I have the Canon 10x42L IS, the Kite 16x42 APC and the Nikon 10x25 Stabilized, which is great. The latter eats the crackpot CR2 batteries like popcorn, I’m going to try RCR2s instead. The other two are parsimonious with the batteries.
-
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.
Alpha IS? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Will K
- Start date
tehri
Well-known member
If you can get the RCR2s to work in the Nikon, please let me know. They did not function for me.
Separately, in reply to the OPs question, my belief is that IS for binoculars will become the norm, but the process won't be led by the current alpha makers. It will happen eventually when IS is so pervasive that no optics will be without it.
To illustrate, the Canon 10x42L is an alpha grade IS glass, just a superb instrument that allows a more relaxed view with much finer detail observation, but it is heavy and clumsy, with poor ergonomics and a 3 year warranty at best. These deficiencies have outweighed its functional virtues in the market place, shown by sales of only a few thousand per year, judging by the serial numbers.
In comparison, stabilized digital cameras sell in the millions, dwarfed in turn by hundreds of millions of smart phones with quite sophisticated stabilized optics. That massive volume is slashing the cost of IS optics, which is shown by the gradual emergence of second tier suppliers. It is likely that this trend will continue as the benefits of IS once experienced are quite compelling. Of course there will continue to be traditionalists who prefer the long warranties and mechanical simplicity of non stabilized optics, much as some still prefer cars with manual transmissions.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
It seems the best / closest to "alpha birding binoculars with IS" that you can get are the Canon 10x42L and the Fujinon TSX-1440. I have the latter, and used to have a lesser Canon (12x32). The Fujinon is optically excellent but heavier and with a fair but not great FOV. However, the stabilization is tremendous, and the ergonomics are an improvement over any Canon, though again not amazing.
IS is tremendously useful at all birding magnifications. Those who say it is not necessary / won't sell at 8x haven't followed the camera market. At some point we will have alpha level bins with good ergonomics and highly functional IS at a modest weight penalty. They will really outperform non-IS comparables, and will get a good chunk of the market share as a result, though obviously not all of it.
Personally I cannot wait for that day. Even the cheaper / lesser Canons demonstrate remarkably well that lesser optics with stabilization massively out-resolve best in class optics without stabilization. My Fujinons are tremendous. 14x is a bit much for general birding but for pelagics / deserts / shorebirds / raptors / etc they are so much better than any other binocular it is laughable. Yeah, you have to deal with the weight and the batteries but NLs or SFs are sort of shockingly outdated / underperforming tools compared to a good IS bin in those situations.
IS is tremendously useful at all birding magnifications. Those who say it is not necessary / won't sell at 8x haven't followed the camera market. At some point we will have alpha level bins with good ergonomics and highly functional IS at a modest weight penalty. They will really outperform non-IS comparables, and will get a good chunk of the market share as a result, though obviously not all of it.
Personally I cannot wait for that day. Even the cheaper / lesser Canons demonstrate remarkably well that lesser optics with stabilization massively out-resolve best in class optics without stabilization. My Fujinons are tremendous. 14x is a bit much for general birding but for pelagics / deserts / shorebirds / raptors / etc they are so much better than any other binocular it is laughable. Yeah, you have to deal with the weight and the batteries but NLs or SFs are sort of shockingly outdated / underperforming tools compared to a good IS bin in those situations.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
And I think this is exactly where the problem lies for a mass market of IS binoculars.
A lot of people own a camera and almost everyone owns a smartphone. How many people own binoculars?
I think here mass market products are compared with a niche product, the fact is simply that most people are not very interested in binocular optics but are very interested in smartphones or cameras.
I think the largest sales market for binoculars is generated in the price range of 100-200 euro glasses, here the market share is probably the highest, the vast majority of people are not interested in sophisticated long-range optics, even if the posts in the Birdforum sometimes suggest that everyone owns binoculars.
This group of buyers uses binoculars on the occasional walk and many of these glasses end up in the drawer after a few uses.
We here in the bird forum, who test every pair of binoculars from top to bottom, here too many CA, because the distortion and how bright it is etc. are in the absolute minority, most binocular users are not interested in such things.
The IS technology in binoculars has been known for a long time now, the question is why no Chinese manufacturers have brought IS binoculars onto the market across the board, I just don't think it's worth it for them.
Andreas
jafritten
Well-known member
IMO image stabilisation in a truly user friendly housing would be the next real innovation after phase coating, internal focusing, the use of borosilicate glass and prisms that reverse the image and allow of greater magnifications. (Experts in the history of binoculars will be more knowledgeable than I am and correct my list.)
Granted, we have seen many welcome improvements in the past decades. But the most apparent problem (shake) has not yet been solved satisfactorily, IMO. I know that some models receive much praise but they are big and clunky and many users say they're not really alpha quality.
If there ever were one such magic tool, it would be made for the hunting market (first), I guess. Maybe a stabilised Geovid? I'd go for one.
