Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized (2 Viewers)

[kimmik]

Better than 20/20 vision with steady hands - conventional

Worse than 20/20 vision with wobbly hands - IS

Personal judgement mixed in. Sorted.

 

[Ted Y.]

Better than 20/20 vision with steady hands - conventional

Worse than 20/20 vision with wobbly hands - IS

What the degree of vision has to do with this?
Also, steady and unsteady are to extreme, intermediary shades of "gray" exist.
Steady does not exists, at least for long time. We are all homo sapiens, right?
After an effort, unsteady can the status even for steady hands.
One can say: steady and wanting more from an image, IS.

 

[kimmik]

Well… the blind couldn’t tell EL from a carrot.

You forgot to quote my disclaimer.

 

[Ted Y.]

You forgot to quote my disclaimer.

True.
However, what the degree of vision has to do with this?
In your personal judgement.

 

[kimmik]

True.
However, what the degree of vision has to do with this?
In your personal judgement.

Already established: best IS bino is sub-alpha optically. I’m taking Paul’s words.

To 20/15 eyes with no visual defect, there are clear improvements at the premium range.

Maybe not for 20/25 eyes with mild cataract.

 

[exup]

Already established: best IS bino is sub-alpha optically. I’m taking Paul’s words.

Better than 20/20 vision with steady hands - conventional

Let's look at Paul's words -

Which I complimented him on for being realistic...... despite him still thinking I need to buy (squander) an Alpha myself......

Using the 10X IS is even more stable than a 7X non-IS hand held

these take your alphas down a notch as soon as you hit that button. And these are real nice without the button, if you can hold two and a half pounds steady. If one were not concerned or doesn't care about high quality pieces of jewelry/equipment, then there is no need to buy a premium non IS alpha at $500-$1000+ (25-50%) more.

If you want an optical tool to observe distant objects without hand shake and no tripod or for potential marine use, then there are no better binoculars, there I said it 😟.

This thread should have stopped after Paul's review. There are ergonomic and weight compromises with IS, but to me this tool far outweighs these.

 

[kimmik]

You forgot to quote my disclaimer.

 

[Binocollector]

If it's raining you can discount most i.s bins as there not waterproof.

Almost all of them are splashproof and some even float, like the Fujinon 14x40.
The Canon 18x50IS is rated "splashproof" according to Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) 4.
"Protected against splashing water. Water splashed against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects."
The Canon 10x42IS is waterproof according to JIS 7:
"Protected against the effects of temporary immersion in water. Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects shall not be possible when the enclosure is temporarily immersed in water under standardized conditions of pressure and time."
I think the Fujinon TSX 14x40 is also JIS 7 might even be JIS 8. And it floats when dropped in water.

If you can hear a bird or it flies into a bush or tree and you want to see it most i.s bins don't have as wide or as well corrected field of view as good quality conventional binoculars, you stand less change of finding the bird in the first place.

The Canons mostly (not sure about the smaller ones) have field flatteners. The 18x50 is one of my most well corrected binos when it comes to edge performance) on par or even better than most of my other flat field binos. The 10x42IS has 6.5° which according to simple formula is 65° AFoV -- pretty standard I'd say. The 18x50IS has an even larger AFoV at 66°.

 

[William Lewis]

Almost all of them are splashproof and some even float, like the Fujinon 14x40.
The Canon 18x50IS is rated "splashproof" according to Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) 4.
"Protected against splashing water. Water splashed against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects."
The Canon 10x42IS is waterproof according to JIS 7:
"Protected against the effects of temporary immersion in water. Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects shall not be possible when the enclosure is temporarily immersed in water under standardized conditions of pressure and time."
I think the Fujinon TSX 14x40 is also JIS 7 might even be JIS 8. And it floats when dropped in water.

The Canons mostly (not sure about the smaller ones) have field flatteners. The 18x50 is one of my most well corrected binos when it comes to edge performance) on par or even better than most of my other flat field binos. The 10x42IS has 6.5° which according to simple formula is 65° AFoV -- pretty standard I'd say. The 18x50IS has an even larger AFoV at 66°.

Yes I don't doubt this is true, good points well made.

I did use unsealed porro's for many years in all conditions but having done so i'd still prefer to have a fully sealed bino in the rain, less tucking them into my jacket just in case to do.

