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
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
For me, I just don't put a lot of value on the choice to view without a binocular mount. I'd rather have a better binocular, have it mounted, and see a higher quality view.
I agree, for astro use I like my BT80-45s,RA-88-SAs,28x110s or binoviewer/scope combo.
deleted photos off-topic for a 10x42 IS thread
--------------------
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
Edited by EdZ (09/29/09 06:17 PM)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12907
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks for that further expansion and explanation of the details of your tests , Ed .
When you say " The Bushnell Legend 8x42 Roof can see 10.3 arcseconds mounted and 14.5 arcseconds handheld." , I would probably prefer " Through the Bushnell Legend 8 x 42 Roof , I can see ------- etc. " as I'm sure not everyone has equal levels of visual acuity .
For example , I may well see similar details of resolution myself when I'm wearing my prescription distance glasses , but I'm certain I wouldn't if I wasn't wearing them !
Then there is the point that Tony F. made so well , about different individuals having different perceptions .
A good example of this involves myself and my good friend Brian ( Medinabrit ).
Brian GENUINELY considers his 12 x 36 Canon IS binoculars to be optically equal to ( and more useful handheld ) than the Nikon 12 x 50 SE that he sold directly as a result of his opinions .
Also Brian can detect literally NO DIFFERENCE in image quality between the Canon IS binoculars whether the stabilisation feature is switched on or off .
Now let no - one misunderstand me here -- I'm not suggesting for one moment that my eyes or opinions are any " better " than Brian's , but TO MY EYES ( and mind ) from the moment I activated the stabilisation on his 12 x 36 Canon IS , to the moment I finally stopped making comparisons , I could actually SEE that the image was sharper WITHOUT the stabilisation feature switched on .
It may have been the condition of the battery , but the point is that I could EASILY see the difference , and Brian couldn't see any difference at all !
I happened to have my Nikon 10 x 42 SE around my neck at the time , too , and as soon as I reverted back to looking through that after the Canon , I whisphered to myself something along the lines " Ahhh -- now THAT'S better ! -- thank goodness for these Nikons ! " .
I tried to make this very point a few posts back in this thread , without being too specific , but unfortunately it seems not to have been properly understood or taken in the right spirit by everyone who has contributed since .
That is a shame .
I don't know if it's just my imagination , or why it is , if true , but I honestly cannot think of any other series of binoculars that some owners seem to be so " aggressively defensive " of than these Canon Image Stabilised models .
Then again , at least SOME owners who like them a lot seem prepared to admit that in their OWN opinion , the actual optics are not quite in the same class as that of some their other binoculars , so thankfully , EdZ and myself are not the only two people in the world who seem to share an opinion on them ! :-)
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Now when are we going to hear more about the 15x50IS Ed? I didn't know you've had it for 6mos! I think an ideal comparable would be the 12x50SE given their similar price point.
thx for your work!
Rick
See Canon 15x50 IS Lim mag vs Fuji 10x50 and
Canon IS 15x50 tests in How close is IS image to mounted view? thread
Ironic what the title of that older thread was. This thread goes much further to answer the question How close is IS image to mounted image.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
Edited by EdZ (09/29/09 06:30 PM)
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
For me, I just don't put a lot of value on the choice to view without a binocular mount. I'd rather have a better binocular, have it mounted, and see a higher quality view.
I agree, for astro use I like my BT80-45s,RA-88-SAs,28x110s or binoviewer/scope combo.
deleted photos off-topic for a 10x42 IS thread
Is posting photos of mounted binoculars in reply to a post on mounted binocular now not allowed ? When did that start ?
--------------------
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
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
next time try to keep it a little closer to the subject of the topic. Instruments with 15x to 150x more power that weigh in ten times as much are pretty far out there.
--------------------
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: 4069
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think to some extent this discussion dances around the fact that different observers value different characteristics in their binoculars. Some (possibly Ed falls into this camp) put a premium on raw optical performance. Others are prepared to surrender some of that for the sake of features such as image stabilization. It probably goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways) that either perspective is valid -- it all depends on the individual's priorities. No one can decide what those should be for another person.
