[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by hinnark

I really wonder if anybody would have ever noticed "Rolling Balls", if not a compatriot of mine had once discovered this topic in a German astro-forum and did choose it as his pet subject to make it big in the internet. I think actually it was some kind of luck for his ambitions, when Swarovski came out with the Swarovisions. In real life I know about 50 users, birders and stargazers, who did try Swarovision binoculars. Only one did say he sees the rolling ball effect but it does not bother him. Odd thing that among internet aficionados of optics the situation seems to be quite different from real life.

Steve

Maybe you do have a representative sample, and only 1 out of 50 Germans have enough pincushion in their eyes not to see "rolling ball". In my more culturally diverse sample group, readers of the BF bin forums, the ratio appears to be higher, but still a relatively low number vs. those who do not see it. A third group see it initially, but then adapt and no longer see it.

However, you seem to be implying that unlike your 50 "real life" birders, readers of this forum have been influenced into seeing this effect by learning about it, and if they had never heard about it, they would never have seen it. As it if were a case of (not so) mass hysteria.

If that is what you're implying, I refute it thus (ouch!).

I saw "rolling ball" in the full sized Nikon HGs before I ever head of the term "rolling ball" or read the explanation of why it exists. In fact, I did a thorough search of the reviews of these bins at the time, and not one reviewer mentioned it.

As far as I recall, I was the first person (or certainly one of the first) to mention seeing the "rolling ball effect" in the HGs on Cloudy Nights and BF, and I erroneously attributed it to excessive pincushion (which does produce a similar effect but with the image moving over a negatively curved surface, rather than positively curved surface). I did know about "barrel distortion" and had seen it in WA camera lenses, but i never expected optics makers to allow that distortion to remain in bins used for terrestrial purposes, and the HGs weren't WA bins.

Not only do "real life" birders see this effect, but one of your "compatriots," Dr. Holger Merlitz, wrote a technical report on the subject (he calls it "the globe effect"), which can be read here:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

He also addressed this issue in the Swarovsions, which is more complex, here:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/globe_faq.html

Brock

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by jgraider

There are none, because most people, those that haven't been brainwashed yet, or those that quit kidding themselves, have gotten wise to the fact that there are many less expensive, high quality binos out there that deliver the goods within a nats hair of $2000+ glass. Not one.....many. Usually the $2000+ binos have to be discounted for anyone to buy them anyway.

Thanks for your post! I had been talking about Incremental Change$ for Diminishing Return$ when the Swarovision was just a twinkle in the Wizards of Absam's eyes.

Got a lot of flak for it, initially, but now I see more and more BF members coming to the same conclusions.

That is not to detract from the high quality of alpha bins, but rather to say that many of the technologies developed at the top have now trickled down to more affordable priced bins made in countries where the cost of labor and materials are less expensive.

Brock

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

That is not to detract from the high quality of alpha bins, but rather to say that many of the technologies developed at the top have now trickled down to more affordable priced bins made in countries where the cost of labor and materials are less expensive.

Indeed, and for those of us who are lucky enough not to tell the difference, there is a world of binoculars to own and enjoy.

But pity the few ubermensch who not only can tell the difference, but are locked in an eternal, Sisyphean struggle for singular optical excellence. Imagine having to justify that you've reached perfection, over and over.

Glad no one here is so afflicted!

David

[spyglass]

Hmmm....profound?.....Dennis?....shouldn't you maybe substitute "personal" for the aforementioned adjective? Don't have a dictionary handy, but would guess the definition for profound would go to, perhaps, deep, difficult to grasp or fathom, or maybe possessing an intellectual insight into something, no....? Do you really surmise that liking one binocular or another, for whatever reason, would back such an assumption, regardless of whatever empirical or logical consequences you may hypothesize from your observations? N' cest pas?

All in all, isn't it much ado about nothing?....really? Unless, of course, your initiation of the thread is just a survey in disguise, meant to get everyone here stirred up and "talking optics", just because......that's maybe your favorite thing to do. That, and talking in superlatives (i.e., "this is the best one....", ad infinitum).

