Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized (3 Viewers)

[Stu57]

Not in my experience.
Supported arms gets me perhaps one third of the way to where I get with IS (and IS gets me 3/4 of the way to where I can get with a good tripod).

Totally Agree with you and Dave the image stabilisation system on the canons far outweighs a pair of bins supported on a shelf/tree. Never fitted them on a tripod never needed to 😉.

cheers Stu

 

[Conndomat]

Supported arms gets me perhaps one third of the way to where I get with IS (and IS gets me 3/4 of the way to where I can get with a good tripod).

Not my experience.

If you sit and at the same time put your arms on your bent knees, I get an extremely calm posture.

Andreas

 

[BayBirder]

Not in my experience.
Supported arms gets me perhaps one third of the way to where I get with IS (and IS gets me 3/4 of the way to where I can get with a good tripod).

Canip: this isn't right: the IS is frankly better than a tripod, and you can follow bird around, change point of view, etc. Have you tried these recently? That take seems strange to me, unless arm fatigue is the main issue.

A few more thoughts.
I think one of the main reasons people get so excited looking through scopes isn't the magnification but the fact that they can actually watch the bird with a steady image. IS of course delivers that.
I think the argument for and against Alphas vs IS comes down to what your primary goal is. If it's to have the largest, brightest prettiest overall scene, the Alphas are simply amazing, no doubt. If your goal is to really study a bird, then the IS is a vastly superior tool. There's simply no denying that IMHO. I routinely call out details on birding field trips about birds that no one else can see. One lady, completely gear non-aware, once shouted "you must have bionic binoculars!" Well, she was actually pretty right! I can study the details of a bird for a long time at a long distance, when you could barely make out any details with regular bins.
And this is important: the optics on the 10x42 are really, really good. Absolutely as good or better than other similarly priced bins in my experience, AND they are only half the price of the Alphas. I should add the less expensive 10x32s are very nice, but not quite in the same category as the "big boys" as I call them. For ergonomics...I don't notice any issues, I'm too excited by the birds. Yes, they are heavy, really heavy, but the hunting style chest pouch solves that issue (these fit perfectly, and keep your bins from bouncing around as well as protecting them: Binocular Chest Pack).

 

[etudiant]

I find this really interesting (like many things Canip says), and I wonder why it isn't so. Why doesn't Canon make a bold move and leaves everyone in awe with a 10x42 L IS PLUS with improved ergonomics and weight/size. I'm sure Canon has a complex product development process, a pipeline where many actors are involved, and it is not unlikely that they read criticisms here and there (or carry out product satisfaction surveys of some sort). And yet, for example, their new 32 mm line up has grown bigger and heavier than their predecessor, and hasn't done much to address ergonomics (yes it has an improved IS interface, where you don't need to constantly press the IS, but it hasn't improved on eyecups, haptics, etc.).

On the other hand, I'm sure someone in the "big 3" knows what a 10x42 L IS is capable of, and the idea of putting some electronics on a piece of optics is nothing new to Z/L/S (they all have binoculars with range finders and other increasingly complex devices needing batteries). I guess developing something like what Canip says would take an awful lot of money where the return would not probably justify the investment in the first place. But, for example, take the Nikon 10x25 Stabilized. I have not seen it "in the flesh", let alone used it, but from pictures it looks almost just like your regular binoculars with central hinge, twist-up eyecups, etc. A proof that something can be done (better than what Canon has to offer on the ergonomics/usability department).

Said all that. I bought my first IS back in 2021. And, answering the title of this post, in these two years it has been (by far) my most used binoculars, and I've had at my disposal some very nice "premium (alpha)" (albeit from the previous generation), like EL-SV, UV-HD, FL, etc. Whenever I'm carrying an "alpha", I miss the mind-blowing power of my IS; whenever I carry my IS, I miss the alpha optical quality and ergonomics. However, from these two scenarios, 99 % of the times I choose to get the IS with its lesser optical quality and poorer ergonomics (probably the 10x42 L IS is a mix of both worlds, but I'm afraid I'm not attracted to the 10x42 because of weight/size).

The Nikon 10x25 is a sunshine glass, it is more finicky to use and needs light to deliver, but it is indeed vastly lighter and less bulky than Canon's 10x42.
So it is obviously possible for Canon to make a more ergonomic and svelte version of its aging flagship binocular.
However, it is apparently still selling adequately and Canon has more pressing priorities in its core camera and copier businesses.
The Chinese have the potential to upend this situation ( they are gaining ground in higher end camera lenses), but thus far seem happy to only churn out lower cost binoculars and scopes of variable quality.

