The resolution is superior in the pocket camera than with the 18x50 IS.
I have no trouble following and taking photos of aircraft although birds are less predictable.
The only way the binocular is superior is that it has superb glare control nearly into the sun, whereas the camera loses contrast in these situations.
Also at night the binocular is superior, say with Jupiter's moons.
But it is surprising that a small aperture camera lens can produce higher resolution than a stabilised 18x50.
Also most cameras are stabilised, whereas most binoculars aren't, which seems daft to me.
And they have excellent autofocus.
But I use normal binoculars, IS binoculars, the excellent Minolta 8x23 autofocus camera, pocket cameras and the Sony A7S which shows objects at night invisible to the unaided eyes.
I am quite happy with the equipment I have, and am not interested in getting the latest and greatest binoculars, which in all probability are not much different to what we already have.
As to camera lenses, I have already had decades ago the Zoomar 180mm f/1.3, and f/0.75, f/0.95 and f/1.1 lenses.
2,000mm lenses, 1,000mm lenses. etc. etc.
The 1950s Minolta 50mm f/1.8 lens on their rangefinder cameras was probably close to the best lenses produced today.
Same with the Cooke movie and T.V. Broadcast lenses.
Or the Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 Hassleblad lenses in the 1960s.
Telescopes also.
Regards,
B.