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by flossiepip

In WW2 the Tiger tank was better than the T34 but the Russians could get three T34's for one Tiger, who won the war?

True, but if I could only have one Tank, I'd choose the Tiger

Originally Posted by spyglass

All in all, isn't it much ado about nothing?....really?

Of course it is! And while we're quoting the Bard: "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by hinnark

I really wonder if anybody would have ever noticed "Rolling Balls", if not a compatriot of mine had once discovered this topic in a German astro-forum and did choose it as his pet subject to make it big in the internet. I think actually it was some kind of luck for his ambitions, when Swarovski came out with the Swarovisions. In real life I know about 50 users, birders and stargazers, who did try Swarovision binoculars. Only one did say he sees the rolling ball effect but it does not bother him. Odd thing that among internet aficionados of optics the situation seems to be quite different from real life.

Steve

Steve is this fellows name Brock?

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by hinnark

I really wonder if anybody would have ever noticed "Rolling Balls", if not a compatriot of mine had once discovered this topic in a German astro-forum and did choose it as his pet subject to make it big in the internet. I think actually it was some kind of luck for his ambitions, when Swarovski came out with the Swarovisions. In real life I know about 50 users, birders and stargazers, who did try Swarovision binoculars. Only one did say he sees the rolling ball effect but it does not bother him. Odd thing that among internet aficionados of optics the situation seems to be quite different from real life.

Steve

I doubt your buddy had much of an effect, but who knows...

My first introduction was at the Winter Wings Festival. This started out as the Bald Eagle Conference and has been going for decades. There were people from all 50 US states and from quite few countries outside the US. There were several thousand people there. There were several optics dealers there, Swarovski, Kowa, Canon, Vortex, and Zen Ray. The optics booths got lots of play and I would venture to guess I saw several dozen people look at the SV. I spent some time manning the ZR booth, which was why I was there. So when the dealer there told me he thought perhaps half of the people did not like the RB of the SV, he's speaking from three days and several hundred views of the SV and the SLC-HD. That is as far as I can personally go, and actually have no idea of what the real percentage of RB effect is and how many can see it but tolerate it, or however you choose to break it down. The effect has been pretty widely discussed on all kinds of optics forums, so it does you no good to dismiss the fact that it bothers people, or to dismiss the fact of its existence as an Internet phenomenon discovered by your buddy .

I said above, and repeat, the SV lovers need to get a grip on the fact their baby is not for everybody. If I was not bothered by the RB, I'd agree it is the best binocular out there. But I am bothered by it and would not own one as a result.

I tend to agree with Sancho that this is a lot of fuss over Dennis and his SV.

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by Steve C

I tend to agree with Sancho that this is a lot of fuss over Dennis and his SV.

Ah no, Steve, it's a lot of fuss about binoculars, which we all love because we're crazy as loons and don't play golf. Dennis is enthusiastic and fickle, but he hasn't ditched his SV's yet, so he must be approaching a record. If Dennis hangs onto his SV's another two months, I think Swarovski should be proud, and owe him one!

(Thanks for the thread Dennis, from a happy RB-neutral SV owner!)

[James Bean]

Wow, David, (#78) "Sisyphean struggle" indeed! That's the first time I've seen the rolling ball effect referred to in such a classical way. Nice one.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by Sancho

Ah no, Steve, it's a lot of fuss about binoculars, which we all love because we're crazy as loons and don't play golf. Dennis is enthusiastic and fickle, but he hasn't ditched his SV's yet, so he must be approaching a record. If Dennis hangs onto his SV's another two months, I think Swarovski should be proud, and owe him one!

(Thanks for the thread Dennis, from a happy RB-neutral SV owner!)

Sancho,

Ditto that, except I think the Zeiss 8x32 lasted longest.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Sancho,

Ditto that, except I think the Zeiss 8x32 lasted longest.

