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

Canon IS,without IS.

This topic has been archived.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

#1 Steve Napier

Steve Napier

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2004

Posted 17 June 2006 - 03:28 AM

Would current owners of the Canon IS range still buy these binoculars if they had no IS capability?
In other words,is the pure stand alone optical perfomance WITHOUT the IS function on,worthy of serious consideration?

I realize it"s a bit of a silly question as the IS nature of the binoculars is what attracts people in the first place.
Thankyou,
Steve.

#2 Rick

Rick

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 03:45 AM

I didn't know it was a secret that they were better optically with the IS off rather than on? I always thought that has been the bino "purists" arguement against them; that the IS introduces slight but noticeble distortions?

cheers,
Rick

#3 SaberScorpX

SaberScorpX

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4405
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 03:55 AM

re: I realize it"s a bit of a silly question...

Not silly at all, Steve.
Good topic.

*grabs some popcorn*



Stephen Saber
PAC/Astronomical League
http://www.geocities...corpx/home.html

#4 Steve Napier

Steve Napier

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2004

Posted 17 June 2006 - 04:22 AM

Steve,I was trying to pre-guess what a certain members response would be,that member being a certain Jones variety,hence the last paragraph.
Thankyou,
Steve.

#5 SaberScorpX

SaberScorpX

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4405
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 04:46 AM

I expect that response to be very considerate, serious, and respectful.

(Rats. Was trying to type that with a straight face...)



Stephen Saber
PAC/Astronomical League
http://www.geocities...corpx/home.html

#6 Swedpat

Swedpat

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 07:15 AM

You ask a highly justified question Steve!
I have read some different opinions about the Canon IS, though the most of them are praises.

Regards, Patric

#7 Steve Napier

Steve Napier

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2004

Posted 17 June 2006 - 09:02 AM

Steve,after my latest thread on CloudyDays,I expect Kenny"s response to be anything but.
Steve.

#8 brocknroller

brocknroller

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2003

Posted 17 June 2006 - 10:59 AM

We had this discussion on another thread a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... but it's buried too deeply to retrieve through the CN search engine since it was not the topic of the thread. Someday, someone will go through every post of every thread and extract interesting subtopics that evolved in them. Might as well be Kenny since he's read and memorized every post. :-)

So I'll reiterate my experience here. With the samples I had (two 10x30 IS bins), the views through the first sample looked a bit soft when the IS was not engaged. With it engaged, the views were sharp, but I would see streaks when I panned (with a time lag, that is, the streaks would be slightly behind where I was viewing in the night sky). Very strange effect. I also experienced nauseating "swimming" with that sample.

The second sample gave sharp views w/ or w/out the IS engaged. There was still some "swimming" if I didn't brace myself properly, but not as much as the first sample. I also saw streaks while panning, even on birds flying in the field. But overall, the second sample was better than the first.

Both samples were fairly new, neither was dropped or bumped to the best of my knowledge.

Though the first sample could have been a "lemon," I've read similar reports from other users who have looked through more than one sample of the same IS bin and found the images in one steadier than another. So there seems to be some sample variance with IS bins.

There also seems to be "sample variance" in IS bin owners eye-brain perceptions, explaining why two people have different experiences using the same sample IS bin.

Sitting in a high-back chair while watching birds, I didn't notice much difference with the IS on or off with the second sample, other than motion glitches described above. A 10x bin, particularly one with good ergonomics like the 10x30 IS, was just barely within my ability to hold steady for terrestrial use, as long as I kept the bins level. Once I pointed them up toward the top of the trees or skyward to look at a hawk, I would have to engage the IS to compensate for arm vibrations.

The 10x30 IS was like having a bin with "four-wheel drive". When I needed more stability, I would enage the the IS, when I didn't, I would use the bin handheld.

#9 Joad

Joad

    Wordsmith

  • *****
  • Posts: 18192
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 12:05 PM

Folks, fairly early in my time on Cloudy Nights I made what was actually a complimentary reference to another member in a post I made on the Off Topic Observatory. Still, that member did not at all appreciate being named in my post and let me know in no uncertain terms. Ever since then I've been more careful about bringing up other members' names in threads in which they have not participated. One never knows when such references might be embarrassing. So, I do not know whether KennyJ minds, or will mind, the way he has been introduced into this thread, but I do think that for general purposes we should usually wait for a member to join a thread before discussing that person.

AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION TO THIS IS IF ANOTHER MEMBER HAS ALREADY POSTED IN ANY WAY ABOUT THE TOPIC AT HAND (ARTICLE, REVIEW, MINI-REVIEW, OR SIMPLY A POST IN A DIFFERENT THREAD). THEN BY ALL MEANS REFER TO THAT MEMBER'S RELEVANT CONTRIBUTION.

I am not going to edit this thread in any way because I do not believe that mentioning another member violates any rules or the TOS. There is nothing in the way of a "violation" here. I'm simply suggesting a kind of "golden rule" approach in which we all consider whether we would want our names brought into a thread we are not participating in in a teasing manner.

But I repeat, no harm, no foul here.

Thanks.

#10 Rich N

Rich N

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5624
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2004

Posted 17 June 2006 - 01:25 PM

The Canon 15x50 IS holds well even with the IS turned off. It does have very nice optics. I think I paid about $800USD for mine. I've ceratinly spent more on other non IS, hand held, binoculars (Leica 12x50BA, Zeiss 10x42FL, etc.). So, my answer is maybe.

Rich

#11 ChrisR

ChrisR

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 02:47 PM

Excluding the 10x42L WP IS, the 15x50 and 18x50 have UD (Ultra Low Distortion) Lenses the 12, 10 and 8 don't. I once while waiting for my wife to pick me up did an experiment. I put a Canon 15x50, a Canon 18x50, the (trumpet fanfare) Fujinon 16x70, and a Celestron 20x80 on a trpods next to each other, (did I mention that the network was down and I was bored). Anyway the Celestron was obviously not in the same optical league, but when I compared the Canons to the Fujinon it seemed in my opinion that the Canon's color was a bit more vibrant, but (figure the odds/exit pupil) the Fujinon was brighter. In my opinion some day when I can afford a Canon 18x50 I will buy one, but if it didn't have the IS function I would probably pass.

Peace,
Chris

#12 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6375
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002

Posted 17 June 2006 - 03:08 PM

Would current owners of the Canon IS range still buy these binoculars if they had no IS capability?
In other words,is the pure stand alone optical perfomance WITHOUT the IS function on,worthy of serious consideration?

I realize it"s a bit of a silly question as the IS nature of the binoculars is what attracts people in the first place.
Thankyou,
Steve.

That is a silly question , would you pay $1,800 for a German 10x42 if it did not have great optics ? The optics on my Canon 8x25,10x36 and 10x42 are the same with IS on or off and they are top notch. When I look through a binocular that is mounted or has IS I see much more detail. So it's a combination of great optics and IS that sold me. Do you think Canon L series optics are not world class ?

Joe

#13 cota_scope

cota_scope

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 16 May 2004

Posted 17 June 2006 - 04:45 PM

i concur with joe about the canons. john

#14 Les

Les

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 888
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2006

Posted 17 June 2006 - 04:58 PM

Would current owners of the Canon IS range still buy these binoculars if they had no IS capability?


Not me. IS capability is what I desired when I bought mine and the fact that it has great optics just helps me justify the expense. Really no need to start an optics war here. I may have quibbles with certain design features but overall my Canon does what it's suppose to, WITH the IS engaged.

Les

#15 Joad

Joad

    Wordsmith

  • *****
  • Posts: 18192
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 06:50 PM

Why does the title of this thread sound like a Zen koan? :hmmmm:





Oh, never mind. Carry on.


Incidentally, I find that the IS feature does tend to make the binocular bulkier than it might otherwise be, which makes sense, but if that bulk made it prudent to mount the thing, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to me to buy one just for the optics.

#16 Phil Wheeler

Phil Wheeler

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2086
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 07:14 PM

Would current owners of the Canon IS range still buy these binoculars if they had no IS capability?
In other words,is the pure stand alone optical perfomance WITHOUT the IS function on,worthy of serious consideration?


Well, yes BUT ...

I have the 12x36 IS IIs, and the optics are good, with and without IS. But 12x is a bit much for me to hand hold and there is no tripod mounting provision. That would be my only reservation.

