Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized (3 Viewers)

[Canip]

The ergonomics are the biggest drawbacks. Space between barrels, less weight and better materials and then I think these would sell like hot cakes.

👍

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Ted (post #19),

Yes, that is a good point. However, while it’s true in an absolute sense, it’s not significant in terms of the optical effect
- when compared to the degree of offset typical to Porro prism binoculars in their usual configuration
e.g. as with a post-WWII version of the CZJ Deltrintem 8x30.

Additionally, while generally for convenience we think of roof prisms such as Schmidt-Pechan’s and Abbe-Koenig’s as having no offset,
that’s often not the case.
See the end of post #2 along with the links at: Roof Prisms Used in Binoculars
(and in terms of what’s possible, the last link shows how Pentax modified an S-P prism to produce a Porro prism like degree of offset!).


- - - -

. . . When I use the Canon 10x42IS-L the 3D image is very noticeable to me. In fact, I see more stereopsis in the Canon than I do some conventional porro's.

Hi Dennis,

Is that really optically possible? Or perhaps a variation on the old saying 'Believing is seeing'


John

 

[kimmik]

The Evolution of the Canon 400mm f/2.8 Lens

Canon's flagship super telephoto lens is now entering its fifth iteration with the EF mount.

shuttermuse.com

The >50% weight reduction over generations of this canon L lens gives me hope that IS bino has room to miniaturise further. Just a matter of market size making it worthwhile for canon. The kite 42mm is only 740g without battery, no ED though and still 2yr warranty.

 

[Ted Y.]

However, while it’s true in an absolute sense, it’s not significant in terms of the optical effect

It is subjective, for one is significant, for another it is not. My point is the binocular have offset. How strong the effect?
"Power resides only where men believe it resides." (George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings)

 

[Hermann]

How quickly the L stabilizes is a great question. I’m still playing around with it and having fun , I locate the object without IS engaged then hit the button. id say it’s almost as fast as you let go of the button, your in. Of course you can leave it on and as soon as you focused on the object it’s already stabilized. Same with birds in flight, but there is a slight focus lag (shift). It’s like it’s searching for focus , then finds it. It’s very slight, but it’s there. Is this one of the artifacts that some users talk about, I don’t know.

In the early Canons, when I first tried them more than decade ago, the effect you describe was more pronounced, i.e. the period it "was searching" for focus was somewhat longer. In addition it seemed to lose focus periodically when you were on the bird for a split second. I found this effect difficult to come to terms with at the time.

I think Canon tweaked the stabiliser over the years. I'm totally fine with the way the stabiliser works now.

Hermann

 

[John A Roberts]

To give an idea of the amounts of objective offset possible for different prisms and binocular types:

A) John/ Tringa 45 has previously provided measurements for the following roof prism models,
in post #6 at: [Tech] Are most/all roof binocular oculars and objectives collinear?
Using an IPD setting of 63 mm:
Swarovski SLC 7x42, 2 mm
Swarovski EL SV 10x42, 5 mm
Meopta B1 7x42, 6 mm

Swarovski SLC 8x56, 15 mm (Abbe-Koenig prism)


B) From Leica (IPD unstated):
Geovid Rangefinder x42, 14mm (Perger prism)


C) And from me, using an IPD setting of 63 mm:
Swarovski EL SV 12x50, 9 mm

And some Porros:
Swarovski Habicht 10x40, 57 mm (also Habicht 8x30)
Nikon E 12x40, 63 mm (also E 8x30)
Nikon E II 10x35, 63 mm (also EII 8x30)

- -
So hopefully someone with a Canon 10x42 can provide a measurement for comparison.

- - - -
As can be seen, there's significant differences between:
• what's possible in moderate sized Schmidt-Pechan prism binoculars (2 to 6 mm);
• larger Abe-Koenig prism binoculars (at least 15 mm), and;
• regular configuration Porro prism binoculars (60 mm +/-).

