AlanFrench
Well-known member
Leif said:
Leif,
Indeed. I should keep such variations in usage in mind.
Clear skies, Alan
-
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 (IS) Binoculars (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter p645n
- Start date
Leif,
Indeed. I should keep such variations in usage in mind.
Clear skies, Alan
How about Zagorsk
Does anyone have any advice on the Russian Zagorsk 16x50 stabilized binoculars?
There seems to be 3 methods of stabilization; 1. flywheel/gyro (Fujinon, Zagorsk & Nikon(?)), 2. prismatic stabilization under microprocessor control (Canon, Nikon) or 3. prismatic stabilization under mechanical (pendulum) control (Zeiss, Zagorsk). The third method does not require battery power.
Zeiss offer 20x60 BSGAT pendulum stabilized at $4900. Zagorsk offer 16x50 at $550 and also 20x50 pendulum stabilized as well as gyro stabilzed at $1200. I am interested in the 16x50 model.
1. Are they optically sound (resolution, flatness of field and colour aberation).
2. How satisfactory is the image stabilization?
3. Are they well assembled (collimated)?
4. Is the stabilization effective when looking upwards (binoculars not horizontal)?
5. Are they expectd to be durable?
I am aware that the inter pupillary distance setting is deliberately stiff to adjust and that focus is by turning each eyepiece. They weigh 1,4 kg. They are available from several sites in the USA called SIB usually but also BPC, BPS, BSM and Newcon.
Does anyone have any advice on the Russian Zagorsk 16x50 stabilized binoculars?
There seems to be 3 methods of stabilization; 1. flywheel/gyro (Fujinon, Zagorsk & Nikon(?)), 2. prismatic stabilization under microprocessor control (Canon, Nikon) or 3. prismatic stabilization under mechanical (pendulum) control (Zeiss, Zagorsk). The third method does not require battery power.
Zeiss offer 20x60 BSGAT pendulum stabilized at $4900. Zagorsk offer 16x50 at $550 and also 20x50 pendulum stabilized as well as gyro stabilzed at $1200. I am interested in the 16x50 model.
1. Are they optically sound (resolution, flatness of field and colour aberation).
2. How satisfactory is the image stabilization?
3. Are they well assembled (collimated)?
4. Is the stabilization effective when looking upwards (binoculars not horizontal)?
5. Are they expectd to be durable?
I am aware that the inter pupillary distance setting is deliberately stiff to adjust and that focus is by turning each eyepiece. They weigh 1,4 kg. They are available from several sites in the USA called SIB usually but also BPC, BPS, BSM and Newcon.
MikeB.
In my Landie, under a tree
Cost of repairing Canon 15 x 50 IS bins
Just found this post today.
The little battery door for the 2 x AA fell off about 3 months ago, not easy to fix oneself, and cost GBP60 for Canon to replace - it's a TINY part, and at that price, makes it more expensive than gold.
The collimator was slightly out, but the quote from Canon was GBP200, so I'm afraid it's going to remain a bit out!
Great bins, but be warned of repair costs!
Just found this post today.
The little battery door for the 2 x AA fell off about 3 months ago, not easy to fix oneself, and cost GBP60 for Canon to replace - it's a TINY part, and at that price, makes it more expensive than gold.
The collimator was slightly out, but the quote from Canon was GBP200, so I'm afraid it's going to remain a bit out!
Great bins, but be warned of repair costs!
angelo225544
Well-known member
The least comfortable pair of binoculars I have ever owned (and sold) were my Canon 15x50 IS. I simply couldn't live with those rediculous eyecups. In the extended position they have such a large diameter that they are painful to the bridge of the nose (this is without eyeglasses). I had to resort to keeping them in their folded position which left them very vulnerable to stray light reflections on the occular glass. I see that they have corrected this shortcoming with the new 10x42's so I look forward to trying those.
As for the Image stabilization - it is amazing! There is nothing short of a tripod mounted 15x premium quality binocular that can show this level of detail. I did my own version of BVD's NEED test and the difference between these and any non-IS bin I tried is huge in terms of detail recognition. But I would think of the 15x as more of a binocular/spotting scope hybrid because the narrow FOV is very restrictive.
Canon's optics are very impressive too, even without the IS feature I'd bet the new 10x42's will compare favorably with any 10x glass out there. This is really a case of "try before you buy".
As for the Image stabilization - it is amazing! There is nothing short of a tripod mounted 15x premium quality binocular that can show this level of detail. I did my own version of BVD's NEED test and the difference between these and any non-IS bin I tried is huge in terms of detail recognition. But I would think of the 15x as more of a binocular/spotting scope hybrid because the narrow FOV is very restrictive.
Canon's optics are very impressive too, even without the IS feature I'd bet the new 10x42's will compare favorably with any 10x glass out there. This is really a case of "try before you buy".
AlanFrench
Well-known member
angelo225544 said:
Absolutely. Your discussion nicely illustrated the importance of trying before buying. I have the 12x36 IS binocular, and, fortunately the eye relief is just perfect when I fold down the eyecups (with my glasses). Canon would win more converts if they introduced twist up eyecups for the series.
The 10x42s sound very nice, but I think I'd miss the extra magnification.
Clear skies, Alan
With reference to the last two postings: Alas, the 10x42 twistable eyecups help next to nothing when compared with the fold-downs on the 15x50. This is because their external diameter is just about as huge and their edges are sharp to boot. Thus, most of those who need to keep the eyecups folded down with the 15/18x50's probably will have to twist the eyecups all the way or almost all the way down with the 10x42 as well.
Kimmo
Kimmo
I ordered them and then returned them for refund. They were not perfectly collimated, and, as alluded to above, the twistable eyecups were really dinky. Hopefully they'll come out with an improved model. Meanwhile I'll stick with my Canon 10X30IS.
By the way, i ordered them from 17th St. Camera in NYC. Excellent service both ways. I also ordered something from B&H camera in NYC and returned that too, not very long ago. Also, excellent service. So I recommend both of those places.
By the way, i ordered them from 17th St. Camera in NYC. Excellent service both ways. I also ordered something from B&H camera in NYC and returned that too, not very long ago. Also, excellent service. So I recommend both of those places.
jogiba said:
I also cut the eyepieces on my 10X30 Canon IS's. I cut them so that I could get a position midway beteen retracted and extended. Works good - but here's a warning: I thought that if i didn't like the way they came out i could buy a replacement rubber eyecup for a couple of dollars, but then I was told by Canon that there are no replacement eyecups available. Not good.
talon_dfa
Well-known member
Current auctions Canon IS binos (mostly US)
http://www.binoculars-and-scopes.org/index.php?q=Canon+Binoculars+image&catid=28179,31710,10955
http://www.binoculars-and-scopes.org/index.php?q=Canon+Binoculars+image&catid=28179,31710,10955
Cyclops
1 eyed tree hugging nature nut!
Please forgive me for jumping in here but i have long wondered why canon's IS bins have smaller objectives than most bins. Is it to do with the extra weight of the IS unit or do canon believe that with IS one doesn't need as big an obj.? Is it really necessary to stick with the 8x30!10x50 convention? I would think there is a real benefit of having a 'proper' obj diameter when in say dense woodland and other low light situations.
As they all have the same exit pupil, apart from the 10x42, I would hazard the guess that they all use the same IS unit, and that this restricts the usable aperture.
AlanFrench
Well-known member
Given their magnification, you'd need pretty large objectives to obtain a larger exit pupil, which would tranlate into more weight. The choice of 3mm is likely sufficient under reasonably bright conditions. In dense woodlands, a larger exit pupil might be appreciated, but I also find the rather long close focus and restricted field is an issue in the woods - and often grab my 7x42s instead.
The other day I was sitting on my raised deck watching the wood line. I happened upon both male Ruby-crowned and Golden-crowned Kinglets. Without the 12x36 IS binoculars, I doubt I would have been able to distinquish their crowns.
A pair of 18x50s is definitely on my "wish list," mainly for exploring the night sky. I have a pair of 15x70s now, but dislike the need for a tripod.
Clear skies, Alan
The other day I was sitting on my raised deck watching the wood line. I happened upon both male Ruby-crowned and Golden-crowned Kinglets. Without the 12x36 IS binoculars, I doubt I would have been able to distinquish their crowns.
A pair of 18x50s is definitely on my "wish list," mainly for exploring the night sky. I have a pair of 15x70s now, but dislike the need for a tripod.
Clear skies, Alan
Alan and Mick, are you guys still happy with the Canon 12x36 IS? Reason I ask is that a shop in Dublin is selling a new pair off for 500 euro (that´s cheap for Dublin). I had a look through them and was stunned by the IS feature, which I´d never seen before. The FOV was obviously restricted, and the image wasn´t terribly bright, but I reckon the IS might be sufficient compensation for the loss of light. So, still happy? Thanks in advance.
Mickymouse
Ubuntu Linux user
I am, they are still my main bin. I am toying with the idea of upgrading but anything that hasn't got IS isn't in the list of possibles you tend to get use to it, I've been using mine for a couple of years now and my only criticism of them is the close focus isn't that good, about 3 metres I think. I don't know what the exchange rate is but mine cost me about £400.
Hope that helps.
Mick
Hope that helps.
Mick
Thanks Mick! I went in to have another look at the 12x36IS this shop is selling, and brought my EL 10x42 for comparison. The IS sample are wonderful....but.... I noticed that one of the eyepieces is slightly detached from the body, i.e. there´s a slight gap between the eyepiece barrel and the body. (I don´t want to accidentally spark off another "Hole in Bins" thread here, there have been enough casualties taken off the Swaro/Leica field already!
) The assistant didn´t know diddly-squat about bins, but I reckoned there´s a good reason why this sample are being sold off cheap, maybe they´re returns, or were dropped or something, but genuine good offers don´t happen in Ireland anymore......and strangely they had no other Canon IS in the shop. So I declined to buy them. But they set my mind thinking.....perhaps Santa might bring me some IS bins....
Mickymouse
Ubuntu Linux user
Probable the best thing to avoid them if there is an obvious fault, shame though.
Mick
Mick
Amongst other binoculars, I own a pair of 10x30 Canon IS. I bought them, surprisingly, for astronomy. The fact that the image is so steady makes them feel as though they out perform 7x50's and even 10x50's. However, when I compared them to my Zeiss Victory 10x25's, the Zeiss were vastly superior for birding even with a 5mm smaller objective. Still, the IS bins are amazing and every person who's interested in optics should own at least one pair.
I still use the IS for astronomy over all bins that I own including a pretty good 25x100 pair of Garrett's.
I still use the IS for astronomy over all bins that I own including a pretty good 25x100 pair of Garrett's.
"...anything that hasn't got IS isn't in the list of possibles you tend to get use to it"
Same here. I had the Canon 10X30 and now have the 12X36. I'm no longer interested in non-stabilized binoc's. My only complaint is that they haven't been upgraded fast enough. I'd like to see an improved debugged 10X42.
Sounds like they were trying to sell you a broken or defective model, Sancho. Maybe if you could get the price down low enough and be certain that Canon would fix it under warranty...
Same here. I had the Canon 10X30 and now have the 12X36. I'm no longer interested in non-stabilized binoc's. My only complaint is that they haven't been upgraded fast enough. I'd like to see an improved debugged 10X42.
Sounds like they were trying to sell you a broken or defective model, Sancho. Maybe if you could get the price down low enough and be certain that Canon would fix it under warranty...