The Zeiss 8x32 FL is my second favorite wife. If I ever divorce the SV I would go back to her. A little smaller but not quite the optics.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Steve C

I doubt your buddy had much of an effect, but who knows...

My first introduction was at the Winter Wings Festival. This started out as the Bald Eagle Conference and has been going for decades. There were people from all 50 US states and from quite few countries outside the US. There were several thousand people there. There were several optics dealers there, Swarovski, Kowa, Canon, Vortex, and Zen Ray. The optics booths got lots of play and I would venture to guess I saw several dozen people look at the SV. I spent some time manning the ZR booth, which was why I was there. So when the dealer there told me he thought perhaps half of the people did not like the RB of the SV, he's speaking from three days and several hundred views of the SV and the SLC-HD. That is as far as I can personally go, and actually have no idea of what the real percentage of RB effect is and how many can see it but tolerate it, or however you choose to break it down. The effect has been pretty widely discussed on all kinds of optics forums, so it does you no good to dismiss the fact that it bothers people, or to dismiss the fact of its existence as an Internet phenomenon discovered by your buddy .

I said above, and repeat, the SV lovers need to get a grip on the fact their baby is not for everybody. If I was not bothered by the RB, I'd agree it is the best binocular out there. But I am bothered by it and would not own one as a result.

I tend to agree with Sancho that this is a lot of fuss over Dennis and his SV.

I am glad I am controversial. I am kinda like the Howard Stern of Bird Forum. I get some good threads going you have to admit. It all started with an Amateur Astronomy class in college. For some reason the physics of optical systems fascinated me and ever since then I have had an irrational interest in telescopes and astronomy and now binoculars. I just love good optics. I have had alot of big telescopes and as we all know ALOT of binoculars. I like to buy them and I like to use them. Sometimes I get over emotional defending my babies but I am passionate about them(Not Physically).

[hinnark]

Originally Posted by Steve C

So when the dealer there told me he thought perhaps half of the people did not like the RB of the SV, he's speaking from three days and several hundred views of the SV and the SLC-HD.

Steve,

so your opinion is based on what a single dealer said and a couple of people in the internet you don't know personally?

Steve

[typo]

An entertaining and provocative thread!.

Until I joined the forum I had no idea there was so much wrong with my eyesight. Yes my ageing eyes need progressive lenses these days, but in addition to hyperopia, presbyopia, and astigmatism, I now realise I'm acutely sensitive to chromatic aberration, rolling-ball effect, glare and contrast. It does pose the question, is it a consequence of being a member of the forum? ;-)

At least in my case no. I might not have put those name to to the effects but they were definitely there before. They were most acutely illustrated when I started wearing progressives about a decade ago. Being weak prescriptions I thought cheap lenses would do. Big mistake! Before I got it (almost) right I'd experienced, rolling-ball, barrel distortion, CA, glare, and probably a host of other nauseating, fatigue and headache inducing parameters. At the time the mystery to me was how could the optics companies get away with selling such awful products. The answer has to be most people don't notice these issues.

Quite a few of our social circle have now also moved on to progressives. On the basis of dinner party reporting I would say that 20-30% mention things that could be interpreted as sensitivity to excessive or inadequate pincushion or other distortions and may have gone for more expensive lenses. The rest are happy with the budget offerings, and I presume are insensitive to or readily adapt to distortions. However, none of my circle of friends have experienced the degree of distortion issues that I have.

Having tried about 80 different pairs of binos in the last couple of years, I am now very wary of field flattening and degrees of pincushion. A very popular pair here will actually throw me off balance if I pan with them, and 'problems' with quite a few others. The trouble is now, the higher the price tag the more critical I am of any shortcomings. I'm not sure I'll ever own an alpha!