And while some may be able to appreciate the relatively minor effects of 2 to 6 mm of offset, or more likely 15 mm,
either is likely to seem minimal compared to conventional Porro binoculars.
(Personally, I'm never aware of the mildly enhanced effect of my EL 12x50, whereas the effect of the Porros
is always immediately perceptible at closer distances).


John

 

[corvid-8]

I collect flashlights as well ( torches for you guys over the great pond). 😂

Thanks to all on the battery problem, I think I have it but would still like to know if anyone has a Kite APC and uses rechargeable.
Paul, Flashlights eh!
1950s UK, we were bought up on "Torchy-Torchy the battery boy" did the US have an equivalent "Flashlighty-Flashlighty the battery boy", maybe it never came to light !

 

[exup]

Here is a very useful battery review and comparator resource (covers AA and other sizes)

Battery test-review 18650 comparator

Today comparing different battery chemistry and capacity is not as simple as X is better than Y. It depends on load, temperature etc.

I use IKEA Ladda high capacity NiMH batteries with all my Canons. No problems.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I despise the concept from the get-go. The last thing I want to worry about while birding or travelling or whatever, is whether I need batteries. And in every discussion about which alpha glass is best, ergos always come up very high (if not top) of the list - so the IS binos just moved themselves to the absolute lowest rung. Ok, got that out of the way

The idea of stabilization, which seems to freak some people out, is a no-brainer. I predict it will be standard in not too-long a while. Has anyone mentioned cameras? ALthough I don't know actual numeric percentage of cameras with IS, I have to assume it's quite high. From my small pocketable sony to my big white birding lens, they all have IS - both the camera body and the lens. It's amazing tech and it works great. But it does have a cost. If I compare my Sony Alpha and 3 lenses to my Leica M3 with same 3 focal lengths from BITD, it's a totally different experience in terms of weight, ergos, packability, etc. And if I had not sold the film kit, I'd still be using it. Will the IS be useable in 50-70 years? I doubt it. Does anyone give a whit? Probably not. I certainly drank the koolaid, because truthfully, the images I'm getting now would be unheard of 50 years ago.

Progress is difficult for luddites (such as myself). I hope to be buried with my 7x35's. But I resign myself to the fact that one day, as I sit drooling in my recliner looking out a window, my tremerous hands may very well wish for IS binos.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Ted (post #19),

Yes, that is a good point. However, while it’s true in an absolute sense, it’s not significant in terms of the optical effect
- when compared to the degree of offset typical to Porro prism binoculars in their usual configuration
e.g. as with a post-WWII version of the CZJ Deltrintem 8x30.

Additionally, while generally for convenience we think of roof prisms such as Schmidt-Pechan’s and Abbe-Koenig’s as having no offset,
that’s often not the case.
See the end of post #2 along with the links at: Roof Prisms Used in Binoculars
(and in terms of what’s possible, the last link shows how Pentax modified an S-P prism to produce a Porro prism like degree of offset!).


- - - -


Hi Dennis,

Is that really optically possible? Or perhaps a variation on the old saying 'Believing is seeing'


John

I agree that SP and AK prisms can have an offset, especially AK. AK prisms are known for having more 3D stereopsis than an SP prism. There is something about the view through the Canon 10x42 IS-L that looks like stereopsis, but maybe it is something else I am seeing. I know one thing, I do like the view through them, especially with the IS engaged. I can see a LOT of detail that I can't see with any other unstabilized 10x42 binocular.

 

[[email protected]]

It is subjective, for one is significant, for another it is not. My point is the binocular have offset. How strong the effect?
"Power resides only where men believe it resides." (George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings)

Very true. I change the IPD a considerable amount, so for me, I have quite a bit of offset. I get 3D from somewhere on the Canon.

 

[[email protected]]

In the early Canons, when I first tried them more than decade ago, the effect you describe was more pronounced, i.e. the period it "was searching" for focus was somewhat longer. In addition it seemed to lose focus periodically when you were on the bird for a split second. I found this effect difficult to come to terms with at the time.

