strange.
-
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.
New APC 42 Stabilized (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Winterdune
- Start date
Me too! Also, the stabilizer quit working properly in 2 weeks.
Is that the video on the APC 42mm page of Kite Optics’ website?
Hi mbb,
I cannot remember as I saw several videos on these APC binoculars.
But maybe.
What strikes me regarding these, other binoculars and videos of scopes is that the presenters rarely have a good grasp of their subject.
A few reviewers clearly know their stuff, but not many.
I can understand makers just presenting the good points, but non interested parties should be unbiased and know their subject.
There are numerous reviews that are laughable from the first few seconds.
I just saw a good presenter who used black flocking paper in the ray tube of a Celestron 90 Maksutov.
This clearly gives a vast improvement in daylight contrast as does a long lens shade.
I didn't remember, but the early U.S. made C90s were 1000mm fl and the present ones 1250mm approx. They are different scopes.
I have had both.
Regards,
B.
I cannot remember as I saw several videos on these APC binoculars.
But maybe.
What strikes me regarding these, other binoculars and videos of scopes is that the presenters rarely have a good grasp of their subject.
A few reviewers clearly know their stuff, but not many.
I can understand makers just presenting the good points, but non interested parties should be unbiased and know their subject.
There are numerous reviews that are laughable from the first few seconds.
I just saw a good presenter who used black flocking paper in the ray tube of a Celestron 90 Maksutov.
This clearly gives a vast improvement in daylight contrast as does a long lens shade.
I didn't remember, but the early U.S. made C90s were 1000mm fl and the present ones 1250mm approx. They are different scopes.
I have had both.
Regards,
B.
Last edited:
Hi,
I got the APC 42 as a christmas present, and after a month I can say that I'm very pleased with them. I haven't had glare issues, at least in my use cases, mainly in the forest and for astronomical use. In my opinion the weakest point is the considerable amount of CA, but that was somehow expected for an achromat fast objective at 16x. The IS, in my opinion the IS is very good, better actually than the IS of the Canon 15x50 (see below)
I have had some months ago the canon 15x50, and as far as I can remember, they were a bit brighter (expected), a bit flatter and with less CA. But eventually, I had to sold them, because maybe I'm too sensitive to the temporary blurring or defocusing of the vari-angle prisms. In the end, I found my self continuously re-focusing, and that problem made the canons unusable, at least for me.
I have also the Canon 8x25 IS, and they are a real little gem. Optically quite good, and the IS is the best I've tried, is like they are really mounted in a tripod. No blurs, no defocusing. I'm tempted to try the 10x42. Although they have also the vari-angle prisms systems, nobody is reporting the same blurs of their 15x and 18x siblings.
I have to confess, that I have other 42's (Swarovski EL 8,5x42, Leica UV 7x42HD+) that are better optically, but lately I'm grabbing the kites for my backpack, because in the end, I can see more with them.
Regards!!
I got the APC 42 as a christmas present, and after a month I can say that I'm very pleased with them. I haven't had glare issues, at least in my use cases, mainly in the forest and for astronomical use. In my opinion the weakest point is the considerable amount of CA, but that was somehow expected for an achromat fast objective at 16x. The IS, in my opinion the IS is very good, better actually than the IS of the Canon 15x50 (see below)
I have had some months ago the canon 15x50, and as far as I can remember, they were a bit brighter (expected), a bit flatter and with less CA. But eventually, I had to sold them, because maybe I'm too sensitive to the temporary blurring or defocusing of the vari-angle prisms. In the end, I found my self continuously re-focusing, and that problem made the canons unusable, at least for me.
I have also the Canon 8x25 IS, and they are a real little gem. Optically quite good, and the IS is the best I've tried, is like they are really mounted in a tripod. No blurs, no defocusing. I'm tempted to try the 10x42. Although they have also the vari-angle prisms systems, nobody is reporting the same blurs of their 15x and 18x siblings.
I have to confess, that I have other 42's (Swarovski EL 8,5x42, Leica UV 7x42HD+) that are better optically, but lately I'm grabbing the kites for my backpack, because in the end, I can see more with them.
