-
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.
Canon image-stabilized binos reviewed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gary S.
- Start date
ostling41
registered user
I'll be taking the outfit on a five-day trip to Santa Rosa next weekend. There I will have access to a friend's Swarovski 10x42 SLCs, so I can make a direct comparison with these.
I considered a harness, but concluded that this is essentially a means of carrying the weight. A harness does nothing to reduce the strain on one's arms during extended viewing. I've found that carrying the 2.5-lb weight with a broad strap over a shoulder is not tiring -- I've just returned from a two hour hike on South Mountain in 105ºF heat, with no weariness caused by the binoculars, in fact no weariness at all thanks to (Gatorade) G2.
I'm a newcomer to the binoculars forum. My previous postings have all been on the digiscoping forum. Here is one of my recent postings there: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=134119.
Being used to shouldering a spotting scope on a tripod in the field, the notion of doing the same with a lightweight monopod and ballhead attached to the binoculars seems like a "walk in the park." I'll let you know how it goes.
Allan,
This has been talked about before, but since it did not come up this time I'll suggest that you try the "finnstick" method. Essentially, it means using a short monopod to hold the binocular while viewing, with the idea not being to extend the stick all the way to the ground but to have it long enough that you can hold the stick in your hands with your hands at approximately waist-level. This retains almost all of the mobility and quickness of normal hand-holding (except for instantaneous focusing ability) and reduces stress on the arms by much more than one would initially think. I use a short monopod like this, two-section and maximum length of under two feet, that has no head at all but just screws right on to the tripod thread on the Canon 10x42. With this rig, I can scan the skies for as long as I like without arm fatigue figuring in. If I'm in a hide or a bird tower, I may set up the length of the pod such that I can lean it on a railing or such, and although this adds stability and reduces hand strain still further, it compromises my freedom of movement enough that I seldom resort to it. If the stick is light and short enough, you can leave it on the binocular for at least the shorter walks without much bother.
Kimmo
This has been talked about before, but since it did not come up this time I'll suggest that you try the "finnstick" method. Essentially, it means using a short monopod to hold the binocular while viewing, with the idea not being to extend the stick all the way to the ground but to have it long enough that you can hold the stick in your hands with your hands at approximately waist-level. This retains almost all of the mobility and quickness of normal hand-holding (except for instantaneous focusing ability) and reduces stress on the arms by much more than one would initially think. I use a short monopod like this, two-section and maximum length of under two feet, that has no head at all but just screws right on to the tripod thread on the Canon 10x42. With this rig, I can scan the skies for as long as I like without arm fatigue figuring in. If I'm in a hide or a bird tower, I may set up the length of the pod such that I can lean it on a railing or such, and although this adds stability and reduces hand strain still further, it compromises my freedom of movement enough that I seldom resort to it. If the stick is light and short enough, you can leave it on the binocular for at least the shorter walks without much bother.
Kimmo
ostling41
registered user
Kimmo,
I'd not thought of this method -- I will give it a try. It has the advantage of avoiding the weight of a ballhead, and uses a shorter, lighter monopod.
I may also try anchoring the monopod by shoving it into my jeans front pocket. If that seems manageable I may devise a little pocket (like a flagstick holder) which attaches to my leather belt. I may still find a ballhead necessary, for scanning the heavens.
Allan,
For scanning the heavens, I just lift my arms up and away from my body. If the needed tilt is much more than about 45 degrees, I shift my hands to the binocular body leaving the stick jutting out. No problem there. I have never felt a ballhead would be needed or useful. The flagstick holder, on the other hand, may prove useful and convenient, and does not add much complexity or weight either. I have thought about that, but never felt compelled enough to try it since the system works so well even without it.
Kimmo
For scanning the heavens, I just lift my arms up and away from my body. If the needed tilt is much more than about 45 degrees, I shift my hands to the binocular body leaving the stick jutting out. No problem there. I have never felt a ballhead would be needed or useful. The flagstick holder, on the other hand, may prove useful and convenient, and does not add much complexity or weight either. I have thought about that, but never felt compelled enough to try it since the system works so well even without it.
Kimmo
ostling41
registered user
Kimmo,
The Dolica monopod arrived today, and I'm really impressed with its quality. It weighs 12.7 ounces. I'm 6'-3", and the extended length is sufficient to support the Canon 10x42L at eye level without a ballhead. I agree, the straight monopod is sufficient, a ballhead is an encumbrance.
I too tried the Finnstick method and found it satisfactory.
The least tiring posture is sitting down, with the monopod partially-deployed. That's not always possible of course, so I'm glad the Dolica affords the entire range of options.
This finnstick idea is interesting and useful information. I checked the Canon website. Apparently the tripod socket is available only of the 10 x 42 and 15/18 x 50's but not on the 12 x 36 or 10 x 30. It would be handy to have one on the 12 x 36 too.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=128&modelid=11092#ModelTechSpecsAct
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=107
Bob
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=128&modelid=11092#ModelTechSpecsAct
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=107
Bob
Last edited:
Rick and Allan,
I'm glad you find this useful. It is one of those ideas the utility of which is difficult to appreciate until one tries it for oneself. Just thinking about it, it easily seems as if it would make almost no difference, but the difference in comfort and reduced fatigue is actually quite large.
Bob,
Yes, it would be nice if the 30/36mm Canons also had the tripod thread. However, they would also need to incorporate the click-on-stay-on stabilization control in order to be truly usable with a finnstick or a monopod. Otherwise, you need to have one hand on top of the bino holding down the button.
Kimmo
I'm glad you find this useful. It is one of those ideas the utility of which is difficult to appreciate until one tries it for oneself. Just thinking about it, it easily seems as if it would make almost no difference, but the difference in comfort and reduced fatigue is actually quite large.
Bob,
Yes, it would be nice if the 30/36mm Canons also had the tripod thread. However, they would also need to incorporate the click-on-stay-on stabilization control in order to be truly usable with a finnstick or a monopod. Otherwise, you need to have one hand on top of the bino holding down the button.
Kimmo
Fernando np
Well-known member
Hi,
Although not a fan of stabilizeds I can imagine two situations, which I haven't experienced, where they might rule:
- High power, as the 18X50, without tripod. Warbling sometimes I wandered about purchising them.
- Seabirding from a boat.
Any experience?
Fernando
Although not a fan of stabilizeds I can imagine two situations, which I haven't experienced, where they might rule:
- High power, as the 18X50, without tripod. Warbling sometimes I wandered about purchising them.
- Seabirding from a boat.
Any experience?
Fernando
KorHaan
Well-known member
Hi Fernando,
The 18x50's are indeed excellent handheld IMO; don't feel the need to mount them on a monopod except for seawatching. They allow me to ID little birds on fenceposts, wires and on bushes from considerable distance. The very modest DOF is actually kind of advantageous in tracking warblers in shrubs and bushes, fore-and background being out of focus so you can concentrate on the bird.
I even wonder why I bought a monopod, I am not using it at all. I sit down for quite steady views and prolonged observing, on a low stool.
I have no experience with them on a boat, not yet that is.
Saw a documentary of a Greenpeace vessel following a Japanese whaler; one of the Greenpeace crew members used a pair of Canon 15x50 IS to discover the Japanese mothership. ( And found it, of course.)
Since I bought Canon IS bins I see them regularly on the telly, not only in documentaries but in thriller movies, too. A good sign!
Regards,
Ronald
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
I took my 18x50IS on a whale watching trip and found them not very usefull even on relatively calm seas on ~20m-sized boat. Way too much mag for the distances we saw whales and they could not compensate at all for the boat's pitch and roll. Maybe the Fuji IS would be better.
Rick
Rick
Fernando np
Well-known member
Thanks,
Usually I carry also the scope so my questions were related when the heavier optics is of little utility. Warblers are a nightmare, always moving. In the Danube Delta I used, and abused, of a Nikon scope from riverboats. My eyes almost demanded me for maltreatment.
Also, I consider very interesting than the stabilization is a boat can be less tan perfect with the 18x.
Usually I carry also the scope so my questions were related when the heavier optics is of little utility. Warblers are a nightmare, always moving. In the Danube Delta I used, and abused, of a Nikon scope from riverboats. My eyes almost demanded me for maltreatment.
Also, I consider very interesting than the stabilization is a boat can be less tan perfect with the 18x.
kristoffer
Used Register
how big issue is dust on these non gasfilled is bins? I am tempted by the 10x30 but always a bit scared to buy non gasfilled.
I increased my bins portfolio 2 weeks ago with a 15x50IS and must admit to being well chuffed. A good test was on my local estuary during the windy weather, these bins were a big improvement over a non IS bins. OK they cannot take out all the sway but they did a good job with shake and I was able to id birds much better.
I fitted 2 uv photo filters to the front of the objectives using the 58 mm threads provided and saved spray getting on the objective lens.
At the moment I have no urge to go birding with any of my other bins.
Regards,
Chris.
I fitted 2 uv photo filters to the front of the objectives using the 58 mm threads provided and saved spray getting on the objective lens.
At the moment I have no urge to go birding with any of my other bins.
Regards,
Chris.
Congrats, Chris. As a matter of interest (to me!), did you compare them to the 18x50 before you bought? I can´t test them here ´cos no stores carry them. I might be in the UK at the end of October so maybe I can find a dealer somewhere, but meanwhile I´m leaning towards the 18x50, although the 15x50 have some rave reviews.
Fernando np
Well-known member
Chris,
Sometimes I've considereded the UV Filters for binos. That awful withish bias at full light, vg the FLs. The problems has been the lack of threads. Do you apreciate loss of light?
Sometimes I've considereded the UV Filters for binos. That awful withish bias at full light, vg the FLs. The problems has been the lack of threads. Do you apreciate loss of light?
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
I had the 15x50IS for a year before I got the 18x50IS. I really enjoyed the 15x but always found myself craving more mag. When I finally got the 18x I unfortunately noticed the IS "fuzzies" effect for the first time. I found this annoying at first so kept the 15x just in case I changed my mind. I had never seen this effect in the 15x but once the 18x "trained" my eyes it was easy to spot in the 15x too. After about 8mos I no longer was bothered by the effect and finally sold the 15x as the 18x was much more useful. FWIW, the 18x along with the Canon SX1 superzoom camera makes for an excellent medium range <40m birding/hiking kit.
cheers,
Rick
Hi Sancho,
I tried both bins and was impressed by both. The reasons for opting for 15x,
As well as distance I do close up viewing (little brown jobs).
Heat haze is more of a pain with 18x and the last few days has proved me right here.
I have 8x and 10x bins so the step up to 15x is more noticable for me.
You have 12x so a step up to 18x would be more noticable to you, But you could buy either with confidence.
Hi Fernando,
On testing fitting UV filters made no difference to the light entering the bins and did not degrade the view. It is nice to know in salty, sandy and wet condions you can fit these filters with confidence.
With the heat haze fitting these filters improved the view very slightly making the image more defined.
I am still putting these bins through various tests but hope that what I have stated helps.
Regards,
Chris
I tried both bins and was impressed by both. The reasons for opting for 15x,
As well as distance I do close up viewing (little brown jobs).
Heat haze is more of a pain with 18x and the last few days has proved me right here.
I have 8x and 10x bins so the step up to 15x is more noticable for me.
You have 12x so a step up to 18x would be more noticable to you, But you could buy either with confidence.
Hi Fernando,
On testing fitting UV filters made no difference to the light entering the bins and did not degrade the view. It is nice to know in salty, sandy and wet condions you can fit these filters with confidence.
With the heat haze fitting these filters improved the view very slightly making the image more defined.
I am still putting these bins through various tests but hope that what I have stated helps.
Regards,
Chris
