For resolution, the Oberwerk 15x(50) could see two components of the Trapezium, 19.2" and 13.3", for an apparent res of 200 arcseconds. The Canon could not resolve any of the components of the Trapezium. This correlates well with the previous resolution chart test where the Canon was a full step behind the Oberwerk Ultra in line pairs resolution. The Obie 15x70 is almost equal with the Obie Ultra 15x70.
For field sharpness, the Canon lost sight of Stf 747, a 36" pair situated at the tip of Orion's sword, by 65% out from center. It deteriorated rapidly beyond that. The Oberwerk 15x(50) lost sight at the same position. That's 540 arcsec apparent. My norm is to measure a good sharp fov to 600 arcsec apparent. The Oberwerk has good sharp field out to 75%, the Canon probably 70%. For comparison the Oberwerk Ultra 15x70 can still see these same stars out past 80% of the fov.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Hmmm...
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
The Canon could not resolve any of the components of the Trapezium.
Very odd! It sounds to me as though you may have a defective unit.
Back when I owned the Canon IS 15x45s, I routinely resolved 3 stars in the Trapezium, and got hints of the fourth. People with sharper eyes than mine saw four stars without much effort. That was hand-holding the binos with IS engaged. And generally, your double-star observations indicate that your acuity is significantly better than mine.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12912
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I wouldn't mind betting most 70mm when masked down to 50mm would allow for cleaner splits than most 50mm binoculars .
Given the increased f ratio , it's a bit of an unfair contest really .
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
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 731
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Sounds odd to me too. My 10x42L can split Mizar (14+") with IS engaged.
--------------------
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
|
RichD
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Yes, I was surprised to see EdZ couldn't split any of the trapezium. Also surprised by the edge correction report - many users on this forum have often stated how good this area is on the canons.
Otherwise as Kenny says, the increased f ratio should put the 15x70 over the top
--------------------
Clear skies
Rich
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