Regards!!
Winterdune
Well-known member
Since I got my Kite 10x30 APCs I have not used my 10x42 ELs much at all (although I have continued to use my 8x32s). The Kites have made me ultra aware of the jittery view of non IS 10s. From now on my only 10s or higher will be image stabilised, although I won't buy this generation of x42 APCs because the fov is even worse that the already rather narrow 10x30s.
Sean
Sean
I had also this impression there was something strange going on...
My comments on that fanboyish thread are gone with it.
I observed the stabilization is not rock-solid like my Canon 10x42L IS, but more of a gently swaying motion, unsurprisingly given the higher magnification. The CA is very noticeable. I haven’t been in conditions that could generate much flare since lockdown. Let’s hope Dennis’ IS failure is a one-off manufacturing defect. The manufacturer advises against using NiMH rechargeables, but I’ve had no problems with Eneloop Pros.
One other issue is it takes a lot more time to target 16x binoculars than 8x or 10x.
I observed the stabilization is not rock-solid like my Canon 10x42L IS, but more of a gently swaying motion, unsurprisingly given the higher magnification. The CA is very noticeable. I haven’t been in conditions that could generate much flare since lockdown. Let’s hope Dennis’ IS failure is a one-off manufacturing defect. The manufacturer advises against using NiMH rechargeables, but I’ve had no problems with Eneloop Pros.
One other issue is it takes a lot more time to target 16x binoculars than 8x or 10x.
Several good points! Good warning on using NiMH rechargeables, and you are correct that a 16x takes more time for target acquisition than a 8x or 10x. The IS does steady the vibration caused by using a 16x, but it doesn't compensate for the other negatives of using 16x like a smaller FOV and less DOF. A 16x IS binocular is still not a good birding binocular, especially for fast moving warblers. I noticed the CA and I had a LOT of flare with the Kite APC Stabilized 16x42 binoculars. You are also correct that they are not as steady as the Canon 10x42 IS-L probably due to the higher magnification.
Winterdune
Well-known member
I really, really hope that the next generation of IS binoculars from Kite have wider fov and that they make a x10 as well as a x12.
Interesting. I noticed the dragging on the Kite also. Do you mean like the Powered IS on the Canon IS binoculars?
Hi guys, first post here!
Looking for my first pair of Bino’s, actually for my girlfriend who loves birdwatching in the yard.
Today I went to the store and tried the kite’s apc 12x30 and the kite‘s falco 8x42.
I got nausea pretty quickly from the apc 12x30’s as they indeed had a very disorienting drag when panning. It was as if the image when panning arrived a second later than my head movement. I do have a history of motion sickness though. The image also seemed a little round, fish eyed when panning if that makes sense.
- Is that image drag just a thing of IS Bino’s or do canon’s eg not have such an annoyance? -
I did find the optics to be brighter and sharper on the kite falco 8x42’s though. Don’t know if that’s due to an inferior lens in the apc’s or a bigger lens in the 42’s.
Cheers!
Last edited:
I've not tried the Kites, but have not had this 'image drag' impression from my Canon 10x42ISL.
Indeed, one of the strong points of that glass imho is its ability to stabilize flying birds, one gets a hugely better view of the details.
Technically, it may be that the limited adjustment range of the Canon IS, designed only to filter hand tremors, with a mere 0.7 degrees range iIrc, has the virtue of very rapid response, enough to avoid the 'frame dragging' effect.
edwincjones
Well-known member
I have had no trouble with drag either with my Fujinon TS-X 14x40s
but the 4 degree FOV makes it hard to find fast and/or close flying birds.
I probably would have gotten the Kites instead if they had been available in the US
but I am happy with the fujis.
edj
but the 4 degree FOV makes it hard to find fast and/or close flying birds.
I probably would have gotten the Kites instead if they had been available in the US
but I am happy with the fujis.
edj
I purchased the 12x30 a couple of months ago and regret it.
They are not sharp, no good contrast and not easy on the eyes. I get eyestrain.