I have more than a dozen binoculars in my house, but when I go observing I tend to choose the same ones over and over. I get the greatest use out of my 15x45 and 10x30 image-stabilized binoculars (ISBs). I have other binoculars that are optically superior, but for me, the freedom from having to use a binocular mount is important enough that I choose the ISBs most of the time. I know many skilled observers who make a similar choice. I also know equally skilled observers to take a different route. As I said before, different priorities lead to different (and equally valid) choices.
On the specific topic of the Canon ISBs, it's clear that Ed has provided a unique resource that is potentially a real boon to the technically minded among us. His central point (if I may do Ed the injustice of summarizing his finely detailed work) is that there is no optical free lunch -- you gotta give something to get something. The point that has to be considered is if the thing given (some optical quality) is outweighed by the thing gotten (image-stabilization).
I only speak for myself when I say that I find the optical shortcomings of the Canons I've looked at to be so minor that the gain in utility represented by the image stabilization makes the choice a no brainer. Just because optically superior choices exist, it doesn't follow that the Canons are *BLEEP*. Simply put, for my observing situation, I see more with the ISBs than with other binoculars. At the end of the night, that's all that matters to me.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Gary
I think that is a good point. I tired of mounting binoculars some time ago (if I go to that much trouble I'll set up a scope) and hand hold 100% of the time. I use a variety of Zeiss and Leicas up to 15x60 hand held for both birding and astronomy and only recently picked up the Canon 10x42L IS. While my Zeiss and Leicas have better optics, there is no question in my mind after side-by-siding them on a variety of targets that I see noticeably more detail in the Canons.
Same 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.
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: 730
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
As for the price, Canon "L" users have always been compelled to throw down the $$$$ for that little red stripe!
Rick,
Do you have any insight from your side of the world as to why there has been such a significant price hike in this model? Seems like only a year ago they could be had for $400 less. The dollar drop against the yen would only account for a small fraction of that.
--------------------
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
|
dvb
different Syndrome.
Reged: 06/18/05
Posts: 3032
|
|
I'm also surprised the Canon 10x42 EdZ tested -the only IS with the coveted "L" - tested relatively badly (at least, relative to the best) in terms of focus, resolution, and conformity to specs.
Like many others, I really like the Canons (I have the 10x30, 12x36, and 15x50)-- if they aren't the best, they are pretty darned good, and excellent for my use, which is as an instrument I can use without a tripod.
--------------------
"But seeing through a telescope is 50% vision and 50% imagination." - Chet Raymo
Skywatcher 10" f/4.7 Newt on Matilda
Celestron CF 9.25"
Vixen CF 8" f/4 Newt
Meade 8" SN f/4
Celestron C6 SCT
Skywatcher ED100
Skywatcher ED80
EQ6 Pro "Matilda"
AT Voyager
Canon 15x50is
Mallincam HyperColor Plus
|
medinabrit
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/27/04
Posts: 648
Loc: medina ohio USA.
|
|
Well after reading Kennys above post i once again took my 12X IS outside Looking at distant lights & the sky.Try as i might i could not detect any difference IS on off .
This was with then supported on a tripod but not actually fixed to the tripod .
Of course held freehand the IS view was much superior due to the lack of body movement .
And i did shoot pistol bullseye matches for quite a few years,
Sorry guys no one will ever convince me that IS are not the best for hand held bins there are.
Brian.
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
Quote:
Rick,
Do you have any insight from your side of the world as to why there has been such a significant price hike in this model? Seems like only a year ago they could be had for $400 less. The dollar drop against the yen would only account for a small fraction of that.
Les, the Canon IS bins have always been very expensive here more so than their USA prices with the 10x42L ~149,000 yen. I know all the Japanese optics makers had 10-20% price increases in both Fall 08 (higher material/energy costs) and last Spring (FOREX) and I think another 10% is coming in October (both cost of materials and FOREX).
