But they work!
-
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) my list. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paultricounty
- Start date
Why not? Try, and you'll see!
WRL
Well-known member
I do. Why? Because I appreciate the benefits of IS. And I am certainly not alone.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Threads like this would be better off if people didn’t try to tell others what they need. I have no need for IS but can completely see the need by others.
Gentlemen, please! We had a great discussion in this thread and all of you have valuable experience with bins that others would gladly learn from, including me. Let's share our passion for bins but without too much attachment 
They are only binoculars after all and don't define us.
They are only binoculars after all and don't define us.
tenex
reality-based
To raise this "discussion" again above the level of exup's remarks about "p****" length (really, please!), consider that quote from Roger Vine:
"Make no mistake, the resolution of these is a big deal. For very long-range birding, exploring the Moon,... these outperform everything else: no conventional binoculars are going to reveal as much without a tripod."
Roger was envisioning specific circumstances under which the increased resolution of IS would be desirable, notably (and obviously) long range observation, rather than just some general matter of individual taste that's pointless (or worse) to argue about. I would imagine that those who feel or have said they never missed it seldom need to discern fine details at such long range, or would use a tripod if they did. Does that pretty much settle the issue, or would someone like to argue that IS is crucially necessary for short-range observation as well, and on what grounds, since most apparently disagree? Otherwise, can we get back to the topic of "Premium (Alpha) list", or did exhausting that lead to this, and the thread should be locked?
"Make no mistake, the resolution of these is a big deal. For very long-range birding, exploring the Moon,... these outperform everything else: no conventional binoculars are going to reveal as much without a tripod."
Roger was envisioning specific circumstances under which the increased resolution of IS would be desirable, notably (and obviously) long range observation, rather than just some general matter of individual taste that's pointless (or worse) to argue about. I would imagine that those who feel or have said they never missed it seldom need to discern fine details at such long range, or would use a tripod if they did. Does that pretty much settle the issue, or would someone like to argue that IS is crucially necessary for short-range observation as well, and on what grounds, since most apparently disagree? Otherwise, can we get back to the topic of "Premium (Alpha) list", or did exhausting that lead to this, and the thread should be locked?
tenex,
Bingo. To keep it short, a few days ago at around 10 am one of the local black crowned night herons spent 20 minutes calmly stalking around the edge of my pool @ 15 to 18 yards away. Mindful of the discussion here I got the 12x36 Canon IS III and FP SW 12x50 and compared back and forth. The SW had the better quality image as expected, brighter, more saturated colors, and as you say at that distance the IS did not result in a better perception of detail. If anything, the SW revealed even more precise detail. Of course the FP 50 mm objectives are an advantage. I have experienced similar results out to about 150 yards albeit in more casual comparisons between the two observing killdeer. But as the distance increases (and sometimes when viewing closer but at difficult high angles) the advantage of IS begins to show.
More closely on topic, IMO the Canon 10x42 L, which I tried for several hours on the beach courtesy of another member here, and the Fuji 14x40 IS have alpha or premium quality optics to compliment their IS function. But the outstanding Fuji is certainly not a general purpose birding bin and the ergonomics of the Canon were a no go for me despite their alpha optical performance.
Mike
Last edited:
Every binocular has a set of circumstances that best suit its use.
That's why many people have multiple instruments.
I have 10, 12 and 18 mag IS bins, which are each suited to different purposes.
The crux of Rogers quote, was that the bins he was reviewing resolved detail, that handheld bins couldn't....... To me, that means they are regarded as "Alpha" = best image resolution.
I do long range observation and the 18x50 is excellent. Nothing unmounted will compare......in my view (and Roger's).
Unfortunately, it would seem that few agree with you on BF ...... In the Canon forum yesterday, they were described as 'mid range'.
So, the consensus I am picking up when the term "Alpha" is used, is that they have to have a long warranty and the manufacturer has to start with the letters S, Z or L. Image resolution and quality seem to be of secondary importance.
If we use @Hermann figures from earlier in this thread, x8-10 handheld bins are "degraded" by 35%. So that is a large deficit to make up, image wise, no matter whi the manufacturer is or what coatings they utilise.
Maybe "Alpha" is a status symbol for many people, rather than an objective term for top quality optical equipment?
Don't get me wrong.... And, I will repeat it again...... I have no doubt that top line bins such as NLs, ELs, SF .... are very good, but so are other bins too, that deliver image detail often exceeding that available on handheld bins.
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Yes, I said that earlier when a person wanted to tripod mount an x8 bin.That's why many birders have a scope.
I use multiple scopes, from 56mm mini to 5 inch SCT, as each scope too has its most suitable use case.
Last edited:
Conndomat
United States of Europe
That is undisputed.
As long as you observe while standing or walking, IS glasses simply have advantages!
In order to judge the real quality of an optic, however, you have to establish "equality of arms", which means that, in case of doubt, binoculars should be placed on a tripod in order to make a real comparison with an IS!
I rarely observe while standing or walking, at best to briefly identify something.
As a rule, I try to observe while sitting, so I rest my elbows on my knees so I can use 12x binoculars with practically no wobble.
For astronomy, I always use tripods, even with 8x binoculars, that observing while sitting is much more relaxed for me than standing, moreover, alpha optics reveal their full potential here and observation also has something to do with aesthetics, not just with maximum resolution.
It is also always a question of how and in what form you primarily use your binoculars, I do not need an IS because observations while standing are only an emergency solution for me.
Andreas
Fair enough.
I might be wrong, but I believe that some testing was conducted using braced holding too and although this improves image, it is still not equivalent to tripod or IS. Try searching for this test...on BF or CN....it is worth reading.
There is a good thread on CN, where someone braced a spotting scope and then tried to read text......
Conndomat
United States of Europe
grudgingly, if you're wrong I'll search in vain, also it should be good practice for receipts to be supplied by the person who draws them up.
Andreas
Edit: I'm afraid you just can't accept that some people don't need IS.
Last edited:
kimmik
Well-known member
I feel that you may have discovered IS via binoculars and got very attached to it being together and a whole. My first IS was in 2006-ish on a canon lens, and was wowed as you are. So i’ve had 15 years with IS, and 10 years with bino and telescopes.
My point is, IS is great and everyone knows that. It deserves its special category in binos, maybe “Alpha-IS”. But until you have meaningful lifetime support like the others in this thread (not just euro but also nikon) it doesnt belong to the same category like you seem to suggest.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise we’d be adding telescopes with bino-viewer, and cameras, and a host of other alternatives.
I fully accept that everyone makes their own choices in spending cash on optics.
I have said this repeatedly.
I have also repeatedly said that "Alpha" bins are undoubtedly very good
Do you accept that not everyone feels the need to buy the latest Swaro, Leica, Zeiss bins?
Do you accept that for some people, their use case and 'Wow' factor comes from categories such as resolution and image stillness?
There seems to be a large group on BF who only accept their own point of view and then continually criticise others preferences..... Do you fall into this category, or can you accept multiple view points?
Conndomat
United States of Europe
I can also achieve the wow factor with conventional binoculars, I have given examples above!
Andreas
My first DSLR was a Sony, with sensor stabilisation, not lens. For me there is no wow in a camera use case. I have my manual SLRs and film enlarger from the 1970s .... that does provide fun too.
If my IS bins last as long as many have reported, then they will be available for my kids when I am gone. If warranty is your criteria, then you can get Lifetime from many manufacturers.
It sounds like you are again trying to force and impose your views on others.....
You can do as you please, if it floats your boat 👍
