Ed,
The idea is not completely dead, at least for telescope eyepieces. It might be possible to adapt the DIOPTRIX to some binoculars, perhaps quite a few if the lens is removed from the cell and fitted the way Kimmo described.
http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=54#.VKlOsijR25Q
Henry
Thanks for mentioning your old thread. I had completely forgotten about it.
BTW, Orniwelt has an interesting adaption of the Finnstick: http://www.orniwelt.de/products/Fernglaeser/Fernglas-Zubehoer/Nackenstativ.html
Hermann
Regarding the IS comparison, at least for me I know that IS does better than a Fismo, since I have used an IS binocular on a Finnstick extensively over the years, and often when in a birding tower with a railing, support the stick on the railing for essentially monopod mode effect. The addition of IS even in these situations is a significant improvement.
And I had completely forgotten about the Orniwelt system. I should look into buying one.
Thanks for providing the web site. :t:
Ed
The 10x30 IS has 2 field flatteners.. From memory the Canon 10×30 IS has one field flattener, but the more expensive models have 2 field flatteners. But I'm not quite certain.
"If the present day Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0° real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed.".. If the present day Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0° real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed.
The reasoning why the Zeiss SF has a single element field flattener has been discussed here.
Every binocular is a compromise.
I have not tried any modern Swarovski binoculars so I cannot comment on them.
But I have some second hand Porro prism Swarovski binoculars which have been well used and unfortunately they are a pretty sorry sight and don't perform well at all.
Mind you I also have an abused classic Zeiss 10 x 40 and the view is awful.
It amazes me how badly some people treat their optics. My binoculars that have been bought new are usually optically as new, even if I've used them for years.
I can't imagine why Canon would lie about how many doublet field-flatteners they have in their lenses. Plus it is illegal and somebody could report them to the FTC. I don't think they are that stupid! Plus what have they got to gain? I don't think anybody is not going to buy their binoculars because they only use a single flattener lens versus a double. It is not logical.If you look at the specifications of the different models you will find three levels of eyepiece complexity: 4 elements, 3 groups (8x25), 5 elements, 4 groups (10x30, 12x36) and 7 elements, 5 groups (10x42, 15x50, 18x50). I'd be willing to bet that only the last three have doublet field flatteners in spite of what is stated under "Features".
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/binoculars/image_stabilizer
I can't imagine why Canon would lie about how many doublet field-flatteners they have in their lenses. Plus it is illegal and somebody could report them to the FTC. I don't think they are that stupid! Plus what have they got to gain? I don't think anybody is not going to buy their binoculars because they only use a single flattener lens versus a double. It is not logical.
"and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous.". Dear all,
. Somewhere I have a brochure about 10 years old listing the various Canon image stabilised binoculars and I think that Henry is correct.
The only thing I cannot remember clearly is regarding the 12 x 36 Mark one. I think that it has a single field flattener, but it could be a doublet.
Indeed, the star images in the Canon image stabilised binoculars are very good inasmuch as they are very small and pack all the light energy in a tiny point like disc.
In my experience, the edge performance regarding star images is better in the 12×36 Mark one and 18×50 compared to the 10×30.
The star images at the edge of the field in the 10×30 are quite good but not perfect.
Regarding the 18×50, when I have the stabiliser on I can pick up stars one magnitude or even 1.5 magnitudes fainter than with the stabiliser off. With the stabiliser on the faintist stars are indeed very tiny, much smaller than in any other binocular I have tried. I think that this is due to excellent design by Canon.
However, I was fortunate to catch a magnitude -5 fireball in the 18×50 and it looked enormous because it was so bright and I think this was probably an artefact of the binocular.
Regarding the normal artefacts you see with these image stabilised binoculars, they are mainly due in my opinion to the rainbow or prismatic affects when the variable prisms go away from the centre and especially when they reach the end stops.
It is very simple to overcome this. You just release the button for one or two seconds and reapply after centring the object. If you pan smoothly or look at something carefully it is possible to keep the variable prisms more or less centre and then the star images, or in the daytime, terrestrial images look very good.
All this is now automatic for me, but it did require a learning curve to use these binoculars to their best ability.
As to the notion that Canon may be lying etc. etc. In my opinion, somebody just made a mistake, and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous.