EnjoyTheView
Well-known member
The Market is always right...
If you're a sheep in a flock.
The Market is always right...
Absolutely!
ps...You may have misinterpreted my message.
That probably is not going to happen. To contain an electronic IS system the binocular has to be designed differently and will ultimately look differently. Why do you have to have them look like a traditional roof-prism? That is because that is what you are used to looking at. Traditional binoculars are designed with round tubes because lenses are round. When digital binoculars come out they could be square or flat or even triangular in shape. The new Sony digital binoculars are square.If Canon managed to make an IS binocular with the ergonomics and handling of a non-IS Zeiss, Swarovski or Leica, as well as a decent enough warranty, all the other alpha-bin makers would be forced to close up shop!
HN
*Proud Canon 10x42L IS WP and Canon 15x50 IS UD owner*
The Canon's have to be a little bigger and heavier than a normal binocular because of the IS mechanism and the batteries. Ugly is a matter of opinion. The Canon's don't look like a traditional binocular but some people might call them ugly because they are different. Remember the Ugly Duckling story. Because of the complex electronics inside them it would be hard for Canon to give you a 20 year warranty like a normal binocular.big, ugly, heavy, batteries needed, crappy warranty......
If you're a sheep in a flock.
You're calling 99% of this board ''sheep'', because they don't agree with you. People don't like / want / need IS binoculars. I'm not arguing the merits to you or anyone else that loves them, just that 20 years of being on the market proves they are not perceived as necessary by consumers.
This thread is supposed to be about why IS binoculars are not popular, not to decide if they are better than traditional binoculars.
I've never seen any other birder in the UK using them though!
The Market is always right...
I've never seen any other birder in the UK using them though!
You've not seen Chris Packham on Springwatch then?
The "market" cannot want to buy something if it doesn't know it exists or doesn't know the benefits of having it.
Strictly speaking, it's a question of good marketing. :smoke:
HN
Colin - which model were you using? Although I recognise the momentary judder that you describe, I'd suggest that you're basically using them wrongly. With the 10x42 IS you can do one of two things. Either you can switch the IS on while lifting the binoculars, in which case you will see no judder at all once they're at your eyes and you can pick out the bird very easily (more easily than other binoculars, given the stability of the view). Alternatively you can get on to the bird without IS and then switch it on. Although there's a judder, a bird has to move fairly erratically to be hard to follow.
I would counter your claim that they are worse than useless for flying birds. In my experience this is actually one of the situations where the advantages are most significant and obvious. It's far easier to see details on a flying bird with IS and this is also a situation in which the higher power of a scope is least practical. For things like visible migration, IS binoculars are extremely helpful.
some of us old geezers just like the simplicity of optics without electronics
Here are a few Youtube videos showing the difference IS makes in viewing. For those who have never looked through an IS binocular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVS0HqG2qMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJG4Gnm7zrc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP48wWET8rg