Is IS for the birds? (2 Viewers)

There are some interesting differences between the Fujinon 14x40 TS and the new 14x40 TSX. The TS was a roof prism and the new TSX is a reverse porro for starters. Interesting that they changed the design. They got rid of the side hand straps which I kind of liked, they increased the IS from 5 degrees to 6 degrees and made the binoculars rounder for better ergonomics, and they serve as FLOATS! That is correct this binocular will float without a floating strap. You don't get the hard case any more instead you get a normal soft case and strap which isn't a big deal. Price has increased about $200 also.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._7511440_14x40_TS1440_Techno_Stabi_Image.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...6668012_ts_x14x40_techno_stabi_binocular.html

[email protected] said:

The Canon 10x42 IS-L are sensational optically but you have to decide if you can tolerate the weight and brick like square shape. The weight REALLY gets to you on a long hike but you have solved the problem by taking compacts on longer hikes. Sancho, you might try the Canon 8x20 IS or Nikon 10x25 IS for your hikes. They are both small and under 14 oz. and very good optically. I have both of them for hikes.

Click to expand...

Thanks Dennis!!! I will think about the Canon IS 8x20, it looks very interesting! Meanwhile I'll give your regards to our local goats and goat bars!
I wonder though if the IS8x20 is much of an improvement on the "old" IS8x25. I had one of those, excellent optics for the price, but I couldn't get on with the IS system, and it's kind of "plasticky". Not much heavier than the new IS8x20, and pretty equal in size. In fact, for an 8x20 binocular, the Canon IS 8x20 really isn't a "pocket" bino. My 8x20 has to fit in a bike-vest pocket, so it has to be tiny (Swaro 8x20B, old version with rubber eyecups, I love it! I have a Leica UV 8x20 too that I don't use much, although it is superb). What I would really like to see is a standard 8x32 or 8x42 with IS. Just to experience the mid-range mag and wider FOV of the "standard" birding binos, with added IS. But we all want what we can't have!!!

Can anyone explain to me why higher power IS telescopes with decent sized OG haven't been developed for the birding market? Not having to lug around a tripod seems to me to be quite an attractive option.

John Cantelo said:

Can anyone explain to me why higher power IS telescopes with decent sized OG haven't been developed for the birding market? Not having to lug around a tripod seems to me to be quite an attractive option.

Click to expand...

Nikon did (does?) make a VR version of the 85mm EDG. No idea what it would be like to use hand held, though.

Sancho said:

Thanks Dennis!!! I will think about the Canon IS 8x20, it looks very interesting! Meanwhile I'll give your regards to our local goats and goat bars!
I wonder though if the IS8x20 is much of an improvement on the "old" IS8x25. I had one of those, excellent optics for the price, but I couldn't get on with the IS system, and it's kind of "plasticky". Not much heavier than the new IS8x20, and pretty equal in size. In fact, for an 8x20 binocular, the Canon IS 8x20 really isn't a "pocket" bino. My 8x20 has to fit in a bike-vest pocket, so it has to be tiny (Swaro 8x20B, old version with rubber eyecups, I love it! I have a Leica UV 8x20 too that I don't use much, although it is superb). What I would really like to see is a standard 8x32 or 8x42 with IS. Just to experience the mid-range mag and wider FOV of the "standard" birding binos, with added IS. But we all want what we can't have!!!

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that just down the street from where I live they are putting up a new bar called "The Goat." I guess I will have to check it out when they open up if the Covid isn't still around. I remember trying the Canon 8x25 IS and I also thought it cheaply built and the optics weren't that great. This new Canon 8x20 is much better and the optics are actually equal to something like a 8x20 Ultravid. I think you could fit it in good size coat pocket but it is not pocketable like a 8x20 Ultravid. I agree on the 8x32 or 8x42 IS. I could see Nikon making an 8x42 IS similar to their HG since they just did it with the 10x25 IS. I have a love hate relationship with the Canon 10x42 IS-L. I love the optics and the IS but hate the ergonomics. If they could just round the corners a bit so it wasn't shaped like a brick like Fujinon did on their new 14x40 TSX it would be a big improvement.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=384155

John Cantelo said:

Can anyone explain to me why higher power IS telescopes with decent sized OG haven't been developed for the birding market? Not having to lug around a tripod seems to me to be quite an attractive option.

Click to expand...

