Canon IS bins for pelagic birding (1 Viewer)

Hello all,

I have been pondering for some time a pair of IS bins for pelagic birding. I did the South Atlantic Odyssey and in colder rougher waters 8x was necessary though I didn’t feel I wanted lower mag. In the tropics on flat water from a 90m long boat, 10x was preferable and some were using 15x with monopods.

A friend told me about his experience on the Western Pacific Odyssey where two keen birders had the 15x50IS and were spotting and usually IDing birds before anyone else on the boat, almost as a rule. That really got me thinking...

I assume the 15x would still be too high power despite IS when you are in heavy seas on anything other than a cruise ship? But the 15x might outperform the 10x42L once you are in tropical waters?

Has anyone here used IS bins from ships much? Can the 10x42 be useful on very small boats or is that asking too much and a 6-7x is still the best bet?

Any/all experiences and thoughts welcome!

I've used 10x42 IS a reasonable amount on various boats. The IS generally helps in most situations including boats. They probably won't deal with sea swell but will still give a more stable view than regular bins because they reduce the shake from engine vibrations and wind, as well as the usual hand shake. In some situations it was the difference between being able to ID birds and not being able to do so.

Andrew Whitehouse said:

I've used 10x42 IS a reasonable amount on various boats. The IS generally helps in most situations including boats. They probably won't deal with sea swell but will still give a more stable view than regular bins because they reduce the shake from engine vibrations and wind, as well as the usual hand shake. In some situations it was the difference between being able to ID birds and not being able to do so.

Click to expand...

Second that 100%. The Canon 10x42 is a substantially better tool for birding on a pelagic than any conventional glass, with good reach and a decently wide FoV, as well as fully waterproof construction.
It is possible that the Fujinon Stabiscope series are better still, as they offer several degrees of motion compensation, versus slightly less than one degree for the Canons, but I've no experience with those. As mentioned above, the Canon design aims to minimize shake, not larger motion such as swells, which the Fujinons apparently can manage.

If you can find the bird, is there ever such a thing as too much power? it is like telling a photographer that a shorter lens is better, opposite of what everyone always is stating?

Niels

I was actually not aware of the Fujinons. It seems the Stabiscope line is older. They are gyro based and very expensive ($5000 ballpark). The Techno-stabi are Kamakura sources (Nikon offers or offered the same bins under their name as well it appears). The 14x40 seems quite well reviewed all things considered. Waterproof and 5 degrees of correction is reputedly far superior for moving platforms. A 4 degree field of view is somewhere in the 56 degree AFOV range which is less than the Canon, and the Canon is apparently brighter and obviously features a far superior exit pupil. Not sure about the Fujinon with glasses yet but still reading. Thanks for the info and opinions so far!!

pbjosh,

I bought a very well used Fujinon Techno-Stabi 14x40 for a bargain price with a 6 months shop warranty.
They are well regarded for use on boats.
However, my sample and apparently new ones also, have an annoying jiggle.
For me this is unacceptable for land use.
But on a moving boat this jiggling of the image is probably masked by the general movement of the boat and user.

I found the Fujinon image to be very pure, maybe better than the Canon IS binoculars, of which I have several and used for 20 years now.
The Fujinon has a considerably smaller AFOV.
The 4 battery compartment on the bottom of the Fujinon detaches, but there is no tripod socket.

I don't use the Fujinon but do use the Canons for land use.
But on a boat the Fujinon may be a good choice.
What surprised me is that the Fujinon 14x40 had better resolution than the Canon 10x42 IS despite the jiggling.
Magnification seems to win.
I mainly use the Canon 18x50 IS but don't know if this is suitable for boat use.


The stabilized Bushnell 10x35 I have is useless, as it doesn't work despite crossing the Atlantic twice for repair.
Some people say theirs is O.K.

There are various Russian and old British stabilized binoculars and monoculars also. Some are weird.

There are now Chinese electronically stabilised binoculars and monoculars, but these are small aperture.

Regards,
B.

I'll second the above opinions. On a boat (like on land), a stabilised binocular will show you much more than a normal binocular.

I have used both the 15x50 IS and the 10x42 L iS both from a deck of a larger ship (passenger ferries) and on sailboats. On larger ships, IS binoculars work brilliantly. On sailboats, when there are waves, the Canons work less well, but my 10x42 still shows tons more than the non-stabilised top-quality Fujinon FMTR-CSX marine binocular our boat has.

A Fujinon Techno-Stabi I have not used on a boat, but when trying one out on land I have had the same experience as Binastro. Once stabilisation is activated, I see a jitter in the image which is very distracting and unpleasant. If you can tune this out from your mind, you can probably see well with them on a ship or a boat, but I haven't been tempted to try.

My recommendation would be the 10x42 L IS for general use, and the 15x50 IS for pelagic trips on larger ships, especially if the seas are not expected to be very rough.


- Kimmo