Definitely the higher price i.s binoculars do have good fields, I did try try them including the 18x50 and 10x42 isl and the fields are flat enough but at 18 mag the field of view means your limited in ability to find things quickly.

The 10x42 is l is the best of the bunch optically from what I read but to be honest I didn't get as far as assessing the optical quality to any great degree as I took an instant dislike to the ergonomics. It's probably something that I could have worked around and got used to but when competitors like the Kites i did like the ergonomics of can get it right I didn't see why I should. For me - and as usual this comes down to personal preference, it wasn't worth it.

One of the main deciding factors for me at least between i.s (in my case I'd have gone for the Kites) and non i.s was my resale and warranty concerns - and I liked the view and ergonomics through the 8x56 slc's much more, and they work better in low light, although they weigh just as much.

It's a personal choice at the end of the day and everyone's view varies.

 

[Binocollector]

It's a personal choice at the end of the day and everyone's view varies.

Agree 100%. I much prefer low tech binos in fact. I mainly use the 18x50 for astronomy and boat spotting as I live near a large waterway (Main-Donau-Kanal). For birding I'll take a wide angle 7x35 or 8x30/32 over a bulky IS-bino.
I also think that the weight and ergonomics defeat the purpose of IS at least to a certain extent.

 

[Paultricounty]

Let's look at Paul's words -

Which I complimented him on for being realistic...... despite him still thinking I need to buy (squander) an Alpha myself......










This thread should have stopped after Paul's review. There are ergonomic and weight compromises with IS, but to me this tool far outweighs these.

I think many of us here don’t think it’s squandering to buy high-quality optical instruments.

And the only thing you really need to do is to stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

And the discussion will probably end when people like you stop going around in circles. We all know what you think about IS , we’ve read about it 200 times add nausea. We get it.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes I don't doubt this is true, good points well made.

I did use unsealed porro's for many years in all conditions but having done so i'd still prefer to have a fully sealed bino in the rain, less tucking them into my jacket just in case to do.

Definitely the higher price i.s binoculars do have good fields, I did try try them including the 18x50 and 10x42 isl and the fields are flat enough but at 18 mag the field of view means your limited in ability to find things quickly.

The 10x42 is l is the best of the bunch optically from what I read but to be honest I didn't get as far as assessing the optical quality to any great degree as I took an instant dislike to the ergonomics. It's probably something that I could have worked around and got used to but when competitors like the Kites i did like the ergonomics of can get it right I didn't see why I should. For me - and as usual this comes down to personal preference, it wasn't worth it.

One of the main deciding factors for me at least between i.s (in my case I'd have gone for the Kites) and non i.s was my resale and warranty concerns - and I liked the view and ergonomics through the 8x56 slc's much more, and they work better in low light, although they weigh just as much.

It's a personal choice at the end of the day and everyone's view varies.

No doubt the ergonomics are horrendous. I generally didn't like it the minute I picked it up. When your use to conventional roof bins, that fit the hand like a glove the L is hard to like. But they balance very well and if you can get passed the lousy hand fit and plastic feel, they really grow on you, and the glass is very sweet.

Resale value and longevity imo shouldn't be given to much weight for what were buying here. Its part of the game with these, they will lose there value and who wants used electronics with no warranty and not knowing how the were abused.

If have to consider that at $1500 ( and a concern) in the long run if needing to be replaced in ten years or less, then that makes these L's one of the most expensive bins on the market. I just bought a second one this week as a gift for client and and it has to go back , the magic button is not being magical, it was for the first few days. If the replacement is another lemon Ill probably go MHG or Conquest, maybe even SFL and try it for a week or so, I'm worried I may not want to give it away.

The L IS are certainly not for everyone, thats for sure. I would agree with you in many areas the 56 SLC is a better choice over the long run, both of course have there pros and cons.

Paul

 

[exup]

people like you stop going around in circles. We all know what you think about IS , we’ve read about it 200 times add nausea. We get it.

"people like you ". !

In-case you don't recall too well, you are the individual who wrote this regarding Alphas=
"doesn't care about high quality pieces of jewelry/equipment, then there is no need to buy a premium non IS alpha at $500-$1000+ (25-50%) more."


Just try to be constructive Paul and drop the wise cracks 🥺

 

[William Lewis]

No doubt the ergonomics are horrendous. I generally didn't like it the minute I picked it up. When your use to conventional roof bins, that fit the hand like a glove the L is hard to like. But they balance very well and if you can get passed the lousy hand fit and plastic feel, they really grow on you, and the glass is very sweet.