I've not tried the SVs yet, but I'll be sure to sit down when I do. ;-)

David

[hinnark]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

Maybe you do have a representative sample, and only 1 out of 50 Germans have enough pincushion in their eyes not to see "rolling ball". In my more culturally diverse sample group, readers of the BF bin forums, the ratio appears to be higher, but still a relatively low number vs. those who do not see it. A third group see it initially, but then adapt and no longer see it.

However, you seem to be implying that unlike your 50 "real life" birders, readers of this forum have been influenced into seeing this effect by learning about it, and if they had never heard about it, they would never have seen it. As it if were a case of (not so) mass hysteria.

If that is what you're implying, I refute it thus (ouch!).

I saw "rolling ball" in the full sized Nikon HGs before I ever head of the term "rolling ball" or read the explanation of why it exists. In fact, I did a thorough search of the reviews of these bins at the time, and not one reviewer mentioned it.

As far as I recall, I was the first person (or certainly one of the first) to mention seeing the "rolling ball effect" in the HGs on Cloudy Nights and BF, and I erroneously attributed it to excessive pincushion (which does produce a similar effect but with the image moving over a negatively curved surface, rather than positively curved surface). I did know about "barrel distortion" and had seen it in WA camera lenses, but i never expected optics makers to allow that distortion to remain in bins used for terrestrial purposes, and the HGs weren't WA bins.

Not only do "real life" birders see this effect, but one of your "compatriots," Dr. Holger Merlitz, wrote a technical report on the subject (he calls it "the globe effect"), which can be read here:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

He also addressed this issue in the Swarovsions, which is more complex, here:

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/globe_faq.html

Brock

Well Brock,

I expected an anwser of yours and I expected that it would contain as always, these terms: "Rolling Balls", "Holger", and "Nikon". :) To be honest, it's really not that easy to find one of your messages that doesn't contain these words.

The birders I mentioned weren't only Germans. I'm pretty sure that any uninfluenced (!) scrutiny about "RB" would come to the result that it's rather a small minority that sees it. Feel free to do this by yourself! But take into account these experiences I made. I gave several test persons the SV and asked them if there is anything special when panning with them. The regular answer was 'no!' In a second step I explained them the theory of RB and ask them to pan again. Then - surprise - about two of 10 did say that there could be 'something'. Now the question is: did they really see RB or was it just my explanations that made them see it (or 'something')?

Unfortunally I don't have that much time to get too deep into what I feel is a side issue but here are some short remarks about facts that in my opinion should taken into account when dealing with the rolling ball effect and that AFAIK you, your Holger and others did overlook so far.

When panning it does matter, what your are looking at when using binoculars. Like Horst Koehler wrote in "Die Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser" which is until today considered among experts around the world as some kind of "bible of optics", RB could be visible (only) when looking at spacious objects. IMO even more important, when assessing the questionable phenomenon is the question which type of optics did a person use to use before trying e.g. the SV. Visual perception is a highly adaptable system that depends to a high degree on experiences of a person. Looking through binoculars or telescopes is always different from natural "naked eye use", amongst others just because of the difference in magnification. So if someone feels that a piece of optics gives him a natural view that means that he had adapted to the optics before. Since the 1950s there were almost only binoculars with noticable pincushion distorsion that came on the market. For decades most users had adapted to this distorsion. This kind of anamnesis does play a role when someone is using binoculars with none or a low degree of (pincushion) distorsion for the first time. My findings seem to indicate that frequently users of one exclusive instrument with a high degree of pincushion distorsion (e.g. Zeiss Victory Fl) tend to see the RB rather than others who e.g. use different types of binoculars.

Now believe it or not - I know someone who has seen RB in fact - and that was me myself.

No RB for me with the Nikon HG/Premiers, the 10x42, 10x50 and 12x50 SV or whatsoever. But when I used the 8,5x42 SV for the first time, looking and panning at a spacious and uniform border of a wood I saw it - for just about 3 seconds! Then it disappeared ever since and did not come back one single moment. What did happen during these 3 seconds? I think my visual perception did adapt to the binoculars. My conclusion is that RB or as we perhaps should better say "apparent movements within the image while panning with binoculars" is a matter of the brain rather than of the eyes. Now - enough at this point. Perhaps this is an opportunity, Brock, to leave the everlasting circles of repetition (RB, Holger, Nikon etc.) and to try something new. For me it is so tiring to read again and again the same terms and about the same subjects. In addition repetition does not transform an obsession into something meaningful...