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
Kimmo Absetz
super member
Reged: 10/12/05
Posts: 110
|
|
Just a short note, to point out the importance of sample variation. Please note here that generally when I measure unboosted resolution I tend to get somewhat higher readings than EdZ, mostly due to different acuity and probably also due to setup differences. I just measured the handheld resolution of my sample of Nikon 10x42 SE and my sample of Canon 10x42 IS L, at two indoor distances using the ES resolution target. Distances were shorter than optimum, but longest I can manage in my present home indoors, 9m and 11m. Please note that I find getting a reliable handheld reading very difficult, since in a handheld jittery image the role of guessing and subjective factors is greater. Anyway, the resolution I'm confident of glimpsing through both binoculars handheld was 9.18 arcseconds (line-pair reading) at 9m and 9.45 at 11m. Handheld with IS my sample of the Canon gave 7.3 arcseconds at 9m and 7.5 arcseconds at 11m. Based on my data, I really could not say what Ed said about these two: "The resolution of the SE10x42 hand held is just a hairs breadth behind the Canon 10x42 w/IS." Rather, for these specimen and in this test the difference was about 25%, which for me is quite significant. I have done similar tests with similar results before, with other good samples of the 10x42 IS L and three good samples of the 15x50. I have also tested one mediocre and one really poor sample of the 10x42 IS L, and based on those I have no reason to doubt that Ed is accurately reporting what he sees. I will add that even in the best samples, stabilized view still falls short of the view obtainable with the binocular mounted with the IS off, but the difference is more of the order of 10% or less, and with these samples the baseline (tripod-mounted resolution) is fully on par with other premium binoculars of the same size category. As a further example of this, I'll quote Jan Meijerink's data from his Twentse tests, re-calculated for line-pair resolution from his original single-line figures: Canon 10x42 IS L naked eye, mounted 6.86 arcseconds left and right barrels, Zeiss 10x42 FL 7.1" l, 7.36 r; with 4x booster Canon 3.74" l, 3.88" r, Zeiss 3.48" l, 3.56" r.
I did not have time to do tripod-mounted tests on my units this time, but when I have in the past, I have obtained identical results for the better barrels of my Nikon and Canon, with the weaker barrel in my Canon being slightly worse than the (very good) weaker barrel of my Nikon, with identical (or slightly better for the Canon) readings for viewing with both eyes. Boosted, the better barrels are still very close but the difference between the weaker barrels grows some.
If there is interest, I can write more later when I have more time available.
Kimmo
|
MrJim
member
Reged: 08/24/09
Posts: 55
Loc: Mansfield, Texas
|
|
Thank you all for posting such interesting comments on the Canon IS series. And a special thank you to Gary S. for his excellent and practical description of each bin in the IS lineup. I just ordered the Canon IS 10x42L; they arrive on Wednesday.
--------------------
Jim W.
CPC 1100
SV90TBV
PST
|
KBK
member
Reged: 08/05/09
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
KBK
Thank you for an informative post. You identify the kind of design constraints that really drive the IS component of this product and explain why the performance may be quite variable.
Do you think there is any way to separate the optical train from the IS dimension, so that there could be agreement on the optical merit of these binocs without blurring the issue?
As someone who's job it was, for years, to do BETTER than the competition, with regard to the systems of projection, screens and the associated projection optics and electronics, with the absolute control of the design and execution of the screen, to add that I did single cause analysis on every aspect of the image production for 4 years straight (nearly 7 days a week)- with the whole thing very much like the last two or three man standing after an epic battle to be the best in the world at projection (with all that as a qualifier on the following)...I'd say:
With the extra element over that of a standard Porro in the system provided by the motor controlled lens/fluid sac 'IS assembly', there is simply no way that this extra element can equal a system of comparative design that is without it. I've looked down the barrel of the IS binos from cannon, specifically the 10x30 units that are current. I do not see anything that equals the light absorbing and light controlling assemblies in the better binos. This is not a rant for or against either type of technology, or designs. The execution of the IS seems to elevate the Binos, but the rest seems pretty average.
Under the most demanding lighting situations where the best standard Porros and the Cannon Is can be mounted and stabilized..with the stabilization off, the Canons are definitely good, but the world class Porro is going to be better. Not just any porro, but one that is selected for it's masking, blackening, light control, etc.
One look down the barrel of the canon unit told me that there is -definitely- room for improvement.
To clarify-in my experience with passive optics (meaning no electronics like projector or active LCD elements, etc) and use of the human eye to look at things through them ...resolution and contrast cannot be separated , and if the Canons have the extra element (automatic loss of contrast and resolution) and do not control their light as well is they could (lack of contrast-automatic loss of resolution), then they will simply not be the best.
