• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon Image Stabilized (IS) Binoculars (1 Viewer)

mak said:
Steve.

O.k. take out the T* and insert T coating to make it 100% accurate.

Take a look at: http://www.zeiss.de/de/bino/home_e.nsf

click on binoculars, then safari, then down to classics and it states all with T* multilayer coating (8x30 B/A Olive T coating).

I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding.

Perhaps we should return to Canon as this is the Canon thread.

Mak,

you are right. 3 different brochures of Zeiss indicated that there is no T* with the 8x30 olive so I assume this is a quite new feature with this bino. But you are also right to remember that we are here in the Canon forum. I have an Astro Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000815...urces/testreports/binoculars/0007isbinos.html

My own thoughts about the ISs are those: About 4 years the Canon 15x50 and 18x50 actually are on the market. This is quite a long time for electronical equipment such as digicams for example are and also the IS binos where a microcomputer is working in. The new 12x36 II Canon IS shows the way the evolution of binos like this could go for: Reducing the weight and power consumption. If Canon would give them also more sharpness such as the other top binos of Zeiss, Leica, Nikon and Swarovski have I would buy them. So I have to wait for the successors of the 15x50 and 18x50 or for a reduced price of the recent models.

I have no doubt that image stabilised binos could be very valueable for birding. Best examples are this: seawatching, watching birds under stormy circumstances, birdwatching if it´s not possible to carry a scope plus tripod (a situation I experienced a lot) and last but not least IS binos as an alternative to a scope because watching with both eyes is much more comfortable.

Regards

Steve
 
The Sky&Telescope test linked above is a pretty good and objective test. I actually bought the issue when it came out, and was happy to note that they have done a thorough and perceptive job. They also spell out pretty clearly the artefacts that Canon's IS system introduces to the image.

The one improvement that I would dearly like to see Canon make to the IS system, and one which I believe would largerly eliminate these artefacts, is a bit of tweaking to the microprocessor logic. As it is now, the "brain" seems to once in a while (and, mysteriously, seemingly more just after the stabilization is first engaged, much less so after a second consequtive engagement or a short period of use) lose sight of where the optical axes would be centered. When it tries to stabilize the image around an off-center axis, chromatic aberration increases and, as they say in the S&T review, stars turn into slight blobs. If you turn off the stabilization at a moment when the image is poor, you always see the image jump to a new orientation, whereas if you do this when the image has been good, there is a brief jerk but the center of the image remains the same. If the "brain" could keep track of the dead center of the optical axes and stabilize the image always around this central axis, the image would, on the whole, remain so good all the time that us nit-pickers would find very little to complain and the advantages of the IS would vastly outweigh the problems of the small remaining artefacts. I assume that one reason why astronomers are generally so much more exited about IS than birders is that they sit down to view more than us, and the IS "wanders" less when the hold is steadier.

This is something I would like to discuss with Canon folks at some point, but thus far my few attempts to make contact through importers and such have not led to anything. Since I'll be going to Rutland, I'll try again there.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo,

if you talk with Canon you should also mention another point I saw with their 15x/18x50 IS binos. After longer use the blackish finish rubs off between the eyepieces when you change their distance frequently and also in the tubes where focussing works with moving the objectives and leaves some abrasive marks. Although this shouldn´t have an effect on the optics nobody would like to see something like this with a high class binocular.

Steve
 
A short reply to the previous two posts. I did have a chat with one of the Canon boys, but he was more of a salesman type, and although he listened politely and interestedly to my longish lecture, I doubt anything will come of it. When I asked who at Canon I should contact if I wanted to give detailed feedback and provide ideas, he could not give a reference.

At the stand, the 18x50 was out of collimation and a pain to look through, the 15x50 had astoundingly high levels of chromatic aberration when compared to my own unit back at home, and their main thing was an articifical rattling and shaking platform on which you were supposed to stand and see how well the IS works - as if combating hand tremor would not be enough!

They did have a very good specimen of the relatively new 8x25 IS. This model, in my view, is an absolute failure simply because it uses an expensive lithium battery of a type which, to my knowledge, is not available as a rechargeable. At leas in Finland, these batteries cost some 8 euros a pop, which means that some fifty days of intensive birding comes to cost as much as the binocular itself did. However, the IS system in the 8x25, which does not use a vari-angle prism but a solid optical flat which is tilted by the mechanism, worked very well and introduced no unpleasant artefacts that I could detect in the 5-10 minutes of use I gave them. It would be lovely to have this IS system incorporated into a waterproof 10x42 that used AA recharchables.