Granted, we have seen many welcome improvements in the past decades. But the most apparent problem (shake) has not yet been solved satisfactorily, IMO. I know that some models receive much praise but they are big and clunky and many users say they're not really alpha quality.
If there ever were one such magic tool, it would be made for the hunting market (first), I guess. Maybe a stabilised Geovid? I'd go for one.
edwincjones
Well-known member
I, and many others, have gone from a film camera to a digital camera to now smart phone for images.
Back then I never saw it coming, but for this to happen with binoculars we need a lightweight wide FOV bino
to match the non IS optics.
edj
Back then I never saw it coming, but for this to happen with binoculars we need a lightweight wide FOV bino
to match the non IS optics.
edj
Coincidentally Roger Vine updated his review of the Zeiss 20x60:
scopeviews.co.uk
Zeiss 20x60S Stabilised Binoculars Review
tehri
Well-known member
Oh, please, and with Holographic view !!! 😃
You’ll never get the same field of view since the stabilization needs headroom to correct for angular shake. That said the Kite 16x42 APC is remarkably light and ergonomic. If only it had ED glass, it would be a contender.
Will K
Too well-known member
...and optional night vision and zoom functions, if we are really pushing the boat out
Although that's definitely entering sci-fi territory.I've not had a look at the Kite 16x42 yet. I wonder how the FOV, brightness and overall clarity compares with the closest comparable Canon model?
I have assorted binoculars, up to 16x70, but my 1st gen (22 y.o.) Canon 10x30 show more detail on birds than the rest as they just keep the same part of the bird on the same part of my eye, so less work for my brain to do.
Other plusses are the 2xAA batteries last for ages (and it's no effort to carry/buy spares) and the field flatteners in the eyepieces keep it sharp away from the centre, plus they also have a 60 degree AFoV. Oh and Abbe Porros, so transmit more light than most Roof Prisms, plus good coatings.
Other minuses are the lack of much weather sealing, so no good in the rain.
I'm unimpressed by the optical performance (for the price) of some of the newer models, but the 12x36 III is IMHO worth a look (IS and field flatteners at £719) provided you don't look at lots of heavily backlit subjects (unless are unfussed about some extra purple).
Other plusses are the 2xAA batteries last for ages (and it's no effort to carry/buy spares) and the field flatteners in the eyepieces keep it sharp away from the centre, plus they also have a 60 degree AFoV. Oh and Abbe Porros, so transmit more light than most Roof Prisms, plus good coatings.
Other minuses are the lack of much weather sealing, so no good in the rain.
I'm unimpressed by the optical performance (for the price) of some of the newer models, but the 12x36 III is IMHO worth a look (IS and field flatteners at £719) provided you don't look at lots of heavily backlit subjects (unless are unfussed about some extra purple).
This is not a new topic.
Short answer: patents block easy access to IS tech, and binoculars are a niche market so manufacturers don't want to invest into reinventing IS.
Patents
===
Most of the relevant optical stabilization patents are held by companies involved in video and/or photography i.e. Panasonic, Nikon, Canon and Sony. For them, binoculars are commercially irrelevant and licensing their patents to binocular makers would be a waste of time.
Only Canon has a meaningful selection of IS binos, and the recent updates were only for the smaller/cheaper units, the 42mm/50mm binos did not get updates. Contrast this with the near-constant developments in cameras and camera lenses.
Actual sales
===
Even for Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski, sports optics are a small part of total sales, so reinventing IS isn't really a great business idea.
Kamakura 30mm/42mm IS binos
===
Kamakura probably calculated that being an OEM to many brands would give them enough volume to earn back the cost of development.
In terms of engineering tradeoffs, Kamakura's IS binos are quite well balanced. To save weight (the perennial complaint against Canon's 10x42/15x50/18x50 units) the prisms are undersized, sacrificing AFOV. This is exactly the same compromise made by 7x50/8x56 units today, which typically show 50°/56°. Can't have it all.
Omitting ED glass saves cost, improving affordability = increasing sales.
As one user of Canon's 12x36 noted, at 12x, the shakes are a bigger factor than the quality of the glass. The best glass in the world won't show anything if you cannot hold it steady.
Kamakura has actually come out with an update (at least for Vixen). However the Vixen Atera II still does not use ED glass in either size. Perhaps the third revision will be the charm.
Short answer: patents block easy access to IS tech, and binoculars are a niche market so manufacturers don't want to invest into reinventing IS.
Patents
===
Most of the relevant optical stabilization patents are held by companies involved in video and/or photography i.e. Panasonic, Nikon, Canon and Sony. For them, binoculars are commercially irrelevant and licensing their patents to binocular makers would be a waste of time.
Only Canon has a meaningful selection of IS binos, and the recent updates were only for the smaller/cheaper units, the 42mm/50mm binos did not get updates. Contrast this with the near-constant developments in cameras and camera lenses.