Steve

Repetition is the death of art.
Robin Green

[Roadbike]

Originally Posted by jgraider

There are none, because most people, those that haven't been brainwashed yet, or those that quit kidding themselves, have gotten wise to the fact that there are many less expensive, high quality binos out there that deliver the goods within a nats hair of $2000+ glass. Not one.....many. Usually the $2000+ binos have to be discounted for anyone to buy them anyway.

Indeed, over the past 30 years the quality of moderately priced binoculars has increased significantly. Look at what Zen Ray or the recently discontinued EII deliver in the way of images. Heck, a Nikon Action EX really does quite a job for the price. Can one really see the details of and identify 5x more birds with a $2k bin than with one costing less than $400? If all of the blather involved in most "Alpha" discussions is peeled back what remains is a badge of conspicuous consumption.

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by hinnark

Well Brock,

I expected an anwser of yours and I expected that it would contain as always, these terms: "Rolling Balls", "Holger", and "Nikon". :) To be honest, it's really not that easy to find one of your messages that doesn't contain these words.

The birders I mentioned weren't only Germans. I'm pretty sure that any uninfluenced (!) scrutiny about "RB" would come to the result that it's rather a small minority that sees it. Feel free to do this by yourself! But take into account these experiences I made. I gave several test persons the SV and asked them if there is anything special when panning with them. The regular answer was 'no!' In a second step I explained them the theory of RB and ask them to pan again. Then - surprise - about two of 10 did say that there could be 'something'. Now the question is: did they really see RB or was it just my explanations that made them see it (or 'something')?

Unfortunally I don't have that much time to get too deep into what I feel is a side issue but here are some short remarks about facts that in my opinion should taken into account when dealing with the rolling ball effect and that AFAIK you, your Holger and others did overlook so far.

When panning it does matter, what your are looking at when using binoculars. Like Horst Koehler wrote in "Die Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser" which is until today considered among experts around the world as some kind of "bible of optics", RB could be visible (only) when looking at spacious objects. IMO even more important, when assessing the questionable phenomenon is the question which type of optics did a person use to use before trying e.g. the SV. Visual perception is a highly adaptable system that depends to a high degree on experiences of a person. Looking through binoculars or telescopes is always different from natural "naked eye use", amongst others just because of the difference in magnification. So if someone feels that a piece of optics gives him a natural view that means that he had adapted to the optics before. Since the 1950s there were almost only binoculars with noticable pincushion distorsion that came on the market. For decades most users had adapted to this distorsion. This kind of anamnesis does play a role when someone is using binoculars with none or a low degree of (pincushion) distorsion for the first time. My findings seem to indicate that frequently users of one exclusive instrument with a high degree of pincushion distorsion (e.g. Zeiss Victory Fl) tend to see the RB rather than others who e.g. use different types of binoculars.

Now believe it or not - I know someone who has seen RB in fact - and that was me myself.

No RB for me with the Nikon HG/Premiers, the 10x42, 10x50 and 12x50 SV or whatsoever. But when I used the 8,5x42 SV for the first time, looking and panning at a spacious and uniform border of a wood I saw it - for just about 3 seconds! Then it disappeared ever since and did not come back one single moment. What did happen during these 3 seconds? I think my visual perception did adapt to the binoculars. My conclusion is that RB or as we perhaps should better say "apparent movements within the image while panning with binoculars" is a matter of the brain rather than of the eyes. Now - enough at this point. Perhaps this is an opportunity, Brock, to leave the everlasting circles of repetition (RB, Holger, Nikon etc.) and to try something new. For me it is so tiring to read again and again the same terms and about the same subjects. In addition repetition does not transform an obsession into something meaningful...

Steve

Repetition is the death of art.
Robin Green

Anamnesis?

I wonder what Elk Cub could tell us about this and the perceptions we have when using optics?

Bob

[Pileatus]

Buy an alpha and stop the stupid complaining...
http://magblog.audubon.org/swarovski...el-replace-els

Excerpts...I agree with:

"I cannot understand how a person who invests great energy, passion, and money in watching birds can settle for less than the best available optics"

"To those who balk at the cost of today’s best binoculars, I say that they are cheap in comparison to the pleasure they provide. If you spend $2,500 on binoculars every eight or ten years you are getting off cheap"

"Fishermen, photographers, hunters, backpackers, sailors, even chess players, happily spend far more on their pursuits than most bird watchers spend on optics"

"The ELs also suffered from a small amount of chromatic aberration in the center of the field which produced some edge distortion when looking at high contrast targets like soaring hawks and water fowl"

"The HD glass completely eliminates chromatic aberration and provides better color saturation and contrast than the ELs and other alpha-class bins"

How many SE/SV owners agree with this comment?
"I was blown away by the natural, satisfying, beautiful image. The only binocular I have used whose flatness of field rivals that of the Swarovision is the Nikon Superior E (now out of production)."

"Frankly, I don’t like the new neck strap"
I don't either. With my SV I use a $20 Vero Vellini 55mm strap, my old Ultravid objective and eyepiece covers and a Vortex 50mm case for travel. So much for cachet; I'm only interested in optics and functional accessories.

Every birder I know that can afford an alpha owns one. Those who cannot afford an alpha buy what they can. That's life.

[NWBirder]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

The Zeiss 8x32 FL is my second favorite wife. If I ever divorce the SV I would go back to her. A little smaller but not quite the optics.

Both Steve and you are correct. SV IS your current favorite binos now. 8x32 FL stayed on your favorite list for the longest time. It will take some time for SV to claim both titles, however.

[nigel_b]

I happily mix and match my 8x42 HGs with some DDR Zeiss and Opticron 8x42HR. Bins is bins, weight is important in an all-day walk and in the evening wildlife forays I find I can either take the camera + Zeiss or the HGs. My eyesight is not sharp unaided even in the near distance so any bin immediately gives a massive improvement over the naked eye. What am I looking for? Some SEs to walk all day with as the HGs can be a real millstone. The view is superb for sure but oh that weight.

[lilcrazy2]

Originally Posted by Pileatus

Every birder I know that can afford an alpha owns one. Those who cannot afford an alpha buy what they can. That's life.

Now thats an excerpt I certainly disagree with, as do many others. I think many people have stated that they quite simply do not see the need for the alphas given the dearth of quality binos selling for 1/4 the price of some of the alphas. It seems to me that there are any number of "budget" binos that can match the SV's in any one given optical category, except total edge/edge sharpness, or perhaps brighness. I have never gotten all weak in the knees over edge sharpness or the widest FOV.

Not everyone who owns binos fells the need "to bird like our hair is on fire 100% of the time". And it is most refreshing to see from the many other posts, that many people still have more sense than cents.

Quality alternates have evolved quickly in the last couple of years, and that will only accelerate in the very near future. After all, why should alpha quality cost 4 or 5 times more than an Apple Ipad, when the Ipad is infinitely more complex and expensive to manufacture. Watch out alphas - the future is upon us!

And by the way - I can afford an alpha or two or three, but instead choose to buy what I want, when I want, and not what I can.

Tom

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I am glad I am controversial. I am kinda like the Howard Stern of Bird Forum. I get some good threads going you have to admit. )

You bet! I always get beer and a bag of peanuts whenever you start some new thread!
Keep it up!