Phil

#17 Swedpat

Swedpat

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2005

Posted 17 June 2006 - 07:34 PM

I have personally NO experience of the Canon IS.
But I understand the original question was that if the optical quality of the Canon IS justify the purchase of them.

I understand that when the magnification exceed 8-10x even a budget optics with IS (= mounted} is better than the very best optics without IS, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE DETAILS.

Surely I see more details with a mounted 8x binocular than with an unmounted with 10x.

Patric

#18 DJB

DJB

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1742
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2005

Posted 18 June 2006 - 03:28 AM

Hi Steve,

Here's my take. If the IS were not present, we would have a whole different animal, probably quite lightweight, but with very fine optics.

Would I have purchased a non IS one? Probably not; I would have gone for a 10x50.

But if I did the above, I would have missed the attributes of the native 10x30 IS. So, I cannot really answer that question truthfully.

However, I did purchase the Canon 10x30 IS and the 15x50 IS BECAUSE of the IS feature, and I am quite happy that I did so.

Many of my other binoculars are getting quite lonesome staying in the home. The Canons, excepting a few others, are my grab-and-go units, at least for now.

Best regards,
Dave.

#19 Steve Napier

Steve Napier

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2004

Posted 18 June 2006 - 04:13 AM

Thanks everyone.
I personaly wouldn"t use the IS feature if I bought a Canon binocular.
Tripod mounted,would be my prefered use of these high power binoculars.
I would imagine a 15x50 or 18x50 mounted on a tripod would make an excellent alternative to a 15x70 or 16x70,
the smaller aperture would not be so problematic for me as Lunar and double star observation would be my main priority.
Thanks for all your useful comments,much appreciated.
Steve.

#20 medinabrit

medinabrit

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2004

Posted 18 June 2006 - 08:12 AM

Believe me Steve,You wouldn,t be using a tripod very much with th IS,s .Most of the time you wouldn,t need it .I Do use a monopod occasionally because after a while the arms begin to ache ,As they would with any bino regardless of weight .With a monopod you have the option of having you arms lower, eg ,gripping thr monopod shaft instead of the bins. Sometimes a more comfortable position .And of course a bipod is much easier to tote around than a tripod.
Brian.

#21 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6375
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002

Posted 18 June 2006 - 01:28 PM

Thanks everyone.
I personaly wouldn"t use the IS feature if I bought a Canon binocular.
Tripod mounted,would be my prefered use of these high power binoculars.
I would imagine a 15x50 or 18x50 mounted on a tripod would make an excellent alternative to a 15x70 or 16x70,
the smaller aperture would not be so problematic for me as Lunar and double star observation would be my main priority.
Thanks for all your useful comments,much appreciated.
Steve.

That would be like buying a stedicam unit for a video camera just for extra weight and not using the stedicam feature. :lol:

#22 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 36343
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003

Posted 18 June 2006 - 06:06 PM

Reading through this thread ( the basic question being no different from one I posed about a month ago on the Cloudy Days forum ) I get the distinct impression it must have been people with minds like Napier's presumably is , who were responsible for the word " fun " being included in the expression " dysfunctionality "

Kenny

#23 Steve Napier

Steve Napier

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2004

Posted 19 June 2006 - 03:10 AM

No,both Joe Ogbila and Kenny are {as usual} completely wrong!
A 15x50 or 18x50 are a LOT more portable than a 70/80mm glass.
Lunar/double star obsevation at this magnification does not require a large aperture.
The original question posed was for optical quality,the IS function DOESN"T interest me.
If I was to buy one of these binoculars it would be TRIPOD mounted.
Im sure the 18x50 IS is a LOT cheaper than say the 18x Nikon.
Portability is a big factor for me also.
Steve.

#24 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6375
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002

Posted 19 June 2006 - 03:47 AM

Portability is a big factor for me also.
Steve.


IS binoculars are alot more portable without a tripod. :lol:

#25 Steve Napier

Steve Napier

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2004

Posted 19 June 2006 - 08:33 AM

Joe,I have several fixed tripods at various sites I use.
I wouldn"t be travelling with a tripod.
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