I think Canon tweaked the stabiliser over the years. I'm totally fine with the way the stabiliser works now.

Hermann

I agree with that. I find the newer Canon 10x42IS-L has fewer artifacts than some of the older ones. It doesn't bother me much now.

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder if these newer rechargeable lithium batteries would work in the Canon. I use them in my telescope mount.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07HQ7QV7W/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[Binocollector]

There is something about the view through the Canon 10x42 IS-L that looks like stereopsis, but maybe it is something else I am seeing.

I suspect that it might have to do with the field flatteners. When a larger part of the image (or all of it) is in focus, you will also have more 3D-effect towards the edge. But that is only my theory without being any type of expert on this. I do have porros that seem to have a much better 3D-effect than others despite having the same distance between the barrels. Like my Komz 7x30 which has some of the strongest 3D-effect I ever saw and it is also the only porro with a flat field that I own, so I thought that might be the cause. Might be other factors, too however, like the popping greens I see with the Komz that other binos lack.
And another thought -- to change the IPD on the Canon should not change the 3D-effect as the objectives are fixed. So what you see through the left and right eyepiece will stay the same even when adjusting the IPD, opposed to a normal bino where you change the offset of the objective lenses when changing IPD.

 

[Ted Y.]

I wonder if these newer rechargeable lithium batteries would work in the Canon. I use them in my telescope mount.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07HQ7QV7W/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Also interested by this ones.
But after reading the comments, I decided to stay with Eneloop Pro

 

[[email protected]]

I suspect that it might have to do with the field flatteners. When a larger part of the image (or all of it) is in focus, you will also have more 3D-effect towards the edge. But that is only my theory without being any type of expert on this. I do have porros that seem to have a much better 3D-effect than others despite having the same distance between the barrels. Like my Komz 7x30 which has some of the strongest 3D-effect I ever saw and it is also the only porro with a flat field that I own, so I thought that might be the cause. Might be other factors, too however, like the popping greens I see with the Komz that other binos lack.
And another thought -- to change the IPD on the Canon should not change the 3D-effect as the objectives are fixed. So what you see through the left and right eyepiece will stay the same even when adjusting the IPD, opposed to a normal bino where you change the offset of the objective lenses when changing IPD.

You could be correct about the flat field creating more 3D effect because the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX is a flat field porro, and it has more 3D than almost any porro I have seen.

 

[[email protected]]

Also interested by this ones.
But after reading the comments, I decided to stay with Eneloop Pro

I have to use rechargeable Lithium AA batteries in my telescope because the batteries have to be 1.5 v instead of 1.2 v like most rechargeables.

 

[exup]

I have to use rechargeable Lithium AA batteries in my telescope because the batteries have to be 1.5 v instead of 1.2 v like most rechargeables

I have never tried lithium AA rechargeable batteries. Not seen this make before either. Does the included charger, charge each cell independently / can a single cell be charged?
The voltage profile and capacity both look good, if they are to be believed.
Edit: I don't believe this discharge curve......
Might be good and possibly better than NiMH, but not convinced they would hold up the voltage in the way (the marketing) shows

 

[[email protected]]

I have never tried lithium AA rechargeable batteries. Not seen this make before either. Does the included charger, charge each cell independently / can a single cell be charged?
The voltage profile and capacity both look good, if they are to be believed.
Edit: I don't believe this discharge curve......
Might be good and possibly better than NiMH, but not convinced they would hold up the voltage in the way (the marketing) shows

They work in my telescope, and it has to have 1.5 v batteries. It comes with the charger and 4 batteries. You can charge a single cell. I think they might work well in the Canon.

 

[exup]

They work in my telescope, and it has to have 1.5 v batteries. It comes with the charger and 4 batteries. You can charge a single cell. I think they might work well in the Canon.

Yes, some of the Nexstars and AstroFi scopes can use AAs and need to hold up the voltage, as the electronics are sensitive to this. Another option could be a car jump starter (Lead acid or lithium).