• 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.

Why Aren't the Image Stabilization Binos More Popular? (1 Viewer)

I know ergonomics and weight are very important. If I am going on an 8 mile hike through the woods I take my 8x32's. Heavy big binoculars are a burden when you are hiking a long ways with them around your neck, especially on a warm day. Give me the little 8x32's. For observing from a bench, an overlook or on a short hike I use the Canon's. Then in between the 8x42"s.
 
Last edited:
kabsetz said:
When only going for quick ID's, I don't mind image shake quite as much, although I tend to activate IS then also. It is when spending more time watching behavior of birds or wildlife, and also when spending longer time scanning for interesting birds that image stabilization rapidly increases in importance for me. With a finnstick attached directly to the tripod thread underside the 10x42 L IS, I can view for several hours comfortably.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

Kimmo that sounds like a great setup you have found for yourself but wouldn't you get just as good a result with regular bins on a finnstick? IS seems a bit superfluous if you have support like this.

Before I got SFs I would sometimes rest HTs on a photographic monopod if I was carrying one at the time and we were watching for extended periods.

Lee
 
MUHerd said:
Thanks all. I'd love to look thru a set of them. Then again I'd love to lookbtgru a set of ALPHA binos too. I've never seen through any of those either. WAY out of my budget. Heck, I'm prolly down in the GAMMA or DELTA region!!!
|8)|

Larry
Click to expand...

Larry .... There is a Cabela's store in League City in the southeastern Houston metro area. Most of the Cabela's stores have a decent selection of what is called alpha binoculars, especially Swarovski products. The major limitation in my area is most are 10X, and only limited 8X. They should have the Swaro 10X50 EL SV which is a good benchmark for an example of what is about as good as it gets optically. That should give you a good idea of what is possible. I suspect you will find they are better, but not as dramatic of a difference that the price would indicate.

As far as affordability, keep an eye on the Binocular Bargains thread. Sometimes some exceptional deals pop up.

Dennis's link the the Nikon EII 8X30 is right on for an "alpha" quality view. Just keep in mind that is gives the characteristics of a Porro view which is a smaller image scale and a sense of more spacing in the depth of field. The $370 price is the lowest I can recall seeing it in recent years. That is a lot of optic for such a low price. Keep in mind that Nikon USA will not warranty it since they did not import it.
 
It's all very personal, but I see very little need for IS in most of my birding - maybe I have stready hands but almost never feel that my image needs ''stabilizing'' and don't think I'm missing details.

On top of that, in situations where IS could really come in handy - windy weather, on a boat etc., I have found them not to help much.

Now, the 15x and 18x I think should be pretty great for seawatches, raptors, shorebirds - if one wanted to leave the scope behind.
 
If you don't think you are missing any details try reading difficult lettering like a license plate or a resolution chart from a long distance with a normal 10x binocular and then with a Canon 10x42 IS-L. I know people that buy the Canon to read numbers on boats out at sea that they can't even begin to read with normal binoculars. You may not think you aren't missing any detail but you are.The IS will give you easily 30% more resolution than a normal binocular hand-held.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776&highlight=resolution
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
If you don't think you are missing any details try reading difficult lettering like a license plate or a resolution chart from a long distance with a normal 10x binocular and then with a Canon 10x42 IS-L. I know people that buy the Canon to read numbers on boats out at sea that they can't even begin to read with normal binoculars. You may not think you aren't missing any detail but you are.The IS will give you easily 30% more resolution than a normal binocular hand-held.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776&highlight=resolution
Click to expand...

I brace my bins on my car window all the time, and this would provide a view ever more steady than an IS, so I know what I might be missing - just don't need it in the field most of the time.
 
That could be true that you don't need the extra detail but I find it I find it very enjoyable to have a rock steady view whenever and whatever I am looking at. You don't have a car window available all the time or even a tree nor do you have time to go down to one knee for support. It is to me enjoyable to observe the bird or Elk or whatever without shaking all around. If you don't shake at 10x you are certainly in the minority. I shake at anything above 8x.
 
Troubador said:
Kimmo that sounds like a great setup you have found for yourself but wouldn't you get just as good a result with regular bins on a finnstick? IS seems a bit superfluous if you have support like this.