I did not read Steve's message in time to take that issue up. In my own bin, nothing has happened to the finish between the eyepiece barrels. I looked into the objective ends just now. There are definite "abrasion marks", but I think they are lubricant, not scratches.

I have tried the Fujinon briefly, and found it very cumbersome to use. The stabilisation does not suit birding, and the image trembles slightly when it is on. Jan Meijerink has a very good review of it on the Twentse Vogelverkgroep pages, in Dutch of course. I have commented on the Nikon StabilEyes on the Nikon venue here, they utilize the same stabilisation technology but with the extra feature of two different modes.

Kimmo
 
New Canon 12x36 IS II's

I have the new 12x36's and some people with the old 12x36 IS I's have upgraded to the II series because it was so much better. Has anyone here purchased a pair ?

Joe
 
jogiba said:
I have the new 12x36's and some people with the old 12x36 IS I's have upgraded to the II series because it was so much better. Has anyone here purchased a pair ?

Joe

I just bought a pair of 12x36 mk II after trying a large range of bins at Birdfair. These were intended to supplement or replace my old pair of Kowa 8x42 roof prisms (which have proved excellent value for the £200 they cost 6 years ago).

Choosing the IS bins seems a heart versus head decision. Optically they are no better than the Kowas, their low-light ability is disappointing, there is a trace of chromatic abberation (yellow/purple fringes) when viewing strongly backlit subjects ... plus they cost more than twice as much as the old bins, and are not even weatherproof.

BUT the combination of extra magnification and Image Stabilisation is totally seductive, and gives me no regrets about this purchase. Now, when I go birding with my wife, I find I am constantly carrying her Swaro ELs - while she ID's distant LBJs with the Canons. She certainly never wanted to swap her ELs for the Kowas and I think this says it all ;)
 
Travelog said:
I just bought a pair of 12x36 mk II after trying a large range of bins at Birdfair. [SNIP]

Choosing the IS bins seems a heart versus head decision. Optically they are no better than the Kowas, their low-light ability is disappointing, there is a trace of chromatic abberation (yellow/purple fringes) when viewing strongly backlit subjects ... plus they cost more than twice as much as the old bins, and are not even weatherproof.

[SNIP]

My wife and I were doing a little hiking in the Adirondacks (upstate NY, USA) this past week. She had her dad's 10x30 IS binox. We were looking at a severely backlit flycatcher and she complained about the yellow fringe around the bird. I looked and could not see it. I suggested adjusting the interpupillary distance. When she did, the yellow fringe went away. It's worth a try.

Clear skies, Alan
 
AlanFrench said:
My wife and I were doing a little hiking in the Adirondacks (upstate NY, USA) this past week. She had her dad's 10x30 IS binox. We were looking at a severely backlit flycatcher and she complained about the yellow fringe around the bird. I looked and could not see it. I suggested adjusting the interpupillary distance. When she did, the yellow fringe went away. It's worth a try.

Clear skies, Alan

Thanks for this, Alan, I'll give it a try !
 
Just a brief self-promo: Alula has now posted all of our past optics reviews on the web, in both Finnish and English, at "www.alula.fi". My splendid and thorough Canon IS test report is among them, for those of you who are interested and have plenty of time to read such rubbish.

Kimmo
 
kabsetz said:
Just a brief self-promo: Alula has now posted all of our past optics reviews on the web, in both Finnish and English, at "www.alula.fi". My splendid and thorough Canon IS test report is among them, for those of you who are interested and have plenty of time to read such rubbish.

Kimmo

Oh Kimmo, that´s great! Thank you very much for make your excellent reviews available for all of us! :clap:

Regards

Steve
 
Last edited:
I recently purchased the Canon 10X30IS after a look through at the bird fair and so far have got on very well with them. They are absolutely amazing when the image stabilising kicks in with a much steadier view (at least for me). I am looking forward to getting the benefit of them on a birding boat trip into the Wash late in October. |8.|
 
A couple of people in our local birding group use Canon IS binoculars. One lady uses a 15x45 IS. Another uses a 12x Canon IS.

I have a Canon 15x50 IS but seldom use it for birding because I don't want to wear a bino harness and it's more than I want hanging on my neck. I use the IS mostly for amateur astronomy. If you know where to look you can find a number of open clusters, globular cluster, nebulae, and a few galaxies. The IS feature lets me see more dim stars. With the IS turned off these dim stars go away because my eyes can see these little dim dancing points of light.

On a briding walk, not much time is spent observing any one bird. We are mostly seeing how many different birds we can find on the walk. A good standard birding binocular is just fine for this type of activity. I sometimes carry a spotting scope (Leica 77 APO). I find when I have a scope with me I want a good close view and usually am using more than 30x.

