Afraid of jumping the gun. Kite 16x42 vs Canon 18x50 (1 Viewer)

[Swissete]

I would really appreciate if somebody could help on this. I'm afraid of making the wrong decision while purchasing a new binocular based on the not so extensive information I'm finding about one of the models. The two contenders are the Canon 18x50 and the Kite 16x42, both stabilised.

The difference in price is around +300USD in my country (Spain) for the Canon. I come from a small Pentx 10x25 and look for more magnification and the IS. The main usage is going be terrestrial for static objects and possibly a 5% of astronomy hence not a primary use but a nice to have.

Which of both would you choose and why?

 

[Hermann]

I would really appreciate if somebody could help on this. I'm afraid of making the wrong decision while purchasing a new binocular based on the not so extensive information I'm finding about one of the models. The two contenders are the Canon 18x50 and the Kite 16x42, both stabilised.

The difference in price is around +300USD in my country (Spain) for the Canon. I come from a small Pentx 10x25 and look for more magnification and the IS. The main usage is going be terrestrial for static objects and possibly a 5% of astronomy hence not a primary use but a nice to have.

Which of both would you choose and why?

If you don't have a scope yet, I'd get a scope and a decent tripod. No stabilised binocular can offer you the magnification and the stability a scope on a tripod can offer you. Period.

If it has to be a binocular, I'd at least also look at the Canon 15x50. From what I've seen it it better than the 18x50. As to the Kite - I don't know it very well, and the only stabilised Kite I looked through was quite obviously defective. Check the Kite forum for more information on the Kite. Canon has a pretty good track record so far, Kite, at least from what I hear and read ... not so much. Or not so much yet.

Hermann

 

[exup]

Try Roger Vine reviews for the x15 and x18 Canons.

Binocular Reviews

scopeviews.co.uk

I have the 18x50 (2021 Taiwan made) and it is good, but still needs a steady hand.

I can't comment on the Kite.

 

[[email protected]]

I have had all the IS binoculars and I wouldn't get either one of your choices, especially the Kite. The Kite, especially the 16x42, has poor optics IMO with a lot of CA. The Canon's are the best IS binoculars, so stick with them in general. I don't really care for most Canon IS binoculars because they are not the optical equal of an alpha, although they are good optically, even though you will see more detail with them because of the IS. I always miss the better optics of the alphas. Even the Canon 12x36 IS III is not the optical equal of a alpha 12x roof prism. The view does not have the pop, brightness or the contrast. The only exception is the Canon 10x42 IS-L, and it is every bit as good optically as an alpha, and that is the one I would recommend. If you really want a higher magnification binocular for long range viewing or astronomy, get an alpha roof prism or porro prism and use a tripod. I would recommend something like the Swarovski SLC 15x56 or Meopta Meostar HD 15x56 and put it on a tripod. When you go higher in magnification, you need to get a higher quality binocular because they are more difficult to make perfect.

 

[Swissete]

I've indeed spent some hours watching some reviews and, for the Kite, saw either very good or pretty good comments, with also some bad ones on optics like the ones you shared. What I have clear is that I want the higher magnification and the stabilisation in a Bino for my kids to use it too. It's good too understand I'm starting on this hence probably not able to spot huge differences between excellent and good optics? Honestly don't know

 

[Hauksen]

Hi,

What I have clear is that I want the higher magnification and the stabilisation in a Bino for my kids to use it too.

It might be a good starting point to decide which level of detail you would like to observe.

If you're talking about image stabilization, magnification is not directly related to detail resolution, as switching from 10x non-stabilized to 10x stabilized will already increase the level of detail you can observe by a certain amount.

I think I would probably buy the 6.5x Pentax Papilio for the kids, as that's an inexpensive great little pair of binoculars that due to its low magnification can be easily held stable even by children, and then decide what kind of binoculars I want for myself ;-)

Of course, I don't know what kind of static objects you mean to view at which distance, so I'm sort of guessing here!

Regards,

Henning

 

[exup]

I want the higher magnification and the stabilisation in a Bino for my kids to use it too.

The Canon x15, x18 and 10x42L are all about 1200g which would be rather a challenge for a kid.
I have the Canon 12x36 III and it is light and much more manageable. It is also less costly, so might be an option to try first. It does deliver good views (read Rogers review).
There are smaller options too, but I can't comment as I don't have.

 

[Trinovid]

I would probably buy the 6.5x Pentax Papilio for the kids, as that's an inexpensive great little pair of binoculars that due to its low magnification can be easily held stable even by children, and then decide what kind of binoculars I want for myself

I'll double down on that suggestion. Not only would the Papilio be easier for them to hold steady and not cost much, but also have the ability to focus very close, which I think kids could really enjoy looking at the world of bugs at their feet too.

 

[[email protected]]

I've indeed spent some hours watching some reviews and, for the Kite, saw either very good or pretty good comments, with also some bad ones on optics like the ones you shared. What I have clear is that I want the higher magnification and the stabilisation in a Bino for my kids to use it too. It's good too understand I'm starting on this hence probably not able to spot huge differences between excellent and good optics? Honestly don't know

Don't believe the reviews on the Kite 16x42. They are poor and have a narrow FOV. The other comments are correct in that the bigger Canon's would be hard to hold for a kid. Just putting their hands around them would be difficult. I don't care for the Pentax Papilio because although it is good for close up work like bugs, the optics are only fair at longer distances IMO. I think the smaller Canon IS binoculars would be good for you and your kids if you want IS and are not too picky about having the very best optics. The Canon 10x30 IS or Canon 12x36 IS III would be small enough for a kid to use, and they would appreciate the IS. For an even smaller binocular with IS, the Canon 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS are surprisingly good for their small EP, and they would be perfect for kids.

 

[Binastro]

The Kite 42s are not 42mm.

Just look at the front.

They are smaller.

B.

 

[Binocollector]

I don't care for the Pentax Papilio because although it is good for close up work like bugs, the optics are only fair at longer distances IMO.

On longer distances the Papilio 6.5 has some strange distortions. Looks like a barrel distortion to me which might induce a globe effect when panning. Could lead to dizziness if you are susceptible to it. Some people are, some are not. I am not affected but it still looks a bit odd when panning a landscape with the Papilio 6.5x. It just wasn't made for that. I like my Papilio but it would definitely not be my first choice for anything further away than maybe 5-10 m.
A great and cheap option for lower magnification would be the Opticron Adventurer T WP 6.5x32 or a Nikon Action EX 7x35.

I don't really care for most Canon IS binoculars because they are not the optical equal of a good quality normal binocular, even though you will see more detail with them because of the IS. I always miss the better optics of a good, high quality normal binocular, especially the alphas. [...] Swarovski SLC 15x56 or Meopta Meostar HD 15x56 and put it on a tripod.

A rather confusing post. The Canon IS models (apart from the "L") are better than a "good quality normal binocular" but not as good as alphas. So what do you even mean? "good quality normal binos" (which to me would be something like the new Nikon P7 or similar binos) or "good, high quality normal binos" (Meopta Meostar maybe?) or "alphas" (the usual suspects at around 2.4 thousand Euros, so twice the price)? That is 3 different price brackets. And a Swaro SLC 15x56 is about 2x the price of a Canon 18x50IS.
Also it is "apples vs. oranges" as I am not aware of an alpha 18x50. The higher the magnification the better the optics need to be. The 18x50IS has a tiny amount of CA but that is about the only flaw that I see when looking through mine. Edge performance is excellent. Sure, an 18x50 is not as bright as a 15x56 because of the smaller exit pupil -- like I said "apples vs. oranges".
I use an IS bino exactly because I don't want to use a tripod. I always find them tiresome and annoying -- if I wanna use a bino for astronomy, IS is the way to go. Just use a gravity chair, relax and roam the sky. The only thing that might be more comfy would be a P-mount. But a good P-mount plus a decent 15x56 costs as much or even more than a Canon 15x50IS or 18x50IS. Of course with a decent P-mount one could use even larger binos like a 20x80 or 25x100. But if I want mounted instruments with larger magnification I could just use a 500€ Dobsonian and be done with it. Which is in fact exactly what I bought for astronomy. Dobsonian + Canon IS. But for simple "sky roaming" I often use a low mag bino, like a 6.5x32, 8x56 or 8x32/30 or maybe a 10x50. I am even contemplating getting one of those Keppler binos in 2.1x42