To be fair..if you add the IS back in, and move it into a situation where the IS is needed for resolution, meaning handheld, then the IS wins, every time. For the eye realizes resolution and contrast over time..and if the image is not still enough in the micro jitter sense..then what we see lacks 'clarity' and the whole thing falls down. As well, there is third component, the amount that the eye pupil is dilated, which creates the given level or ratio of photons activating the given rod/cone, and of course, the contrast available to the eye created by said pupil dilation level. (but that's another whole ball of wax!) To realize contrast and resolution in a given image captured by the eye..a minimal amount of time of image stability must take place. In a handheld scenario, for the most part..with a standard porro..this point is sorely lacking. Which is why the most demanding contrast/image/lighting/colors scenarios like true and proper (serious) marine use usually don't go over 7x50 for handhelds. Which is why Steiner's previous best binos, where all their technology went into..was the 7x50 IF marine 'Admiral' design.
I most definitely want a pair of the bigger Canon Is binos. But I will have them in pieces and be improving them within the first day of ownership.
The best overall Bino in the world is hiding inside the Canon, or, one could say that Zeiss already did it..with their big IS 20x60's. I'd rather buy the 15x50's from canon and rebuild them for the $3.5k-4k savings, thank you very much. Whoops! I forget. The Zeiss/newcon magnetic design has it's extra element in the optical path as well..so..it's a thing I'll have to see for myself.
These things come down to the execution of the finished package--I've spent all my time fixing/improving the execution of the given package.
I am also VERY interested in the Newcon and Zeiss magnetic type units. Theoretically, they have the capacity to be superior than the Canon design. The bomb proof lack of batteries is very appealing to me, for all the right reasons. Whether the optics package is any good, I've no idea - having not seen them.
--------------------
It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this...is the key
to it all.
|
Paul G
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/08/03
Posts: 2277
Loc: Freedonia
|
|
I've used the Zeiss 20x60's. Nice optics but felt big and clunky in my hands.
--------------------
Gus
Tasco 4.5 Reflector EQ Telescope
|
MrJim
member
Reged: 08/24/09
Posts: 55
Loc: Mansfield, Texas
|
|
Gus,
The large size of the Zeiss 20x60s is offset by the smaller size of one's bank balance after the purchase. 
--------------------
Jim W.
CPC 1100
SV90TBV
PST
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
I have the Newcon 16x50 SIB and although the stabilization works as advertised, the optics are not up to the level of a premium porro or roof binocular.
The exit pupil is much smaller than the expected 3.1 mm. Using the reverse flashlight method of measuring effective aperture I measure about 35mm. They also use roof prisms which I doubt are phase corrected. The objectives are cemented achromats with basic MgF coatings. I don't detect coatings on the prisms. I don't have info on the eyepieces but the eyerelief is rather short.
To mate quality optics with a good magnetic damped mechanical IS system is going to take a few bucks. Hence the whopping pricetag of the Zeiss 20x60's. As is, these work fine in broad daylight, but have poor low light performance.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3047
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
There are a few used pair of these Zeiss 20x60 for sale in Tokyo now for ~US$3500!
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
KBK
member
Reged: 08/05/09
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
I have the Newcon 16x50 SIB and although the stabilization works as advertised, the optics are not up to the level of a premium porro or roof binocular.
The exit pupil is much smaller than the expected 3.1 mm. Using the reverse flashlight method of measuring effective aperture I measure about 35mm. They also use roof prisms which I doubt are phase corrected. The objectives are cemented achromats with basic MgF coatings. I don't detect coatings on the prisms. I don't have info on the eyepieces but the eyerelief is rather short.
To mate quality optics with a good magnetic damped mechanical IS system is going to take a few bucks. Hence the whopping pricetag of the Zeiss 20x60's. As is, these work fine in broad daylight, but have poor low light performance.
Do you have any information on how the magnetic system works, with regard to specifics? Thanks in advance.
--------------------
It is the image of the ungraspable phantom of life; and this...is the key
to it all.
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
KBK, PM Sent.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
|
13 registered and 15 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: 1538
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