 

[Binocollector]

The Chinese have the potential to upend this situation ( they are gaining ground in higher end camera lenses), but thus far seem happy to only churn out lower cost binoculars and scopes of variable quality.

Aren't the Bresser IS models as well as the Kenko models made in Kenko's Chinese factory? All those similar looking 16x42 versions.
I am not sure however if all of them are made by the same OEM. When the Kite 16x42 was first released, speculations were that they are made by Kamakura.

 

[Binocollector]

Not my experience.

If you sit and at the same time put your arms on your bent knees, I get an extremely calm posture.

Andreas

I also think that is a personal thing.
And I think below 12x magnification an IS bino makes no sense. That's why I got the 18x50IS Canon but mainly for astronomy. I'd never use that thing for birding while hiking (I sometimes use it through the living room window) but obviously some members here use it with a harness and it works fine. I recently took it to the "Zugspitze" however to enjoy the view. But ended up using my Fuji HC 8x42 more than the Canon. (Never leave the house with just one bino for a longer trip.)
Still I prefer the traditional binos much more. There is just something beautiful about an instrument made only with glass, some metal and a few other parts to get something so magical. The Canon IS binos look and feel like plastic toys. They have their uses but I will always prefer standard binos.
Now I just have to wait for someone claiming that I probably live in a cave, use no smartphone and ride a horse. That's what basically always happens in the German "jülich-bonn" forum whenever someone mentions IS binos.
It seems some people think everybody has to love these plastic abominations just for their performance. I don't. I'd rather use a lower magnification to reduce shakes. But much depends on weight and ergonomics.
As soon as Zeiss reduces the size of their mechanically stabilized bino however, I might have to save some money.

 

[WRL]

[...] And I think below 12x magnification an IS bino makes no sense. [...]

And I think that is your personal misjugdement.

[...] It seems some people think everybody has to love these plastic It seems some people think everybody has to love these plastic abominations just for their performance. just for their performance. [...]

Ok, at least you accept their - I say spectacular - performance.

 

[Binocollector]

And I think that is your personal misjugdement.

And I think I just don't care about your opinion as I can pretty much decide for myself which bino performs best and if shaking of the bino is an issue or not.
Since I also use all my binos for astronomy I have a pretty good idea about how the view is affected and how it can be improved by knowing how to use your bino. So it's your personal misjudgement to think you know something that I don't. The typical forum behavior.
And another one for the ignore list.

 

[Canip]

Still I prefer the traditional binos much more. There is just something beautiful about an instrument made only with glass, some metal and a few other parts to get something so magical.

+1

 

[yarrellii]

... And I think below 12x magnification an IS bino makes no sense.

I love both classic Porro prism binoculars and have "learned" to love (it wasn't easy) IS binoculars. My natural inclination is the love for the pure mechanical wonder, the sheer simplicity and beauty of a classic Porro (I've been a lover of analog photography, automatic watches, single speed bikes and other "surpassed" technologies).

However, one of the things I discovered is that, contrary to what seems evident, even low magnification is greatly improved by IS. This was a surprise. I remember reading Canip's firsts impressions on the plasticky and cheap Canon IS 8x20, and how it could outresolve any of his other 8x "What?" I thought... So I bought one and I discovered in awe that he was right. Side by side against my lovely and really very super sharp Swaro EL SV 8x32, the cheap and cheerful Canon simply resolved more detail, effortlessly. It was an amazing and humbling revelation.

So, while I sold my 8x20 IS and I'm currently selling my 10x30 Canon IS, because I love my 12x36 (and it's where I personally see IS giving its best for me, it's my most used bino), I can perfectly see how someone could value IS in 8x, given the simple fact that it is able to show more. As a matter of fact, I could even see how someone using the binoculars for something other than "leisure" (which is what I do, be it birding, stargazing or just observing nature) could prefer a low magnification IS. In fact, if my life depended on being able to identify something, I would chose an IS, even a 8x IS for that.

Come to think about it, I can't get my head around the fact that a 400 € toy-looking device can show more than a 2400 € top of the range. It's quite amazing and took some getting used to, in my case.

 

[kabsetz]

I second Yarrellii's points.