Resale value and longevity imo shouldn't be given to much weight for what were buying here. Its part of the game with these, they will lose there value and who wants used electronics with no warranty and not knowing how the were abused.

If have to consider that at $1500 ( and a concern) in the long run if needing to be replaced in ten years or less, then that makes these L's one of the most expensive bins on the market. I just bought a second one this week as a gift for client and and it has to go back , the magic button is not being magical, it was for the first few days. If the replacement is another lemon Ill probably go MHG or Conquest, maybe even SFL and try it for a week or so, I'm worried I may not want to give it away.

The L IS are certainly not for everyone, thats for sure. I would agree with you in many areas the 56 SLC is a better choice over the long run, both of course have there pros and cons.

Paul

That's the thing with these, i can hop on my bike, like I'm doing in Sunday morning, take a couple of lumps of metal, rubber and glass with me and yes, they use a bit of the world up to make them but that's pretty much it, they should see me out.

In spite of recent innovations they still perform very well for the job of bringing nature closer without disturbing it and that's probably good enough for me.

 

[Paultricounty]

"people like you ". !

In-case you don't recall too well, you are the individual who wrote this regarding Alphas=
"doesn't care about high quality pieces of jewelry/equipment, then there is no need to buy a premium non IS alpha at $500-$1000+ (25-50%) more."


Just try to be constructive Paul and drop the wise cracks 🥺

Unbelievable, your not married are you 🤪..

You don’t really want to have a rational stimulating conversation about binoculars do you?

You just really wanna debate people, I’m pretty sure there’s a name for that.

Good luck in your retirement, hopefully you find some things that occupy your time, other than telling everybody on binocular forums how much you like IS 🤣🤪.

I’m out.

 

[kimmik]

New thought to add to the discussion, having a fresh think about the issue of image shake.

It is a bit of a modern issue, because people want smaller lighter shorter bins, which by physical limit have low moment of inertia, and thus more image shake.

Then canon saves the day with electronics, zeiss with mechanical complexity.

But really all you need at the lowest tech level, is length.

If we use the canon 10x42 as the starting point, 1.15kg with batteries, that is exactly a 10x56 in weight. And canon being chunky, is almost the same measurements too.

Dimensions	7.6 x 5.6 x 2.9" / 19.2 x 14.1 x 7.3 cm
Weight	42.2 oz / 1196 g

Dimensions	6.9 x 5.4 x 3.4" / 17.6 x 13.7 x 8.5 cm
Weight	2.4 lb / 1.1 kg + batteries

The reason I bring this up is I just tried my 8x56 next to 8x42 and see a noticeable decrease in shake. And i get 80% more light in the meantime!

So while this topic will forever be apple vs orange, I think someone contemplating a canon 10x42 for the stabilisation feature, should at least try some 10x56 conventional binoculars.

 

[Binocollector]

@kimmik
Good point. My very long 9x63 with AK prisms actually handles very nicely. I only use it for astronomy. Image during the day is not as good as on the night sky.

 

[William Lewis]

There's a lot of technique to using unstabilsed binoculars.

I find porro's give me the most options to avoid shake, current favourite trick that works sublimely with '40/'42 porro's is to have one hand around an objective and the other with one finger on the focuser and another between the middle of the bridge and my forehead, you get the benefit of holding near the objectives, using the focuser and anchoring to your face at both the eye sockets and the forehead that way. Also trying not to grip too tightly and avoiding making a conscious effort to try to avoid shakes perversely leads to less shakes - bino karma.

 

[kimmik]

This is my design for an image stabiliser to compete with Canon , prototype V0.1

Single part, solid state, no battery, low tech, anyone can do the same today if they wish:

6mm steel threaded rod, which I purchased for £2.09 from the hardware store. 145g, which when used on my Nikon 8x30, total weight is 582g, still lower than the canon 10x30 600g before batteries.

It works really well! won't please everyone, and you will look weird if using it in public, but it will deliver image stabilisation as promised. Probably works even better with 10x30, though I don't have one of those.

 

[kimmik]

Here is v0.2, shorter, but needs 4 AA batteries.

Stability maintained, and is better than the SLC 8x56, but you can see the shadow of the batteries in view. I'll try changing them to smaller, steel washers next.