There are some IS spotting scopes around like the Sig Sauer Oscar 3. I haven't seen any big astro IS scopes yet though. They would probably be too big to lug around with any decent size aperture.

https://www.sigsauer.com/products/electro-optics/spotting-scopes/oscar3/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WjZjx3dMHc
https://www.amazon.com/Sig-Sauer-Spotting-Stabilized-Riflescope/dp/B00UZ8CI5C
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/86377-image-stabilizing-telescopes/
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=61856
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/...age-stabilized-spotting-scopes-for-astronomy/

Nikon was shrewd to run the 10X25 in IS, a format that was always difficult to keep steady (the IS system has to be small also). As the 10X25 is used by many they (Nikon) will identify the problems, improve some design shortcomings, then build a 8X42 or even a 10X42 with even better performance.
It would not surprise me that Nikon would be the first to make a portable IS glass in 8 and 10X42.

Andy W.

dries1 said:

Nikon was shrewd to run the 10X25 in IS, a format that was always difficult to keep steady (the IS system has to be small also). As the 10X25 is used by many they (Nikon) will identify the problems, improve some design shortcomings, then build a 8X42 or even a 10X42 with even better performance.
It would not surprise me is Nikon would be the first to make a portable IS glass in 8 and 10X42.

Andy W.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There IS system is almost identical to Fujinons and both of them are superior to Canons IS because they don't get soft when you activate the IS. If they can make a 10x25 IS binocular with excellent IS why couldn't they make a 10x42 IS and a 8x42 IS which have more room for the IS components. All they would have to is upgrade the optics a bit, and they would have a killer binocular. Even if it weighed 30 oz. it will kill the NL in resolution and seeing detail. The 10x25 IS is the first IS binocular I have seen that looks normal and I think that is what the buyers want. They would like IS, but they don't want a weird looking heavy brick shaped binocular.

dries1 said:

Nikon was shrewd to run the 10X25 in IS, a format that was always difficult to keep steady (the IS system has to be small also). As the 10X25 is used by many they (Nikon) will identify the problems, improve some design shortcomings, then build a 8X42 or even a 10X42 with even better performance.
It would not surprise me that Nikon would be the first to make a portable IS glass in 8 and 10X42.

Andy W.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you're right, Andy. I'd buy the 8x42.

Higher power telescope IS is largely pointless as you mainly use them on tripods anyway due to the weight.
Low power IS (8x) is almost unnecessary and high power ones (18x) are big heavy bricks!

I’ve had the Canon 12x36 for 15odd years and it was my main binocular. If you only have one optic then it’s a very good compromise, as mentioned carrying a spare set of batteries is no more bother than a USB powertank for when your phone gets low. However too much time on various forums has more recently lead to me finding wider angle lower power binoculars. So now I tend to carry a low power (non-IS) pair for finding stuff and a high power pair (or scope) for far away and more detail.
To kill the NL an IS offering would also need to match the 70degree field of view, then you’d have sharp and immersive (think Nikon WX with IS)

Peter

This has been an interesting thread to follow. I'll be keen to hear more impressions of the new generation Fuji, Dennis or others.

As well it seems the market is quite ripe for a new alpha level IS bin. The advances in materials, IS, electronics, and weight that have been made in camera lenses in the last 20 years are impressive. Nikon and Canon can clearly make world class optics. I should think that something like a lineup of 10x,12x, and 15x bins in the 40-45mm range with modern electronics that don't add so much weight, that have reasonable eye-relief and modern eye-cups and better body design could really sell well. Such an offering would be more revolutionary than the NL, in my opinion, and would excite me far more.

wllmspd said:

Higher power telescope IS is largely pointless as you mainly use them on tripods anyway due to the weight.
Low power IS (8x) is almost unnecessary and high power ones (18x) are big heavy bricks!

I’ve had the Canon 12x36 for 15odd years and it was my main binocular. If you only have one optic then it’s a very good compromise, as mentioned carrying a spare set of batteries is no more bother than a USB powertank for when your phone gets low. However too much time on various forums has more recently lead to me finding wider angle lower power binoculars. So now I tend to carry a low power (non-IS) pair for finding stuff and a high power pair (or scope) for far away and more detail.
To kill the NL an IS offering would also need to match the 70degree field of view, then you’d have sharp and immersive (think Nikon WX with IS)

Peter

Click to expand...