 

[Conndomat]

Of course with a decent P-mount one could use even larger binos like a 20x80 or 25x100. But if I want mounted instruments with larger magnification I could just use a 500€ Dobsonian and be done with it.

Well, now you're comparing apples and oranges.

We are talking about different instruments here, a telescope usually has different requirements than a binocular.
On the one hand you only see with one eye, unless you add a binoviewer to it, which is not so easy with a conventional Dobsonian.
Second, the image is upside down and the field of view is much smaller.

Nothing is better suited for open star clusters than large binocular, with medium to high magnification the Dobsonian shows its strengths.
I don't think the comparison between Dobsonians and large binocular really makes sense...Tractor vs. SUV.

Andreas

 

[Binastro]

Strictly speaking a Kepler telescope inverts images as it has a positive objective and positive eyepiece.

The Dutch or Galilean optics use a negative eyepiece giving upright images, but the field size depends on the objective size and length of the instrument and how close the eye is to the eyepiece.

I see adverts on the web that mix up these concepts.

Regards,
B.

 

[Binocollector]

Well, now you're comparing apples and oranges.

We are talking about different instruments here, a telescope usually has different requirements than a binocular.

I am not comparing anything. I just said that if I wanted to bother with something that is mounted, because denco recommended a bino + tripod, then I'd rather go with a telescope. If I want a bino, I use a bino. And I use it without a tripod or monopod, that's why I bought an IS bino -- exactly because it can be used like a normal bino -- point and observe.
It was denco who brought up the idea of using a 15x56 + tripod.
In that case a Dobsonian offers more bang for the buck if you wanna use it for astronomy.
A lot depends on the observation site of course. I observe from the garden which is large and there are neighbours all around plus hedges, so I can never see the whole sky -- for that type of observing an IS bino is just perfect. I often move from one part of the garden to another to observe different objects in the night sky. Carrying around a tripod with a bino on top would not be a great idea for my use case -- especially since not every part of the garden would even have a flat and stable surface to put it on. That's where IS-binos shine. In fact I don't even use the Dobsonian all that much anymore. Binoculars are just easier to use on the night sky. And I am always amazed at how much you can see even at low magnifications. And stuff like the Orion nebula looks just amazing in the Canon 18x50IS but would probably also look pretty great in the 15x50IS. Anything lower would not show all that much for this particular object.

 

[Conndomat]

I am not comparing anything.

But you compare a Dobsonian with a 20x80 or 25x100.

Of course with a decent P-mount one could use even larger binos like a 20x80 or 25x100. But if I want mounted instruments with larger magnification I could just use a 500€ Dobsonian and be done with it.

A 20x80 or special a 25x100 is a very different beast than a 15/18x50.

There are still intermediate solutions between hand-held binoculars and a telescope, these are usually large binoculars with the possibility of using different magnifications and which are large enough to make galaxies, emission nebulae, etc. more visible, but they still do not replace a telescope and a telescope cannot replace these binoculars, every instrument has its specialties.

Andreas

 

[William Lewis]

I would really appreciate if somebody could help on this. I'm afraid of making the wrong decision while purchasing a new binocular based on the not so extensive information I'm finding about one of the models. The two contenders are the Canon 18x50 and the Kite 16x42, both stabilised.

The difference in price is around +300USD in my country (Spain) for the Canon. I come from a small Pentx 10x25 and look for more magnification and the IS. The main usage is going be terrestrial for static objects and possibly a 5% of astronomy hence not a primary use but a nice to have.

Which of both would you choose and why?

Well, both have the usual compromises of i.s and the usual benefits, the Kites are now made in Japan as well, the canons will be better for astronomy.

If I had to choose between them as a birders bino I'd go for the Kites and read how you'd got on with them with interest. The cannons are a known quantity, the Kites are much newer to market so longevity has yet to be tested. The reasons id go for them over the cannons are better ergonomics, the auto off feature, much less weight, there cheaper, fully waterproof and battery life - incidentally you can also get an additional rubber armour covering as an accessory for the Kites.

Optically the i.s makes the difference, taking that out of the equation the Kites are ok, useable, useful, nothing more.

The decision is a very tricky one when your talking about a substantial investment for something that may only last as long as a mobile phone, having said that some of the cannons have lasted many many years, some a couple of weeks.

So that would be my thoughts in direct answer to your question but the other options such as a scope are good suggestions, a scope and tripod will be good with the kids as you can point it, lock the tripod off and the kids don't have to point it to share your view, also as i.s bins have a few more bits to go wrong they may not be ideal for kids rough and tumble use.

Food for thought, sorry I can't be more helpful, it's not even like you can try them and see which you prefer as they may still go wrong just out of warranty and leave you quids out.

 

[Binastro]

Although this is about binoculars, my most used optic for astronomy was a 123mm f/5.2 Jaegers telescope that weighed very little and was on the light weight mahogany tripod from the 3 inch Starboy refractor.

It has a 3 inch fit drawtube.

The field at 16x is 4.7 degrees.
35x 2 degree field.
The most used magnification 80x
Also 100x and 145x.
At 210x with a 3mm Clave eyepiece imperfections appeared.

Magnitude 13.1 stars were seen in town.

I surveyed the whole visible sky with this telescope.

Personally, I hadn't the slightest inclination to use large binoculars.

Regards,
B.

 

[exup]

bino + tripod, then I'd rather go with a telescope. If I want a bino, I use a bino. And I use it without a tripod or monopod, that's why I bought an IS bino -- exactly because it can be used like a normal bino -- point and observe.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

However, your personal preference is often argued against here on BF.

 

[Conndomat]

Although this is about binoculars, my most used optic for astronomy was a 123mm f/5.2 Jaegers telescope that weighed very little and was on the light weight mahogany tripod from the 3 inch Starboy refractor.

It has a 3 inch fit drawtube.

The field at 16x is 4.7 degrees.
35x 2 degree field.
The most used magnification 80x
Also 100x and 145x.
At 210x with a 3mm Clave eyepiece imperfections appeared.

Magnitude 13.1 stars were seen in town.

I surveyed the whole visible sky with this telescope.

Personally, I hadn't the slightest inclination to use large binoculars.

Regards,
B.

Is that all possible with a 500 euro Dobson?

There are quite a few astronomers who prefer to observe with large binoculars, if you use your 123mm with binoviewer a lot of light is lost, conventional 100 binoculars are superior here.

Andreas

 

[Binocollector]

But you compare a Dobsonian with a 20x80 or 25x100.

Please read my text again. I didn't COMPARE anything. I said -- if I wanted to use something that is mounted, I would use a telescope!! Don't try to argue where there is no argument. The thread is about IS binos. I agree with you in fact. I do prefer binos but I don't really see the advantage of a mounted bino over a proper telescope -- a binocular telescope would be a different animal but denco specifically mentioned a mounted 15x56. I know, some people prefer it. That is exactly why I got the Canon 18x50IS.

Is that all possible with a 500 euro Dobson?

I often use a 7-21mm Zoom eyepiece which gives you a maximum of 171x magnification with a 200/1200 Dob. Quite nice for observing details on the moon, the rings of Saturn or cloud bands on Jupiter.

The price is not really of much relevance for a simple thing like a Dobsonian -- including all the eyepieces, I spent much more of course as the ones that came with the scope were garbage.