To me, they don't have much use for birdwatching. Maybe to look at waterfowl over a distance but that's the absolute maximum.
Picking up flying birds in flight is terrible as you just cannot get good focus and CA is bad. I missed a nice view on a V of Northern Pintails today wich were going high up in the sky. Just some fuzzy ducks through the APC's
I don't think they are good enough to spend the money on, at least that is my opinion.
They are not sharp, no good contrast and not easy on the eyes. I get eyestrain.
To me, they don't have much use for birdwatching. Maybe to look at waterfowl over a distance but that's the absolute maximum.
Picking up flying birds in flight is terrible as you just cannot get good focus and CA is bad. I missed a nice view on a V of Northern Pintails today wich were going high up in the sky. Just some fuzzy ducks through the APC's
I don't think they are good enough to spend the money on, at least that is my opinion.
Winterdune
Well-known member
I like my 10x30s a lot. I take them instead of my Swarovski 10x42 in good light or windy seawatch conditions, even though they are optically inferior and the fov is poor.
kennykerberos
Member
I have had my Kite APC 16x42 for a few weeks now. My reason is that I wanted more magnification and didn’t want to lug around a tripod or spotting scope. Just as a starting point, I use these when out on a hike and also carry around a 8x32 Maven monocular in my pocket.
As for the image lag panning around, I haven’t found that to be a big issue. It does a little, but nothing that bothered me or made me nauseous or anything like that. And using a high-powered optic to chase birds in flight isn’t something I do. These do work great for shore birds, nature, scenery, and just overall getting closer to something not moving or at least not moving very quickly.
I’ve used my Kite in the daytime, so I can’t comment on the image brightness at the days first or last light. The daytime brightness was fine.
I thought the image clarity and details on the subject I’m viewing are good. Didn’t notice as much CA as the folks above seem to have.
The focus wheel is fast. Mostly good to quickly focus on the subject, but i go back and forth a little fine tuning to just the right tick.
Eye cups are nice. I was a little worried about the 16x42, but fully extended, I’m not getting any “looking through a straw” effect. I have full vision in the daytime which is when I use them.
It’s heavy. I’ve had it in my pack for my hikes, and haven’t slung it around my neck or in a harness yet. The latter may be the best choice for frequent use. But I don’t think it slows me down that much for the kind of hiking i do. I do try to keep my pack light, so I do make a decision on whether to carry these along or leave them at home.
I think it’s pretty cool to have 16x stabilized in my pack that I can hand hold. The stabilization works great. No issues. Image isn’t jumping around and I can see details on whatever I’m looking at pretty clearly. Which is why I got the darn things.
As for the image lag panning around, I haven’t found that to be a big issue. It does a little, but nothing that bothered me or made me nauseous or anything like that. And using a high-powered optic to chase birds in flight isn’t something I do. These do work great for shore birds, nature, scenery, and just overall getting closer to something not moving or at least not moving very quickly.
I’ve used my Kite in the daytime, so I can’t comment on the image brightness at the days first or last light. The daytime brightness was fine.
I thought the image clarity and details on the subject I’m viewing are good. Didn’t notice as much CA as the folks above seem to have.
The focus wheel is fast. Mostly good to quickly focus on the subject, but i go back and forth a little fine tuning to just the right tick.
Eye cups are nice. I was a little worried about the 16x42, but fully extended, I’m not getting any “looking through a straw” effect. I have full vision in the daytime which is when I use them.
It’s heavy. I’ve had it in my pack for my hikes, and haven’t slung it around my neck or in a harness yet. The latter may be the best choice for frequent use. But I don’t think it slows me down that much for the kind of hiking i do. I do try to keep my pack light, so I do make a decision on whether to carry these along or leave them at home.
I think it’s pretty cool to have 16x stabilized in my pack that I can hand hold. The stabilization works great. No issues. Image isn’t jumping around and I can see details on whatever I’m looking at pretty clearly. Which is why I got the darn things.
edwincjones
Well-known member
Good to see a positive review of the Kites-please keep us informed as to durability.
Reviews have been mixed.
edj
Reviews have been mixed.
edj
