Afraid of jumping the gun. Kite 16x42 vs Canon 18x50 (2 Viewers)

[Binastro]

Personally, I disagree.

I haven't the slightest interest in using a binoviewer.

A 100mm binocular is probably heavier than my Jaegers refractor and also wider and bulkier.
It would need a more substantial tripod also.

I could wizz around the garden going from object to object.
I knew the sky well enough to go from one object to another almost instantly.

I used the Messier cards for fainter objects.
These are wonderful as they show exactly where an object is, allowing a one magnitude gain in faintest object seen.

Another point is that in the U.K. the weather changes often.
In the U.S. the weather is more predictable and mounted binocular observing more sustainable.

I have no use for a GoTo scope either.
My larger telescopes had driven mounts but simple.

To take my 317mm out was a major undertaking and only used when the Seeing was good enough for planetary work.

As to tripods for smaller binoculars, I am not interested.
The IS binoculars take care of that and get to angles impossible with a tripod.

For people who like mounted binoculars, that is absolutely fine, but it isn't for me.

Regards,
B

 

[Binocollector]

As to tripods for smaller binoculars, I am not interested.
The IS binoculars take care of that and get to angles impossible with a tripod.

For people who like mounted binoculars, that is absolutely fine, but it isn't for me.

My point exactly. So I guess it is not me you disagree with . I think however we didn't much help with the decision between Kite and Canon .
I wonder how the Zulu6 compares or the Fujinon TSX 14x40 which are all at similar price points (the TSX maybe being slightly more expensive). But the Sig Sauer Zulu stabilized seems very similar to the Kite.

 

[Binastro]

What concerned me about some of the videos for the Kite 42 IS binoculars, was that the reviewer seemed to be a friend of Kite and maybe not independent.
So glowing as to be suspect.

In fact I had a discussion with him.

But with time the Kites may have improved, although the objectives are still partly cut off.
Star tests must be interesting.

The Canon IS have faults, but I have used several for up to twenty years or more.

B.

 

[Conndomat]

Please read my text again. I haven't compared anything. I said -- if I wanted to use something that's mounted,

Lo Of course, with a decent P-mount, you could also use larger binoculars like a 20x80 or 25x100. But if I want mounted instruments with larger magnification...

You brought the example with the 20x80 or 25x100, i.e. an enlargement that is not possible with your 8 inch. Telescope. Is 20x80 or 25x100 not larger than 15x50 or 18x50 and when does larger start for you?

Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

Personally, I disagree.

I haven't the slightest interest in using a binoviewer.

It doesn't matter what you personally think of it!
The Astros are buying bigger and bigger binoculars, APM already offers a 150mm, many use 100mm. or 120mm.

The advantage is binocular vision, which also corresponds to our nature, it is much more relaxed and there is also a gain in perception.

A lot more large binoculars are sold nowadays, the market is bigger and things are becoming more affordable, regardless of what you or I personally think of them.
Mobility is of course another topic.

Andreas

 

[Binastro]

I used a Japanese Celestron hand picked 20x80 for years hand held.

It weighs 2.5kg and I had no trouble hand holding it for 20 minutes.

I also have a 25x100, but it is a nuisance, needs a tripod and I rarely used it.

The Jaegers refractor used 3 inch fit eyepieces.
I don't know many binoculars that use 3 inch fit eyepieces.
I wonder why not?

Regards,
B.

 

[Binastro]

Except for comet finding and also novae hunting astronomers doing serious work use telescopes.

I have absolutely no objection to people using large binoculars.

A 150mm binocular cannot compete with a 317mm, 370mm or 520mm telescope.

Certainly not at 265x or 400x.

There is a superb planetary observer who uses a binoviewer on his 420mm telescope.

Regards,
B.

 

[Conndomat]

@Binastro

this shouldn't become an astro debate, I also like to use refractors, Takahashi... TMB and large Dobsonian 18 inches!

The fact is that more and more Astros are buying large binoculars, you may or may not like it.

I prefer binocular observation at low magnification to monocular observation.

Andreas

Edit: "Except for comet finding and also novae hunting astronomers doing serious work use telescopes."

Most people who buy a large binocular don't want to do any serious work, they just want to have fun.

 

[etudiant]

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?

You are surely correct that IS is essential for 16x-18x binoculars, they are so heavy that a stable view becomes very difficult after a couple of seconds.
Having kids try to hold them is asking a lot. Imho, you risk turning them off from the joy of watching nature, because these tools make it so difficult.
I'd think you have a distinct choice, small, light, kid compatible but low power, the Canon 8x20 or 10x30, maybe the 12x36 if the kids are older than 10.
The bigger 15x50 and up IS glasses are super rewarding for astronomy, but the small FoV and the weight makes them a handful.
I've not had experience with the Kites, but can vouch for the Canons, which have served me well since 2008.
I'd consider the Fujis as an option, they are 14x40, with a two handed carry packaging. It is sort of like holding a book to your eyes.
Fuji makes super robust marine glasses, it is a highly regarded brand.
The Fuji's have much larger motion compensation than the Canons, which really shines when used on a boat or in a car.

The world changes when you bring in scopes, tripods and telescopes. These are planned use devices, not spontaneous like binoculars.
If you can spend the time and make it a routine, even just monthly, it is probably the most rewarding way to observe things, but it is always a process.

Good luck and tell us what the kids thought of it, please.

 

[[email protected]]

"If I had to choose between them as a birder 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 I'd go for them over the cannons are better ergonomics, the auto off feature, much less weight, they are cheaper, fully waterproof and battery life - incidentally you can also get an additional rubber armour covering as an accessory for the Kites."

I just had a pair of the Kite's 16x42. I sold them fast. Take my word for it, they don't compare to the Canon's. I wouldn't recommend them to my worst enemy. Have you tried a pair and compared them to the Canon's? For birding, the Canon 10x42 IS-L is the best, but the 12x36 IS III and 10x30 IS II are not bad.

 

[William Lewis]

Hi Dennis.

Yes I did have a look at them with the cannons. As I said further down in the post that the optics were useable and useful - nothing special but as an overall package I thought the kites were much better for the reasons you've quoted above.

Was your model one of the early made in china ones or the more recent japanese made versions? Also what did you dislike about them and how was the resale value?

Thank you

Will

 

[fazalmajid]

I have the Kite 16x42. They do have CA but they are also very light for stabilized binoculars. That said, you should also consider the Fujinon TSX1440.

 

[William Lewis]

Hi Dennis. Yes that's all true, not amazing optics, very much useable though, i may be wrong but I believe the fujinons have less fov for less mag but stand to be corrected - I was worried you might have had problems with the i.s not working properly.

 

[Hermann]

Let me put it bluntly: I found none of the stabilised binoculars other than the Canons and the Zeiss satisfactory. None.

And I tried quite a lot, including two of the Kites, some Fujinons and that exotic stabilised Russian binocular. Either poor optics or a poor stabiliser. Or both.

Didn't try the new Nikon yet though.

Hermann

 

[LucaPCP]

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.

I both disagree and agree with Denco.

Yes, the Kite 16x42 have lots of CA if you don't keep your eye very carefully centered. And Yes, optically they are not nearly as good as my Zeiss Victory or Conquest for instance. Their DOF is also super thin.

But that's the wrong way of thinking of the Kite. They are really a portable alternative to a scope, useful for making IDs you cannot make with 8x or 10x binoculars. In this they excel. They are light (<800g), durable, waterproof, run on AA batteries that never run out, carry spare batteries as part of their body, have stabilization that's good enough for cars or boats, and enable you to make IDs without having to set up a scope on a tripod.

For that, I really quite like them.

In fact, the other approximation that I think is compelling are the Fujinon techno-stabi, especially the 12x28 that have excellent eye relief for use with sunglasses. Super light (lighter than Leica 8x32 UV), you can carry them in the backpack to help with difficult IDs.

Just also carry your normal 8x or 10x binoculars.

 

[edwincjones]

I both disagree and agree with ..........

Optics are like spouses,
you bond with one and then believe that one is better than the others;
at least for a while.

edj

 

[Canip]

Optics are like spouses, you bond with one and then believe that one is better than the others.

edj

😳

 

[Trinovid]

Optics are like spouses

Isn't it true that some help you see things more clearly than others; that's the one to choose.

 

[Rg548]

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.

I agree