Actual sales
===
Even for Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski, sports optics are a small part of total sales, so reinventing IS isn't really a great business idea.
Kamakura 30mm/42mm IS binos
===
Kamakura probably calculated that being an OEM to many brands would give them enough volume to earn back the cost of development.
In terms of engineering tradeoffs, Kamakura's IS binos are quite well balanced. To save weight (the perennial complaint against Canon's 10x42/15x50/18x50 units) the prisms are undersized, sacrificing AFOV. This is exactly the same compromise made by 7x50/8x56 units today, which typically show 50°/56°. Can't have it all.
Omitting ED glass saves cost, improving affordability = increasing sales.
As one user of Canon's 12x36 noted, at 12x, the shakes are a bigger factor than the quality of the glass. The best glass in the world won't show anything if you cannot hold it steady.
Kamakura has actually come out with an update (at least for Vixen). However the Vixen Atera II still does not use ED glass in either size. Perhaps the third revision will be the charm.
I just received these, popped them in and they seem to work. Of course, at 300mAh rated capacity vs 800mAh for disposables, they won't last as long, but I just hate the waste and environmental impact of disposables.
Ampsplus CR2 300mAh 3V Battery
Ampsplus CR2 300mAh 3V Battery CR2 Rechargeable battery for Photo, Camera, Flash, TorchCR2 LiFePO4, IFR, LFP High Cycle Rechargeable BatteryWarning: Use only LiFePO4, LFP, IFR 3V Charger!Read more in product details.
www.ecoluxshopdirect.co.uk
kimmik
Well-known member
Patent is not the root reason, its an intermediate reason. The real developments and inventions are under wraps and only patented once a company is planning a commercially viable product.
Image stabilisation is not an inventive step and cannot be patented, only the specific configuration of actuators and lenses and prisms, of which there can be many versions, using different topologies and so forth. It is as broad a field as making tyres for wheels, no one can monopolise the field with patent.
Also we see minimal products from Nikon fujinon etc who already have the necessary premium product patents to make IS bino, yet they chose not to, because the market is too small. They make IS lenses that sell for far higher price and volume.
Zeiss and leica also make arguably the best lenses in the world, not the least bit shy about camera related tech. In the case of zeiss, The most expensive lenses costing 100mil each.
So patent isn’t the limiting step.
Image stabilisation is not an inventive step and cannot be patented, only the specific configuration of actuators and lenses and prisms, of which there can be many versions, using different topologies and so forth. It is as broad a field as making tyres for wheels, no one can monopolise the field with patent.
Also we see minimal products from Nikon fujinon etc who already have the necessary premium product patents to make IS bino, yet they chose not to, because the market is too small. They make IS lenses that sell for far higher price and volume.
Zeiss and leica also make arguably the best lenses in the world, not the least bit shy about camera related tech. In the case of zeiss, The most expensive lenses costing 100mil each.
So patent isn’t the limiting step.
Last edited:
There were early British image stabilised military monoculars in the 1980s, and I think experimental versions date to the 1960s.
Russia also had early stabilised binoculars.
The $100 million Zeiss device may be the one using glancing x-rays rather than visible light.
I think the whole set up cost that amount not just the imaging part.
The $100 million to $10 billion dollar devices are usually mirror optics for military or scientific research.
I can't think of $100 million refractive optics although there have been in the past in today's dollars.
Ross/Williamson made a £1million pound lens in today's money.
Million to 10 million pound optics were made in France, U.S., Japan, Germany, U.K., Finland and other countries.
I would think that Itek and others in the U.S., The U.K. France and Japan make some lenses as good as the best Zeiss and Leica lenses.
As to so called Alpha IS binoculars we already have some.
Regards,
B.
Russia also had early stabilised binoculars.
The $100 million Zeiss device may be the one using glancing x-rays rather than visible light.
I think the whole set up cost that amount not just the imaging part.
The $100 million to $10 billion dollar devices are usually mirror optics for military or scientific research.
I can't think of $100 million refractive optics although there have been in the past in today's dollars.
Ross/Williamson made a £1million pound lens in today's money.
Million to 10 million pound optics were made in France, U.S., Japan, Germany, U.K., Finland and other countries.
I would think that Itek and others in the U.S., The U.K. France and Japan make some lenses as good as the best Zeiss and Leica lenses.
As to so called Alpha IS binoculars we already have some.
Regards,
B.
The Sig Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 has ED glass and has practically no CA. It is very close to alpha IMO and only weighs 20 oz. The newer Sig Sauer Zulu 6 HDX is even supposed to have better glass.
"Ellbender's Review of SIG SAUER ZULU6 HDX OIS 16x42mm Schmidt-Pechan Prism Binocular"
Stabilized binos is a small field; I've tried:- Canon 12x36 IS III ~$800
- 10x42 L IS ~$1500
- and watched reviews of Fuji TS and TS X14x42 $1000-$1350, which say they're similar to the Canon L in optical quality
Last edited:
