Is IS for the birds? (2 Viewers)

Patudo said:

Very good questions and I think it's safe to say the Fujinon in its current configuration is probably not the ideal birding tool. Its capabilities could come in really handy for certain jobs though - identifying birds at long distance, or getting a really good look at birds closer in.

It's the next generation of IS binoculars that the alpha manufacturers should be concerned about (or maybe not, see next paragraph) and the new Canons like the 12x36 and 8x20 seem to be getting there. They are probably already there image-wise. It's one thing for denco to say he can see more detail with the 8x20 IS than his 8x42 NL - but when the likes of kabsetz, Hermann and Sancho concur...

I can imagine, maybe 20 years down the line, there might be two camps of binocular users - the traditionalists, and those using IS binoculars. It'll be a bit like those using digital cameras and those who still favour film, or maybe like those who prefer track driving with stick shift sportscars versus those with paddles. The guys/girls using the more advanced technology will, I have very little doubt, get quicker and better IDs if they're twitchers, and/or enjoy better views if they're general birders, but the traditionalists will continue to be quite happy with their choices.

Click to expand...

" It's one thing for denco to say he can see more detail with the 8x20 IS than his 8x42 NL - but when the likes of kabsetz, Hermann and Sancho concur..."

Patudo. You know you really have a lot of nerve to post on my thread and then insult me! Like others have said let's stop attacking people on this forum because it RUINS the thread. If you can't contribute to the thread without attacking me stay off my thread or SHUT UP!

[email protected] said:

" It's one thing for denco to say he can see more detail with the 8x20 IS than his 8x42 NL - but when the likes of kabsetz, Hermann and Sancho concur..."

Patudo. You know you really have a lot of nerve to post on my thread and then insult me! Like others have said let's stop attacking people on this forum because it RUINS the thread. If you can't contribute to the thread without attacking me stay off my thread or SHUT UP!

Click to expand...

I've never seen 8x20 IS or NL 8x42. I've changed my mind (again) and decided IS binos are for me. But all I have (in IS binos) now are Canon IS10x42. For the record, I have changed my mind more often than Dennis, on all kinds of binoculars. We're all entitled to change our minds, binocular obsession is kind of silly entertainment (although expensive:eek!, and really the world is facing bigger problems. Dennis, I enjoy your posts and your enthusiasm. We post about our current favourite binos, but that changes over time, and nobody is forcing anyone to part with their money. Best wishes to all.:t:

Sancho said:

I've never seen 8x20 IS or NL 8x42. I've changed my mind (again) and decided IS binos are for me. But all I have (in IS binos) now are Canon IS10x42. For the record, I have changed my mind more often than Dennis, on all kinds of binoculars. We're all entitled to change our minds, binocular obsession is kind of silly entertainment (although expensive:eek!, and really the world is facing bigger problems. Dennis, I enjoy your posts and your enthusiasm. We post about our current favourite binos, but that changes over time, and nobody is forcing anyone to part with their money. Best wishes to all.:t:

Click to expand...

Amen, Sancho.

This thread has piqued my curiosity about IS, something I never really considered before. However, a 44oz Fujinon is probably out of the question!

Thanks for all the thoughts however. Very interesting read.

Mark

On the other hand, with a new generation of the Fuji, I'm really interested in giving it a try. I am a big fan of expedition cruises, and a mid sized boat like that for a month at a time is EXACTLY the place where IS bins shine! Unless there's some fatal flaw that comes to light, it's very likely I'll get my hands on one at some point here.

Patudo said:

Very good questions and I think it's safe to say the Fujinon in its current configuration is probably not the ideal birding tool. Its capabilities could come in really handy for certain jobs though - identifying birds at long distance, or getting a really good look at birds closer in.

It's the next generation of IS binoculars that the alpha manufacturers should be concerned about (or maybe not, see next paragraph) and the new Canons like the 12x36 and 8x20 seem to be getting there. They are probably already there image-wise. It's one thing for denco to say he can see more detail with the 8x20 IS than his 8x42 NL - but when the likes of kabsetz, Hermann and Sancho concur...

I can imagine, maybe 20 years down the line, there might be two camps of binocular users - the traditionalists, and those using IS binoculars. It'll be a bit like those using digital cameras and those who still favour film, or maybe like those who prefer track driving with stick shift sportscars versus those with paddles. The guys/girls using the more advanced technology will, I have very little doubt, get quicker and better IDs if they're twitchers, and/or enjoy better views if they're general birders, but the traditionalists will continue to be quite happy with their choices.

Click to expand...

Note that Kabsetz has been firmly IS oriented since he got his first Canon 10x42ISL more that a decade ago.
I think he fits the definition of a pioneer, one of the guys with arrows in their back. But they still prevail in the end.
In this case, I think IS is just inescapable, it is so much of an improvement on the hand held experience. I wish they had called it 'digital tripod', it would have made it clear that it was an auxiliary capability to help see a better image and maybe people would not have started Jihads aginst the very idea.

It seems silly to me to reject IS when we have no problems embracing phase coatings and lotutec. Metamaterials are just beginning to percolate into the consumer market, they will change optics much more fundamentally than the IS kluges we use today.

etudiant said:

Note that Kabsetz has been firmly IS oriented since he got his first Canon 10x42ISL more that a decade ago.
I think he fits the definition of a pioneer, one of the guys with arrows in their back. But they still prevail in the end.
In this case, I think IS is just inescapable, it is so much of an improvement on the hand held experience. I wish they had called it 'digital tripod', it would have made it clear that it was an auxiliary capability to help see a better image and maybe people would not have started Jihads aginst the very idea.

