Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Nikon Stabileyes 14x40mm

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 26 April 2005 - 11:44 AM

Hi Folks

I am looking for some personal experience with the Nikon 14x40 Stabileye or Fujinon Techno-Stab 14x40 (mainly Nikon)- I Have tested the IS Canons then I am really interested at the Nikon / Fujinon performance (Fujinon was tested by S&T some years ago and I know the article but I am looking for personal opinions).
I have a Russian Gyro Stabilized 16x40 that works very well - they gives really (IMO) ''rock steady'' images better than the Canons (stabilization work - not Optics, Fov,etc) but they are very heavy and they are not good as the Canons to panning situation - the images floats a lot there.
I do not understand how are the Fujinons and the Nikons (mechanical/electronics) internal system since that both (I saw some internal sketches of Nikon and I think that they are more or less similar) they haven't the Classical internal Gyroscopes as the russians - however they haven't also the same Canons system...based in some web posts they works more like the russians than like the Canons then I believe that they wouldn't show some residual jitters as the Canons (that I noticed testing the 15x45 and the 15x50).
Have the Nikons and the Fujinons stab better optical performance than the Canons?

regards PH

#2 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,250
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002

Posted 26 April 2005 - 12:00 PM

I have the new lightweight Canon 12x36 IS II's and would get the new Canon 10x42 L IS WP model before I paid about the same price for the Fujinon/Nikon 14x40's IMHO.

#3 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 26 April 2005 - 01:18 PM

Hi Joe

I never look through the new 12x36 IS II version - they show the same strange effect as the (oldies??) 15x50 IS or the 15x45 IS (I noticed in both some image ''tilt or shift I don't know the correct word'' at each 3 or 5 seconds when switched ''on'' which causes a kind of ''fast blurred images''- also I guess that they don't eliminate all of the shakes as the russian Gyro system - but they are on the other hand ''lightweight'' against the heavier russian...it's really a complicated issue...I am trying to run away from a big weight keeping however a high power.

regards PH

#4 11steve

11steve

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 03:52 AM

Hi Pedro,

I know all the models you mentioned but never had a chance to compare them side by side. What is special with the Nikon 14x40 Stabileyes is that it unifies the best of both worlds since it has 2 different modes of stabilisation. One is called "on board". This one works like the stabilisation mode known by the Fujinon Technostabi: it elimates strong movements (up to 5°) but it works slowly and introduce a shifting of the image when panning. For astronomical use this isn´t an issue IMHO since you don´t pan that much and quickly at the night sky.
The other so called "Land" mode works in practice similar to the one you know by Canon. It is very quick and less shifting occurs even while panning. But stronger movements like we have e.g. on a boat can´t be compensate effectivly.
Although I didn´t make some comparing optical testings I have to say that I was quite impressed with the optical quality of all of these bins mentioned above. Sharpness and contrast were on a remarkable level. Hope this helps.

Steve

#5 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 06:35 AM

Thanks Steve!!
About both - Do you noticed some residual bounce while using the Fujinon (or Nikon) with stabilization working?? I read at the Sky & Telescope (report test July 2000 about the Fuji performance) ''Once the Fujinon was correctly aimed,its image stabilizing took care of the hands trembles, but the image would bounce slightly no matter how steadily I held the binoculars''

PH

#6 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,250
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002

Posted 28 April 2005 - 07:37 AM

...I am trying to run away from a big weight keeping however a high power.


Pedro,the 14x40's are 53 oz vs 23 oz for the new Canon 12x36 IS II's.

Joe

#7 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 08:11 AM

[/quote]
Pedro,the 14x40's are 53 oz vs 23 oz for the new Canon 12x36 IS II's.

Joe [/quote]

Ok Joe really the difference it's considerable!! The price too...
The 12x36 II were improved?? Can you notice the ''jitter'' as present in the old Canon models?

regards

#8 11steve

11steve

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 09:44 AM

Pedro,

I noticed the phenomenon the S&T article was describing with the Fujinon and with the Nikon at "on board" mode but in a way that didn´t bother me much. First it was a slow motion and second I found a way to manage this. Holding the bino steady before activating the stabilisation mode will reduce this residual bounce. I know this sounds a bit complicate but I believe this is only a matter of proper handling which one will learn very soon while using.

