Hermann
Well-known member
Sure. I didn't wear rose-tinted spectacles though ... 😉
Nikon SE 12x50 or 10x42 on a tripod. Lately also the Canon.
Hermann
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Paultricounty
- Start date
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
I'd use my scope. No matter which IS binocular you use, it will never be a substitute for a decent scope on a decent tripod. Not even the Zeiss 20x60S. But then it's not meant to be.
Hermann
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Thanks, never had the pleasure to use the Nikon SE but have heard good things. I did however enjoy the Canon 18x50 the most out of the stabilized family. 👍
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Wow! How do these compare to the top dogs? I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on the 10s, just not sure if they are worth the price?
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Herman was that rosy colored comment a little arrogance or whit. 😉✌🏼
Paul
I like them much better than the Zeiss SF 8x42. They are much lighter, smaller, and they have truer colors without the green tint the SF has. The CA and edge sharpness is about the same. They also don't have the blue ring of death or the orange crescent along the bottom of the FOV that I had with the SF 8x42. The only advantage the SF 8x42 has is a slightly bigger FOV of 445 feet versus 420 feet for the SFL. On top of it, the SFL 8x40 is $1000 less expensive than the SF 8x42. I think the SFL are some of the best binoculars to come out in a long time. They are a big step up from the Zeiss Conquest HD and Nikon MHG because they have a much bigger sweet spot with sharper edges, better more natural colors and less CA. The SFL are one of the best binocular values around right now as far as I am concerned. Here is an objective test that Henry Link did which shows the awful green tint in the Zeiss Conquest HD's versus the wonderful, true colors of the new SFL.
"Color Transmission:
Unfortunately, the dealer had no SF models in stock, so I compared the color bias of the SFL to a Conquest 8x42. The photo below shows the view through the objective lenses of the Conquest and the SFL when placed eyepieces down on top of an iPad with a blank white screen. I hope it's obvious that the color transmission of the SFL comes much closer to matching the background color of the screen than the Conquest does."
Elpha8888
Well-known member
What an endorsement!! Thanks Dennis, they sound wonderful and it looks like they tick a lot of boxes. The only way is to try them out and it sounds like Zeiss have hit it outta the park with these!
Think I'll try the 10x
Hermann
Well-known member
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Yes, give us your impressions of the 10x. Not too much has been said about them. I don't want to become a Zeiss Fanboy, but these new SFL's just might sway me!
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Are your 8’s on eBay yet , I heard the 10’s are much better. 😂
Paultricounty
Well-known member
They are double the price. I would like to see those two bins switch position in that test. Angle with a picture could have a more profound effect than what the eye sees.
When I go up to 10x, I use IS. For 10x, I have the Canon 10x42 IS-L. It will kill any normal 10x handheld.
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Dennis, as the Canon 10x42 IS weigh 1210g. how do you carry them for birding?
Thank you, Paultricounty, for your excellent comparative review of the Canon 10x42ISL. It is very much on the money imho.
Some additional user experience comments:
Battery life is easily measured in weeks. The IS turns off when the binocs are let down, so power is only used when actually looking through the glass.
I usually leave the IS off until there is an area of interest, that also helps stretch the battery life.
Agree very much on lithiums, found that the rechargeables could get funny results when depleted.
The focuser is superbly precise, but super slow, 3 and 3/4 turns lock to lock. That's great for peeling through the reeds, not so good for quick focus changes.
The eye cups are fine if one wears glasses, otherwise they can be uncomfortable, fat and hard.
The glass is a piece of electronics, so reliability follows a bathtub curve, with infant mortality in the first year, then a long period of stability ending in random failures after 10-30 years. My first one lasted 10 years before the IS went out and I'm only 5 years on my second.
This is a solid glass, able to take knocks and bumps, as well as the wet. But it is too heavy to carry round the neck, use a bandoleer over the shoulder or a harness.
For older birders with less than perfect vision such as myself, the benefits of IS far outweigh the modest deficits in terms of sharpness and brightness that you found relative to the Swaro, Zeiss and Leica alphas.
Some additional user experience comments:
Battery life is easily measured in weeks. The IS turns off when the binocs are let down, so power is only used when actually looking through the glass.
I usually leave the IS off until there is an area of interest, that also helps stretch the battery life.
Agree very much on lithiums, found that the rechargeables could get funny results when depleted.
The focuser is superbly precise, but super slow, 3 and 3/4 turns lock to lock. That's great for peeling through the reeds, not so good for quick focus changes.
The eye cups are fine if one wears glasses, otherwise they can be uncomfortable, fat and hard.
The glass is a piece of electronics, so reliability follows a bathtub curve, with infant mortality in the first year, then a long period of stability ending in random failures after 10-30 years. My first one lasted 10 years before the IS went out and I'm only 5 years on my second.
This is a solid glass, able to take knocks and bumps, as well as the wet. But it is too heavy to carry round the neck, use a bandoleer over the shoulder or a harness.
For older birders with less than perfect vision such as myself, the benefits of IS far outweigh the modest deficits in terms of sharpness and brightness that you found relative to the Swaro, Zeiss and Leica alphas.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Thank you for the compliment.
Good to know they can take a few bumps, was very worried about that. Considering the I S properties I was under the impression they would be kind of delicate. I really like the focuser, slow yes but good feel , very smooth, no stiction and dials in nice.
We all have priorities and make concessions based on what works for us best in terms of optical quality ( what can be noticed) , ergonomics and even cost. These are wonderful tools and can make up for a lot.
I still gravitate to my 8x42 Noctivids for sheer pleasure of the total package. I’m still lucky things are still working to allow that enjoyment. Thats why I use the word tool , and a tool has to fit the job.
Paul
I use the Canon 10x42 IS-L mainly for static birding in open areas where I am not hiking too much or too far. I also use them for game spotting in Rocky Mountain National Park and Yellowstone National Park. For example, when I pull off the road, say in the Lamar River Valley in Yellowstone. I use them from a seated position looking for Wolves, Bears and Eagles. When I am hiking a longer distance or in more forested areas, I use my Zeiss SFL 8x40's.
Last edited:
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Dennis, am I right in understanding you don't walk with them because they are too heavy? You use them as a car binocular?
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I think I have that same picture 😟
Similar threads