I don't find IS to be unnecessary even at 8x. I have the new Canon 8x20 IS and I can see more detail with it than I can with my NL 8x42. Can you really find stuff with low power? I find with higher magnification I will find more birds than I do with lower magnification. Sometimes I don't even see the bird with my eyes but with 12x I will.

[email protected] said:

I will let you know how the new Fujinon 14x40 TSX1440 Techno-Stabi perform. I get them about Tuesday.

Click to expand...

Are the new Fujinon 14x40 TSX1440 Techno-Stabi better optical than the Canon 10x42 L or Canon 18x50? ... Is this the higher magnification binoculars hand-held with IS ... How does IS work compared to Canon 10x42L? ... Does Fujinon have CA?

bockos said:

Are the new Fujinon 14x40 TSX1440 Techno-Stabi better optical than the Canon 10x42 L or Canon 18x50? ... Is this the higher magnification binoculars hand-held with IS ... How does IS work compared to Canon 10x42L? ... Does Fujinon have CA?

Click to expand...

The new Fujinon's are optically better than any of the Canon's including the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Canon 18x50 IS because Fujinon uses solid glass shifting prisms and Canon uses fluid-filled wet bag prisms which cause the Canon's image to soften when you use the IS, whereas, the Fujinons stay sharp. It is very easy to see when you compare them side by side. The Fujinon IS also stabilizes better than the Canon reducing jitters and big shakes to a greater degree so you get a more rock solid view when hand held. The Fujinon has less CA than any of the regular Canons and is about on par with the Canon 10x42 IS-L which uses ED glass to control CA so the Fujinons control CA very well. The Canon 10x42 IS-L has a bigger FOV than the Fujinon but when the IS is on the Fujinon is sharper and you really notice it when you say are trying to read a sign from a great distance. Ken Rockwell explains a lot of this below but I observed the same thing.

"I found that the Canons get softer when their IS is ON. Even though much less sharp than Leicas or good Nikon's, the Canons allowed me to read handwriting 75 feet (25 m) away because of their stabilized image. Other binoculars impressed me with their sharpness, but since their images wiggle even in my rock-steady grip, I couldn't actually read the fine details. These Fujinons impressed me because they have stabilization as well as the sharpness of the other high-end non-stabilized binoculars. They are the best of both worlds. They don't get softer with stabilization ON. These Fujinons use solid-glass shifting prisms to stabilize the image. Canon uses mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms, which is why I suspect the Canons get softer with IS active. With IS, the Canons often have a constant dithering of the edges; artifacts of the interaction of the IS system with the motions it's attempting to counter. The Fujinons have none of these problems and lock down a sharp, rock-stable image. The Canons fade in and out of sharpness. I'd rather a Canon IS over Leica for utility (Leica still wins at mechanical build quality), and I bought (whoops, asked Santa to get me) these Fujinons because of their greater sharpness and contrast over the Canons. Other folks have emailed me that they prefer the Canons, and I'm a little confused at that. I've never seen these Fujinons at retail. I only saw them at an industry trade show where I also was able to compare them directly to the Canons and Leicas and Nikons and everything else. The differences are obvious and repeatable. The Canons get soft with the IS on; they are OK with it off, but who cares how sharp they are with IS off? With further questioning of these Internet reports it seems none of them had ever actually seen these Fujinons. I only saw them at a huge industry trade show where every vendor brought everything in their catalogs. You may be able to find the Nikon Stabileyes, which seem identical, at retail for comparison against the Canons. I tried the Canons again (18x50). The Canons are sharp with the IS off, but turning IS on softens the image as the mush-prisms do their work. The stabilized images softly fade in and out of sharpness as Canon's wet bag prisms wiggle around. The Fujinons use solid glass prisms in rotating gimbals, so no quality is lost as they deflect to counter motion. The Fujinons are as sharp with IS on or off; their prisms always have parallel sides. The Canons' wet bags are deflected from parallel (made trapezoidal) to counter motion as it happens. Look for yourself: the Canons fade in and out of sharpness; it's not your imagination. The Fujinons stay sharp. Who cares how sharp they are with IS off? I bought these to use with IS ON."

https://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/fujinon-14x40.htm

[email protected] said:

Canon uses fluid-filled wet bag prisms which cause the Canon's image to soften when you use the IS, whereas, the Fujinons stay sharp.

Click to expand...