The Canons reduce movements up to 0,7° (which is enough to make shaky hands nearly invisible) and they aren´t waterproof. Only the 15x50 and the 18x50 IS are waterresistant. But I like the Canon 12x36 II too. They are lightweight, have good optical quality and ergonomics and a good price-performance ratio. The answer of which of these binos is the right one for you depends on for what kind of task you want to use it mainly.
BTW every kind of image stabilisation introduce some additional aberrations to the optical system. The more it has to work e.g. because of shaking, the more these aberrations will increase. But on the other hand the advantages a binocular with image stabilisation have are more significant for several purposes like e.g. astronomical and nature watching are.

Steve

#9 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 10:47 AM

Hello Steve

When I use the Russian Gyro Stabilizing 16x40mm - if I be with my hands perfectly ''steady'' the images be very ''rock-steadily'' but if I move it to a other target (mainly at the horizontal way) the images ''bounce to Up and down and to the left or to the right side'' almost like if it be ''out of control'' - but when the binoculars stops the image also stops...these was what you saw on these models??
What I am trying to understand is if when the Fujinon (or Nikon) be completely stopped on a target (as the moon for instance) if some kind of ''jitter'' or ''bounce'' can be noticed or if the image be ''rock-steadily'' - When I owned a out of line Canon 15x45 I always perceived some ''jitter'' at the images even hold it steadily.
Pedro

#10 11steve

11steve

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 11:32 AM

Pedro,

I have a Canon 15x50 IS and I learned to keep the "jitter" under controll by holding the bino steady. With the 18x50 IS this is a bit harder and so the jitter is more noticable IMHO. Mounted on a tripod without image stabilisation turned on there´s absolute no jitter visible. Turning the IS on let me see hardly any jitter either. The behaviour of the Nikon Stabileyes (at "on board" mode, at "land" mode it works pretty like the Canon IS) and the Fujinon Technostabi differs from that and I would desribe it as a shifting or some kind of "overshooting" of the image after doing some stronger movements with the binocular. This causes what some people call seasickness when using a binocular like this. But as I wrote before I think to manage and to avoid phenomemens like this is quite easy. However, until now there´s no image stabilised binocular available which image is rock-steady like a tripod mounted one IMHO. Even the famous Zeiss 20x60S doesn´t work in a perfect way in this respect. But I guess that the binos we talked about are an improvement comparing to the Russian one you use. So like always I would recommend that you try these bins for yourself. If you do so I would enjoy to hear about your findings.

Steve

#11 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 11:51 AM

Hello Steve

There is the main problem - I live in Brazil and I haven't here a way to test one because they aren't available here.
Comparing the Russian to the Canon IS 15 x 45 the russian gives more ''sharp images'' (but yellowish and a tad dim) but really they gives also the ''seasickness'' in some people (the image floating it's not really good)- but as you said - nothing it's perfect!
But with the Canons I notice a kind of phenomenon (e that I don't know if you also noticed (I tried a 15x50 IS from a friend of mine)...I have read some other comments about that (I don't know exactly how use a correct word to explain) I know that about each 3 or 5 seconds the image surfer a kind of ''fast blurring'' and turns after to the normal...this was the main thing that bothered me on the Canons.

Pedro

#12 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,250
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002

Posted 28 April 2005 - 02:28 PM

[quote name="pedro"] [/quote]
Pedro,the 14x40's are 53 oz vs 23 oz for the new Canon 12x36 IS II's.

Joe [/quote]

Ok Joe really the difference it's considerable!! The price too...
The 12x36 II were improved?? Can you notice the ''jitter'' as present in the old Canon models?

regards [/quote]
There is no jitter or blurring with my pair. I can pan an airplane in flight and read the tail numbers etc. It still has the original AA batteries in it. Even if I get the new Canon 10x42's I will still keep the 12x36's because they are that good.


Joe

#13 pedro

pedro

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2004

Posted 28 April 2005 - 02:48 PM

Hi Joe

Great! I like use binoculars also to pan airplanes.
I believe that they are very confortable since only weighs 23Oz.

Pedro

#14 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 37,682
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003

Posted 28 April 2005 - 03:16 PM

< Mounted on a tripod without image stabilisation turned on there´s absolute no jitter visible >

Well , at least THAT'S useful to know :-)

Kenny

#15 11steve

11steve

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2004

Posted 29 April 2005 - 03:34 AM

That´s quite comforting, Kenny, isn´t it? Most of the time I use the IS Bino without IS on. When I want to see something in detail I activate it and this let me see more than any other binocular with the same magnification hand hold. So while the view might be optical not perfect comparing to a mounted binocular I still have some great advantages that easily outweigh the disadvantages. That´s just the way a good sample of IS bino works. I´m mentioning this because I saw some sample variation at least with the Canons.

Steve


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics