• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Your dream binocular (2 Viewers)

7x magnification because the stability is amazing even in very windy conditions

35mm objective lens. 30’s are the beginning of brighter images but still pocketable.

9.3 degrees FOV, nothing tells a story better then a very wide field of view

Compact roof design to carry everywhere

Waterproof and fog proof

Keep dimensions under 5 inches in both length and width

Then of course use premium lens with flatteners
 
P.S. The only thing keeping me from saving up for the Canon IS 10x42s is embarrassing, but so far impossible for me to get past: I can't stand the way they look, and that matters—matters quite legitimately, too, I think—in any consumer market on earth.

.

Henry Link posted a Canon 10x42 cutaway some time back, it showed that the envelope shape and size was dictated by the glass involved. That increased my respect for the Canon designers, they allowed form to follow function. For a tool, that is a good thing, imho, but it obviously has not translated into broader market success.

So perhaps the sector will remain mired in the status quo until it is upended by something much more capable from the Samsungs or Apples of this world.
 
Yes, form must respond to and echo optical function. That’s one of the things I so love about classic Porto prisms, is the way you can all but trace the light paths in the shape of the body.

But of course several different sorts of function are involved in any successful industrial design, and I do hope a happier medium can be arrived at. Canon’s line containing the newer 10x32s is a start, though of course I can’t understand the rationale for using fold-down eye cups.
 
But image stabilization is just one, especially dramatic expression of the wider problem. I see that problem as being inadequate R&D, little meaningful competition, overconcentration of production in a few hands—and, as a result, stagnation and a creep toward something closer to connoisseurship than invention.

While I agree with you that a Canon IS 10x42 with the weight and shape of a Leica Ultravid or Noctivid would indeed be a dream binocular, I feel that you're overstating the "problem" a bit.

I don't see much of a problem. We have wonderful tools for our hobby. The best glasses available are a true joy to use and help making birding being fun. And even the second best and 20 year old binoculars are still way more than good enough.

Sooner or later, once one of the big mobile phone or camera makers bothers to produce something for the niche market of birders and hunters toys, the optical binocular will be replaced by a elecronic one. This sure will bring some advantages, but I doubt it will be a technological breakthrough remotely as revolutionary as the appearance of mobile phones or digital photography.

I kind of like it that a tool looking more or less the same as 100 years ago still does the job perfectly well. I also like it that a tool I bought 10 years ago is still as good that I don't feel the need for an upgrade now and in the next 10 years or so.

The fact that there is so little real innovation can also be interpreted as that there isn't really that much need for innovation.
 
A couple of points.

Gijs van Ginkel says

"I must have missed something, but if you take into account the different models made by the different companies from different countries in the past two decades and you compare them with earlier instruments, there have been a lot of new spectacular models and mechanical and optical improvements. "

There's no disputing that these improvements have taken place. But the cumulative improvements of the last 14 years have been insufficient to persuade me to reach for my credit card to replace my 14 year old Swarovski ELs.


Dakat says

"The fact that there is so little real innovation can also be interpreted as that there isn't really that much need for innovation."

I suspect that people wouldn't have seen "much need for innovation" before the photocopier (what's wrong with carbon paper?), the domestic freezer (go to the shop), the microwave (use an oven), the ballpoint pen (try a quill pen), the WYSIWYG interface (nothing wrong with DOS command lines), or the mobile phone (if a phonebox was good enough for Superman, it's good enough for me). People may not have recognised the need for such innovations, but I would suggest that if you tried taking any of these innovations away, very few people would thank you. Surely for industry leaders to stay as leaders, they need to create new products that customers don't think they need, but which are indispensable once they're available.

To get back to the starting point of this discussion, what would get me reaching for the credit card would be a binocular that would help me see birds without lugging a telescope and tripod around. This means image stabilization to allow greater magnification. High-speed autofocus a la DSLR would be good too. Maybe, instead of the user looking directly through the lens, he/she could look at a high-class screen (the OLED viewfinders on some mirrorless cameras are astonishingly good these days, and probably exceed the acuity of the human eye) which then opens up all sorts of possibilities - electronic zoom, image enhancement, electronic management of optical anomalies, and so on. It's just a question of a manufacturer believing that it's worth doing - and, I suspect a pretty massive hike in the limit on my credit card!


Jeff
 
Dalat,

I admittedly have a bee in my bonnet about image stabilization, in particular! I think a market that hasn't seen the wholesale adoption of that technology after 20 years may in some way be actively stoppered up, or 'managed' by something different from consumers' desires.

IS is simply so, so promising, and has had such a gigantic impact outside this market, along with such a tiny one inside it. I don't know what proportion of the birdwatching public owns Canon IS binoculars, but I think it's tiny.

I also agree with what jeffhosier said—echoing Adam Smith!—about how rapidly luxuries become necessities, as well as what he said—this time echoing Steve Jobs—about the inability of consumers, en masse, to directly drive innovations they will then delightedly adopt.

Anyway, we just have a difference of opinion. I think there's something distorting this market, in comparison with other consumer sectors, and the lack of real change seems to me to be a sign of that distortion. (Rather than a sign that, as Albert Michaelson famously and prematurely said of physics in the 1890s, all "the grand underlying principles have been firmly established.")

But I certainly agree it's more productive to use the goods we enjoy now than to whine and pine for ones we don't. I'd just love to see the binocular makers lead the coming change, and usher it in more rapidly, than seek to postpone it and end as its casualties.

Peter
 
Hi Peter,

Me too, I find the non-success of the Canon IS binoculars quite intriguing, although I don't really believe in the theory of "actively stoppered up, or 'managed' by something different from consumers' desires".

I've read a lot (here mostly) about IS bins for quite some time, and always agreed that theoreticly, these should be superior. Then, a friend of mine bought a 10x30 and I could try it prolongued times, and absolutely, they clearly show more details than my Ultravid, despite inferior optics. As I can't imagine using a non-water proof bin, I then looked around until I found the 10x42 to test.

I really wanted to like it. I was immediately convinced that I can see more details in a more relaxed way with that bin. The optics are great. But I was put off by its size and uglyness. And also, after some pondering, I couldn't come up with a good use-case to justify the investment. When birding in in open country, I would have a scope anyway and the Ultravid would be more than enough to get an overview or being quick on flyovers. For tropical birding, the wider FOV of the 8x and more light would be an advantage over the 10x42. For the mountains, the 10x42 IS would be great, but too heavy and clumsy for wearing all the time during the hike.

So despite being convinced by the superiority of the technology, the overall package is just not for me. Apparently I'm not alone in this.
 
Peter,

I salute your enthusiasm for design, technology, and binoculars. I have been a binocular aficionado for longer than I care to admit, but long enough to have seen a pretty significant revolution.

There have been several factors. One is phase correction in roof prisms which appeared commercially in the late 1980s. Prior to that it was much more difficult for even a top quality roof prism binocular to compete with a decent Porro. The second factor is a general upgrade in anti-reflective coatings improving transmission and durability. Standardization of container shipping contributed a boom in Asian manufacturing for export to specified optical design. This last rocked both the telescope and the binocular business, not to mention the rest of the world economy. Also, advances in digital technology changed design, marketing, and sales for binoculars. And finally, image stabilization (IS) technology based on advances in piezoelectric miniaturization showed up in Canon binoculars during the 1990s. I gather they initially developed it for their camera market.

Canon's IS revolutionized astronomical binocular observing for me 20 years ago. I have their 10x30 and 15x45 IS binoculars. They are essentially Porro prism binoculars with battery powered electronic IS. I know of a few people who bird with the 10x42, but I bird pretty regularly (often several times a week) and at least once a week I am with a group. I have seen someone else using an IS binocular perhaps once or twice. When I started birding a couple years ago, I was shocked at the improvement in image quality, and especially price vs. quality for roof prism binoculars. Performance that was unavailable at any price 30 years ago is available in mid-priced roof prism binoculars routinely and under the right circumstances in the $150 range.

I have nothing against IS, in fact as I said I like them for astronomy or for sports or concert. Yet I don't use them routinely for birding essentially for ergonomic reasons (I am speaking primarily of the 15x45, but it is true for the 10x30 as well). The Canon optics are very nice, but compared to similarly sized objectives, they are considerably heavier, bulkier, harder to point, have slower focus, don't focus as close, the IPD isn't as adjustable (I need a very narrow IPD), I find the eyecups less comfortable and less adjustable. Newer models may be more weather proof, but I would not consider them to be nearly as rugged as a well built roof prism binocular. Most of these things are not show stoppers for astronomy, but for birding, between the bulk/weight and handling problems, I simply don't use them.

I am seeing quite a few birders with super-zoom fixed lens cameras. These are relatively tech rich devices including IS and enough automation that once you have the camera set up, you take a quick burst of shots of a distant bird with the hope that one will be sufficiently in focus and showing the distinctive markings you seek or that someone more knowledgable will explain. Also many birders today are using networked smart phone apps for tracking what they see, for planning outings, and for online handbooks. So I don't think birders are particularly technology averse.

Alan
 
It's been said here in a round-about-way, but lower power IS binoculars are extreme over-kill for the average birder, whose primary objective is ID the bird and move on to the next. It's rare indeed that I can't ID something because of shakes and unsteadiness, unless its windy and I'm out in the open.

Honestly, I think after 45 years of birding my eye-brain does an excellent job already of eliminating the small tremors / shakes that might compromise the image. Higher powers though - like 15+ - for sure benefit from IS, esp. for seawatches, raptors ,shorebirds etc.
 
That's interesting, about the rising use of cameras with super-powerful zooms in birding alongside—and now sometimes in preference to—binoculars. I guess the camera market has been driven by the iPhone, during the past 5–6 years, to double down on ever more capable 'pure' cameras, complete with big glass and ultra-high megapixel counts.

It does suggest that some kind of convergence may be happening naturally. In other words, back in the day people would 'digiscope'—but now many just use cameras that work like scopes. Perhaps soon enough they'll be using binoculars that work like cameras.

I am completely on board with the comments about why Canon's IS models never took off for birding (including the 10x42, which Canon clearly hoped would make the difference).

I don't think the problem is so much that Canon never managed to turn itself into a maker of really weatherproof, ergonomic, elegant, fieldworthy binoculars—as that, contrariwise, the makers of really weatherproof, ergonomic, elegant, fieldworthy binoculars never showed any detectible interest in cloning or improving Canon's technology.

Since probably 95% of birders would love to have IS incorporated into their everyday binoculars—if only it were incorporated well—it seems as if we could be much further along with IS than we are now, if the market leaders had spent the last 15 years trying to make it part of their products. (Not ignoring it.) The priorities of high-profile manufacturers matter a lot in shaping the evolution of a market. Witness, for instance, Tesla and the pace of change with electric cars.

So I won't repeat things I've said. But it does seem to me to be an unusual consumer market that undergoes so little fundamental change, and whose pace is set to this extent by such a small, mutually intimate group of manufacturers, with many key personnel in common over the years.

I never thought about container vessels as a big part of the reason for the revolution in high-quality, lower-cost binoculars over the past 15 years! It's a really interesting case study in globalization, in addition to everything else. I was just trying to suggest earlier that in many markets, *technological* changes that slash the cost and improve the quality of consumer goods have popped up during the same period at a very quick pace, whereas changes in overseas manufacturing, trade, and transport seem to account for most of the change in the price and quality of binoculars.
 
Last edited:
James, you're right about IS's not being needed to identify nearly all birds nearly all the time. Of course, it's just also a lot of fun to see things as clearly as you possibly can—and to sustainedly watch, as well as identify. Without waxing mystical, I think IS allows for something that approaches a qualitative shift in the experience of birdwatching.

And, of course, if it allows birders to end their wearisome lugging about of scopes—especially, as you say, for seabirds—wow, will that ever be a welcome difference.
 
Last edited:
Hi Peter,

Regarding your comment in #73 about 95% of Birders would love to have IS incorporated into their every day binoculars:

My every day binoculars are either 7x42, 8x42 or the new Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 B.

I definitely do not want IS incorporated into any of them. I can't imagine how it could be accomplished in an efficient and weight saving manner. Put it in the 42s and it would would result in another awkward IS binocular and the Swarovski CL Companion 8x30B doesn't really need it.

Canon's 10x30 IS and 12x36 IS have IMO the best designs we will ever see in IS binoculars. They are well balanced, not overly heavy and reasonably good looking. The size of their objectives and prisms helps keep their weights down.

Change the objectives to 42mm, put in IS and you end up with something like Canon's 10x42 IS Binocular..

Bob
 
Hi Bob,

I tried to say that nearly all birders "would love to have IS incorporated into their everyday binoculars—if only it were incorporated well," and I quite agree that so far it never has been.

The reasons why no one but Canon has made even perfunctory efforts to change that situation for 20 years are what intrigue (and, I admit, frustrate) me.

And, perhaps because IS has now been woven so successfully into such a variety of consumer products, I'm probably less confident than you that the current situation reflects inherent technical limits that make it unlikely to be incorporated into binoculars "in an efficient and weight saving manner." I agree that that's the real question.

But, basically, this is one of those situations where the only thing people in our position can really conclude is that time will tell. I guess I just wish time would start to hurry up a bit!

Peter
 
It's been said here in a round-about-way, but lower power IS binoculars are extreme over-kill for the average birder, whose primary objective is ID the bird and move on to the next. It's rare indeed that I can't ID something because of shakes and unsteadiness, unless its windy and I'm out in the open.

Honestly, I think after 45 years of birding my eye-brain does an excellent job already of eliminating the small tremors / shakes that might compromise the image. Higher powers though - like 15+ - for sure benefit from IS, esp. for seawatches, raptors ,shorebirds etc.

Of course your brain may work different than mine, but a very quick test of a low powered (e.g. 10x) IS bin (e.g. looking at the writing on a fareaway sign) is sufficient to convince me that IS shows clearly more details, and in practice would certainly allow me to ID some fareaway birds, that otherwise would be too far away to ID.

It is quite contradictory that most of us are giving IS a pass, but are ready to shell out 2000 € plus for top-binoculars, although we hardly would miss any ID with a 200 € bin of the same configuration.


That's interesting, about the rising use of cameras with super-powerful zooms in birding alongside—and now sometimes in preference to—binoculars. I guess the camera market has been driven by the iPhone, during the past 5–6 years, to double down on ever more capable 'pure' cameras, complete with big glass and ultra-high megapixel counts.

It does suggest that some kind of convergence may be happening naturally. In other words, back in the day people would 'digiscope'—but now many just use cameras that work like scopes. Perhaps soon enough they'll be using binoculars that work like cameras.

Most likely that is what will happen. Not optical stabilised bins as the Canons, but fully digital ones, which can be made smaller (no prisms needed) and offer the potential for all sorts of other gimmicks (e.g. the merlin bird ID app built in). In principle, such a binocular could be made already today, all components are there. In the camera world, even Canon and Nikon have now jumped on the mirrorless train, which means that they decided electronic view finders are now good enough to replace optical view finders even in their top line products.

Panasonic, Canon, Sony, Nikon would probably able to do a usable digital binocular very soon. However, they are struggeling hard to keep their foot the fast shrinking camera market, which however is still some dimensions larger than the binoculars market. So it may take a while until they invest into this niche market.

Zeiss and Leica would probably be able to go digital fast too, but I think they are unlikely to do so before being seriously challenged by a newcomer. (a bit like the German car makers, who only now start getting serious about electric cars)
 
Last edited:
Dalat, right. Panasonic, if you are listening, when you next do the annual update of the travel cameras perhaps you could forget the 'binocular' suggestion, and just call some new 250gm models 'DVZ' (Dual Viewfinder Zoom) instead of 'TZ' (Travel Zoom).

You could tell the more cautious departments that, by adding a second viewfinder to the successful existing designs, this should shake off even more of the competition from mobile phones, and include some additional birders too ;)
 
Last edited:
I enjoy the simplicity of current glass design, if I get the shakes later on I will likely try > 15 mag in IS, by the time some of these inventions being discussed come along I will be long gone.

Andy W.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top