I believe that the 10x42 and the x50 models are some of the last in the Canon lineup that use the Vari-angle prism shift or whatever they call it, that uses liquid filled prisms. Most of the newer models I believe use a gyro driven lens shift system, and I've never seen anything about the lens being fluid filled, though I don't for a fact know it isn't. I have a 12x32 mk3 and cannot see a difference in sharpness or any of the "faint swimming" effect that some complain of in the x50mm models.

The Fujinon has had complaints at times that the image swims or dances - I think a few people have found it nauseating and have commented that for land based use the Canons are superior but for boat based use, the Fujis may be superior.

I'm still curious to play with the Fuji's at some point - wasn't aware there was a newer version available.

Looking back through a couple old threads and a few other online resources, I found a few references to lag on starting the IS on the older model, and to disorienting / offputting swimming of the image when you pan quickly with IS on. I've seen one reference to that having been addressed and functioning better in the new version (one of the reviews at B&H). Really curious to see what you have to say about them Dennis - would be great if you could use them from a boat!

It looks like this newer version is pretty new to the market?

Not an IS expert, but afaik, the Canon design was to minimize the hand held high frequency jitter that is generated by the body's own correcting moves when trying to keep looking at some object. The initial Fuji offerings by contrast were to offset wave motion, so a larger amplitude correction was essential, but the frequency targeted was less. Consequently jitter was not offset as well.
Presumably Fuji has improved its technology, but I'd like to see that documented. Increasing the correction angle from 5 degrees to 6 degrees does not clarify whether it is more effective on the small high frequency tremors that limit the performance of non IS binoculars.
I can't judge the Rockwell claim about the Canon image softening when the IS is on, simply because my reference is the image without the IS and that falls well short of what I get with the IS on.
Possibly Mr Rockwell put his Canon on a tripod to get an optimal non IS image and then compared to the result with the IS on. There may well be some difference then, but this user cannot see it in the field.

pbjosh said:

Looking back through a couple old threads and a few other online resources, I found a few references to lag on starting the IS on the older model, and to disorienting / offputting swimming of the image when you pan quickly with IS on. I've seen one reference to that having been addressed and functioning better in the new version (one of the reviews at B&H). Really curious to see what you have to say about them Dennis - would be great if you could use them from a boat!

It looks like this newer version is pretty new to the market?

Click to expand...

I heard about the disorienting/offputting and did experience it on the older TS and I have also heard the new TSX model doesn't have this problem, so I will let you know if Fujinon has fixed that issue. I think the TSX came out in about September 2019 so it is pretty new. The IS on the Fuji's is really superior to the Canon's. It has no artifacts like the Canon's do.

pbjosh said:

I believe that the 10x42 and the x50 models are some of the last in the Canon lineup that use the Vari-angle prism shift or whatever they call it, that uses liquid filled prisms. Most of the newer models I believe use a gyro driven lens shift system, and I've never seen anything about the lens being fluid filled, though I don't for a fact know it isn't. I have a 12x32 mk3 and cannot see a difference in sharpness or any of the "faint swimming" effect that some complain of in the x50mm models.

The Fujinon has had complaints at times that the image swims or dances - I think a few people have found it nauseating and have commented that for land based use the Canons are superior but for boat based use, the Fujis may be superior.

I'm still curious to play with the Fuji's at some point - wasn't aware there was a newer version available.

Click to expand...

I tested the Fujinon 14x40 Techn-Stabi side by side with a new Canon 12x36 IS III and I can assure you the Canon's image softens as soon as you hit the IS and the Fujinon does not. Ken does know what he is talking about. You have to look close to see it but it is there. Once on IS the Fujinon is much sharper and it also has less CA than the Canon. Lettering on a distant sign were much easier to read with the Fujinon. After comparing the Canon and the Fujinon IS is as Ken says clearly and repeatably superior on land, and I am sure on water.

[email protected] said:

I don't find IS to be unnecessary even at 8x. I have the new Canon 8x20 IS and I can see more detail with it than I can with my NL 8x42. Can you really find stuff with low power? I find with higher magnification I will find more birds than I do with lower magnification. Sometimes I don't even see the bird with my eyes but with 12x I will.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. When I had Canon IS 8x25,_I often compared it to my 'top end' SVs, UVs, whatever. With the IS on, I could always pick out and really enjoy tiny details of feathering, etc. that I didn't even notice with non IS 'alpba' 8x binos. I would dearly love a pair of Canon IS 8x32/42. Unicorn binos.