If I wanted to do a detailed study of birds from a relatively fixed location I would use a well made telescope with a very good binocular viewer, much like I use for lunar and planetary observing, but not as large a telescope. A high quality 3 inch of 4 inch telescope should be just fine for daytime viewing when you have to fight image distortion from heat waves.

The Zeiss/Baader binoviewer is the best I've found.

I would like to see a Zeiss 10x42 FL with the IS feature and no more weight than the standard model. I guess that's asking a lot. ;)

Rich
 
Last edited:
Rich N said:
[SNIP]
I have a Canon 15x50 IS but seldom use it for birding because I don't want to wear a bino harness and it's more than I want hanging on my neck. I use the IS mostly for amateur astronomy. [SNIP]
[SNIP]
I would like to see a Zeiss 10x42 FL with the IS feature and no more weight than the standard model. I guess that's asking a lot. ;)

Rich

Rich,

My wife has the older 15x45 IS binox, and they are used mostly for amateur astronomy. I have found they are also great for those pesky warblers way up in the treetops, so will sometimes put up with the weight. They flit about so much that IS binoculars are much easier, at least for me, than a scope.

It may be asking a lot, but it sure would be nice....

Clear skies, Alan
 
Yes, a top-quality 10x42 with IS would be very close to a dream binocular.

However, You don't need a harness for the 15x15 IS if you use a wide neoprene strap. I use a Fujinon strap made for 7x50 FMTR-CSX, which is 2 1/4 inches wide, stretches a bit, and really distributes the weight around my neck so well that the weight is all but unnoticieable. A very similar strap is available in the Op-Tech range which I saw at the bird fair at Rutland.

I recently helped a friend assess whether an 15x50 IS he wished to buy was a good enough unit to purchase. While doing that, I noticed that Canon has changed the multicoatings a bit since my own unit was made some four years ago. The optical flat in front of the objectives now reflects even less light, and the reflection is more deep purple while in the older unit it is deep blue. The eyepiece also reflects less light in the new unit. The image does, indeed, look slightly brighter, with apparent contrast also somewhat improved. In this new unit, the left barrel showed almost no CA, while the right barrel had rather prominent CA. Again, I suspect that this is due to Canon probably adjusting the vari-angle prisms to bring the two tubes into collimation, and thus they introduce CA into the tube/tubes which they (mis-)correct in order to bring the optical axes to parrallelism without having to adjust the actual lens and prism assemblies. This is a pity, since the optical quality of the binocular would be, on average, greatly improved if they would be collimated in a more rigorous and traditional way. As far as the collimation is concerned, there was some vertical misalingment and hardly any horizontal misalingnment. With IS binoculars, doing a quick crude check of alignment is very easy, since you can use the stabilization to keep a point in the field. Look at an object such as chimney, flagpole, utility pole etc. at least half-a-mile away, and while keeping it centered in the exit pupil, slowly move the binoculars away from your eyes. If the object is still pretty much visible with both eyes, without marked vertical or pronounced horizontal shift, at the point when the binocular is some 20-30 centimeters away from your eyes, the collimation is acceptably good. The same test works with regular binoculars, but with them you pretty much need a tripod. If you notice a pair with very poor collimation and have not bought it, tell the salesperson about it. It would be good if increased feedback from customers would force the manufacturers to tighten their production methods.

Kimmo
 
I know that the posts have been lost but, I ordered my Canon 12x36 IS II last Thursday. I decided on them in preference to 15x50, due to the weight of the latter. They arrived on Saturday (fantastic turnround as I only paid for ordinary post) and they are brilliant. So much so, I have not yet had to use the IS!


Rob
 
Rob Williams said:
I know that the posts have been lost but, I ordered my Canon 12x36 IS II last Thursday. I decided on them in preference to 15x50, due to the weight of the latter. They arrived on Saturday (fantastic turnround as I only paid for ordinary post) and they are brilliant. So much so, I have not yet had to use the IS!

Rob

Rob,

Huh?! What does brilliance have to do with using the IS feature?

Clear skies, Alan
 
I found the image clarity and amount of light to be so good that the need for IS is less than I thought it would be. However I did use the IS yesterday, for the first time, and it was a great help.


Rob
 
AlanFrench said:
Rob,

Huh?! What does brilliance have to do with using the IS feature?

Clear skies, Alan

I have a suspicion that in American usage brilliant means bright. In the UK brilliant means great. Odd how language changes: wicked once meant evil, and now means good, and terrific once meant terrifying, and now means excellent.

Leif
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top