Best regards,

Ronald

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by lilcrazy2

Now thats an excerpt I certainly disagree with, as do many others. I think many people have stated that they quite simply do not see the need for the alphas given the dearth of quality binos selling for 1/4 the price of some of the alphas. It seems to me that there are any number of "budget" binos that can match the SV's in any one given optical category, except total edge/edge sharpness, or perhaps brighness. I have never gotten all weak in the knees over edge sharpness or the widest FOV.

Not everyone who owns binos fells the need "to bird like our hair is on fire 100% of the time". And it is most refreshing to see from the many other posts, that many people still have more sense than cents.

Quality alternates have evolved quickly in the last couple of years, and that will only accelerate in the very near future. After all, why should alpha quality cost 4 or 5 times more than an Apple Ipad, when the Ipad is infinitely more complex and expensive to manufacture. Watch out alphas - the future is upon us!

And by the way - I can afford an alpha or two or three, but instead choose to buy what I want, when I want, and not what I can.

Tom

Same here. The SV's may be the pinnacle but the weight keeps me from getting a pair. My 300 gram reverse porro's are giving me extreme pleasure, and they get more used time than any of my (now former) bins combined.
I like the "hair-on-fire" bit; not sure what it means, but if it's something like:
"I love the smell of burning hair in the morning" ( Coppola revisited), I guess that's what I'm experiencing right now.

Don't know about Apple Ipads, not interested in that kind of sport.

Best regards,

Ronald

[doug el10x32]

Hi,

Similar to other contributors to this post, I believe that there is life after 'Alphas' !! Early last year I had the opportunity to compare my EL 10x42's to a pair of Canon IS 10x30's and frankly, I was surprised at how much more detail I could see with the Canons. Admittedly the EL's may have a sharper and clearer image, but when the IS is turned on, there is no comparison to the detail that can be seen. Sure, the EL's could be improved if attached to a tripod but that negates the convenience and the portability of binoculars. I have since traded in the EL 10x42's and sold my EL 8x32's and 10x32's and acquired the Canon IS 10x42's and 15x50's with no regrets whatsoever. I did also buy the Canon IS 12x36 II's to keep in the car.

The EL's and other 'Alphas' maybe fractionally clearer etc, however the overwhelming difference is the stable image of the Canon's that actually show more detail. Just compare feather detail or as a test, fine newsprint at dusk. Based on this fact, I believe that the Canon IS binoculars and especially the 10x42's etc can be considered every bit an 'Alpha' binocular at a lower cost.

Doug......

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by doug el10x32

Hi,

Similar to other contributors to this post, I believe that there is life after 'Alphas' !! Early last year I had the opportunity to compare my EL 10x42's to a pair of Canon ISB 10x30's and frankly, I was surprised at how much more detail I could see with the Canon's. Admittedly the EL's may have a sharper and clearer image, but when the ISB is turned on, there is no comparison to the detail that can be seen. Sure, the EL's could be improved if attached to a tripod but that negates the convenience and the portability of binoculars. I have since traded in the EL 10x42's and sold my EL 8x32's and 10x32's and acquired the Canon ISB 10x42's and 15x50's with no regrets whatsoever. I did also buy the Canon 12x36 II's to keep in the car.

The EL's and other 'Alphas' maybe fractionally clearer etc, however the overwhelming difference is the stable image of the Canon's that actually show more detail. Just compare feather detail or as a test, fine newsprint at dusk. Based on this fact, I believe that the Canon ISB's and especially the 10x42's etc can be considered every bit an 'Alpha' binocular at a lower cost.

Doug......

I've had 10x30 and 18x50 IS's. The 10x42 L IS's seem to stand out, they're easily the best of the bunch, but the sheer weight keeps me from getting a pair. After an unfortunate daytime excursion with the 18x50's in april, I strained a shoulder muscle, and decided to turn back to lightweights, and found comfort in the 300 grams Pentax Papilio 6.5x21's.
I can hold them as steady as my former 10x30 IS's, but don't need rechargeables for that.

I'm waiting on the MK II 10x30 L IS's WP, that I hope Canon will bring on the market soon.

Best regards,

Ronald