I much prefer classic binoculars to look at and, were I a collector, to collect, but I vastly prefer IS binoculars to look with.
I count myself as someone with more stable than average hands, but from the first time I placed my traditional porro prism binoculars on a tripod I was painfully aware that my sturdy arms were no tripod. I experimented with various kinds of finnsticks, head-rests and shoulder supports with mixed and never all that satisfying results. When the first Canon IS arrived, a friend of mine got one and it was immediately clear that this was something else, but the image quality was not satisfying and the IS artefacts were too distracting for me. Plus, I didn't have the money.

From the 15x50 onwards, I have mainly used Canon IS for everything, and since the introduction of the 10x42, that has been my main binocular. For quite some while, Ultravid 8x20 was my theatre, concert and museum binocular, but now the Canon 8x20 has replaced that as serves the purpose so much better. Pity it doesn't look and feel like the Leica, though.

I'd much like an improved 10x42 IS L or even an 8x42 IS L, but Canon has been incredibly slow in getting around to producing one. Every year they don't is a boon for SZL.

 

[Charlie Yardbird]

Which brand & model of IS binoculars has the smallest acutal IPD?
Usually they go some distance narrower than the listed spec.
My eyes are 53mm, and most bins don't go below an actual 56mm.
I gravitate towards wide angle bins because it gives me a better sense of having a full FOV; I'm probably only utilizing part of that wide field but for some reason its easier on my eyes than a "standard" FOV.

 

[Siggy]

Anyone on the forum looked at your compared the Canon IS to the IS binos produced by Opticron/Kenko/Sig Sauer in various sizes?

Canon makes great IS camera gear.

 

[[email protected]]

Anyone on the forum looked at your compared the Canon IS to the IS binos produced by Opticron/Kenko/Sig Sauer in various sizes?

Canon makes great IS camera gear.

I tried about all the IS binoculars and generally the Canon 8x20 IS, Canon 10x20 IS, Canon 10x30 IS II, Canon 12x36 IS III and Canon 10x42 IS-L are about the best around. The only one that competes well with them, and it probably has a little better IS system than the Canon's is the big Fujinon 14x40 Techno-Stabi. But it is very big and heavy.

 

[Sancho]

I know there are arguments for and against, and I don't want to start a bunfight, but I would love a pair of IS 8x30 or 8x32 binos. I'm assuming none have ever been produced? I had a pair of Canon IS 8x25 long ago, and wasn't enamoured of them for various reasons. Currently my most used bino is Canon IS 8x20, but I would jump at an IS 8x32 if it were ever available.

 

[truculenter aspicientis]

Well I have to say using Swarovski and Leica for many years, my new 10x30 is II are showing far more detail due to IS.
There a pleasure to look through.. swaros now relegated to the draw .
Anyone who hasn't tried them should.

 

[Paultricounty]

Well I have to say using Swarovski and Leica for many years, my new 10x30 is II are showing far more detail due to IS.
There a pleasure to look through.. swaros now relegated to the draw .
Anyone who hasn't tried them should.

Will you be selling the Swaro and Leica?

Paul

 

[truculenter aspicientis]

Will you be selling the Swaro and Leica?

Paul

Not yet.. might give them to the wife

 

[[email protected]]

I know there are arguments for and against, and I don't want to start a bunfight, but I would love a pair of IS 8x30 or 8x32 binos. I'm assuming none have ever been produced? I had a pair of Canon IS 8x25 long ago, and wasn't enamoured of them for various reasons. Currently my most used bino is Canon IS 8x20, but I would jump at an IS 8x32 if it were ever available.

The Canon 8x25 IS for some reason were never real good performers. The Canon 8x20 IS are superb, and I didn't expect them to be when I tried them, but even in 8x you get used to the IS and it spoils you. A Canon 8x32 IS would be great, I would bet. A little bigger exit pupil, and better in low light, than the 8x20 IS. It could be an ideal birding binocular, especially if Canon used their ED glass like they use in the 10x42 IS-L and kept the weight at about 22 oz. I would definitely buy one.

 

[[email protected]]

Well I have to say using Swarovski and Leica for many years, my new 10x30 is II are showing far more detail due to IS.
There a pleasure to look through.. swaros now relegated to the draw .
Anyone who hasn't tried them should.

The IS does spoil you. As Sancho above says, a Canon 8x32 IS with ED glass would be great for birding.