Before I got SFs I would sometimes rest HTs on a photographic monopod if I was carrying one at the time and we were watching for extended periods.

Lee
Click to expand...

Lee,

I have tested the benefits of using the finnstick quite extensively (if you wish to look, the thread on the Canon sub-forum on hand-held vs. stabilized performance I started a year or so back has some data), and somewhat to my own surprise found out that a finnstick does very little to improve detail retrieval. Whereas IS brings detail retrieval almost to the level of mounting on a tripod, finnstick brings only about a five percent improvement.

Where the finnstick excels is in reducing or eliminating fatigue, and there I find it essential.

Kimmo
 
To the original poster,

If you glean through all the posts here and all the opinions, you will see that overwhelmingly those of us who use a Canon, especially the 10x 42 L IS, consider image stabilization either excellent or even essential. Almost all of the question marks and criticism comes from those who have used them very little or not at all. You can draw your own conclusions.

One factor is that the stabilization has been improved over the years, and the earlier models and production runs did not work as well as the current ones. Also, as with all optics, there is some image quality variation unit-to-unit due to assembly tolerances, and with a stable image you see any and all defects more easily.

Kimmo
 
kabsetz said:
Lee,

I have tested the benefits of using the finnstick quite extensively (if you wish to look, the thread on the Canon sub-forum on hand-held vs. stabilized performance I started a year or so back has some data), and somewhat to my own surprise found out that a finnstick does very little to improve detail retrieval. Whereas IS brings detail retrieval almost to the level of mounting on a tripod, finnstick brings only about a five percent improvement.

Where the finnstick excels is in reducing or eliminating fatigue, and there I find it essential.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

OK Kimmo thanks for the clarification.
Lee
 
kabsetz said:
To the original poster,

If you glean through all the posts here and all the opinions, you will see that overwhelmingly those of us who use a Canon, especially the 10x 42 L IS, consider image stabilization either excellent or even essential. Almost all of the question marks and criticism comes from those who have used them very little or not at all. You can draw your own conclusions.

One factor is that the stabilization has been improved over the years, and the earlier models and production runs did not work as well as the current ones. Also, as with all optics, there is some image quality variation unit-to-unit due to assembly tolerances, and with a stable image you see any and all defects more easily.

Kimmo
Click to expand...
I'm largely in agreement with this of course since the 10x42 L IS is one of my 2 favorite binoculars, and it produces my favorite view. It can have a weight issue depending on what your priorities are and your activities, but don't think there are not compromises with any other binocular as well. I'm not interested in quick identifications or often even identification often, behavior, discovery, enjoyment are my priorities. My camera gear is my biggest weight penalty so I'f I'm leaving the 10x42 IS at home I'm likely taking my 8x25 CL Pocket which I've chosen to minimize the optical compromises of compact binoculars, or I'm not taking any binoculars since I'm likely carrying some other optics. I have found though it is better to always take at least the 8x25 and that is why I have them.

I do think it is interesting that in photography there was a long period of denial by many on the advantages of IS, but luckily I was an early adopter and the industry for the most part has matured. That said binoculars like cameras, are used in a lot of different places and a lot of different environments, you need the right tools. I'm not a birder although I love birds and I like watching them for long periods of time. It does not matter who you are though or what you do, you find the tools that work best for you, so you can do your best work. Discovery is different for everyone, but I encourage you to discover what is right for you.
 
gunut said:
big, ugly, heavy, batteries needed, crappy warranty......
Click to expand...

GN,

Undoubtedly, All issues (plus others) to address in a Mk II upgrade.

However, IF you can look past (pun intended) the current ergonomics woes, their optics, especially stabilized, offer for Me a WOW View with Details-to-the-Max! B :)

Ted
 
Last edited:
gunut said:
big, ugly, heavy, batteries needed, crappy warranty......
Click to expand...

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*
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Similar threads

S
Hello from Singapore, Binocular help
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Chris Pringle
C
J
brief comparison between Vanguard Endeavor ED 2 / ED4 10x42
Replies
0
Views
487
jackjack
J
B
Magnesium or Polycarbonate?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Barbican1987
B
C
which 10x42 : Nikon HG / GPO Passion HD / Maven B1.2 / Vortex Razor HD ?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Ratal
Ratal
J
Hello from South Korea!
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
jackjack
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top