It seems silly to me to reject IS when we have no problems embracing phase coatings and lotutec. Metamaterials are just beginning to percolate into the consumer market, they will change optics much more fundamentally than the IS kluges we use today.

Click to expand...

What I found so surprising was I had always been told that the Canon IS was for birders and the Fujinon IS was better for boaters, so I never tried a Fujinon IS until now. It just goes to show you try the binocular yourself. There is no doubt in my mind now that Fujinon IS is superior. I understand why more birders have not gotten on the IS bandwagon. The Canon 10x42 IS-L although optically wonderful is an ergonomic nightmare for most people. The big thing that makes it bad is its square or brick shape. If Canon would just make it more ROUNDED like their other IS binoculars it would be a big step in the right direction.

[email protected] said:

What I found so surprising was I had always been told that the Canon IS was for birders and the Fujinon IS was better for boaters, so I never tried a Fujinon IS until now. It just goes to show you try the binocular yourself. There is no doubt in my mind now that Fujinon IS is superior. I understand why more birders have not gotten on the IS bandwagon. The Canon 10x42 IS-L although optically wonderful is an ergonomic nightmare for most people. The big thing that makes it bad is its square or brick shape. If Canon would just make it more ROUNDED like their other IS binoculars it would be a big step in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Nowadays I just make my hands square!

Sancho said:

Nowadays I just make my hands square!

Click to expand...

Really! That Canon 10x42 IS-L is just so square and those eye cups are so hard. If they just fixed those two things it would be nice.

[email protected] said:

Really! That Canon 10x42 IS-L is just so square and those eye cups are so hard. If they just fixed those two things it would be nice.

Click to expand...

Iirc, Henry Link posted a cutaway of the Canon 10x42ISL some time back.
What stood out to me was that the shell was absolutely stuffed, no spare space anywhere. The eye cups for instance are thin and hard because the lens assembly is so fat that a softer, wider eye cup would no longer fit any eye socket. Same for the body, the optics system is barely covered by the case.
My guess is that it is very difficult to put a 10x42IS into a smaller package, something which the even heavier Fuji 14x40IS appears to confirm.
Nikon's 10x25IS seems to have found an answer though, so I'm optimistic we will see more IS glass soon.

etudiant said:

Iirc, Henry Link posted a cutaway of the Canon 10x42ISL some time back.
What stood out to me was that the shell was absolutely stuffed, no spare space anywhere. The eye cups for instance are thin and hard because the lens assembly is so fat that a softer, wider eye cup would no longer fit any eye socket. Same for the body, the optics system is barely covered by the case.
My guess is that it is very difficult to put a 10x42IS into a smaller package, something which the even heavier Fuji 14x40IS appears to confirm.
Nikon's 10x25IS seems to have found an answer though, so I'm optimistic we will see more IS glass soon.

Click to expand...

Given how much electronics have advanced since the introduction of the 10x42L, and given the reductions in size and weight with corresponding improvements in optical performance and IS performance in Canon's L series telephoto lenses, I would actually turn it around and say that Canon absolutely CAN make an optically better, ergonomically better, lighter 10x42L with better IS. And I hope they will!

As far as the weight on the Fujinon - hard to say what the design constraints were. Perhaps it uses the exact same optical train and largely similar electronics to the old version in order to save engineering costs? It's surprising that it didn't get lighter, which makes you think it's more of a "new case and tweaked IS" rather than "wholesale revision" - but this is pure speculation.

[email protected] said:

What I found so surprising was I had always been told that the Canon IS was for birders and the Fujinon IS was better for boaters, so I never tried a Fujinon IS until now. It just goes to show you try the binocular yourself. There is no doubt in my mind now that Fujinon IS is superior. I understand why more birders have not gotten on the IS bandwagon. The Canon 10x42 IS-L although optically wonderful is an ergonomic nightmare for most people. The big thing that makes it bad is its square or brick shape. If Canon would just make it more ROUNDED like their other IS binoculars it would be a big step in the right direction.

Click to expand...

For me it's not so much the "square" shape (is it really square ? the sides are pretty rounded) - it's more the "brick" like weight ..... 1-1.3kg is just not an option for me. Worse than that though, it is the ergonomics of the controls. I find the focusers dinky on all the Canons, and the position seems very inconvenient for me along with the controls. It's like you need the dexterity of a 5-axis robot or better yet an octopus to feel comfortable with them ! At least that's how I find them. The other offerings on the market don't look much (if any) better.

The potential is there, but the category needs much more refinement. All formats should be aiming for 65° AFov minimum. Some weight penalties may seem inevitable (those big Canons really are packed inside), but really they need to be much closer to straight optical instruments. I also think that retaining binocular functionality if the batteries die is a big plus.

With the Canon's I notice varying degrees of artifacts (along with increased resolution) - how do you find purely the stabilization aspect between the Fujis and the Nikons ??








Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

For me it's not so much the "square" shape (is it really square ? the sides are pretty rounded) - it's more the "brick" like weight ..... 1-1.3kg is just not an option for me. Worse than that though, it is the ergonomics of the controls. I find the focusers dinky on all the Canons, and the position seems very inconvenient for me along with the controls. It's like you need the dexterity of a 5-axis robot or better yet an octopus to feel comfortable with them ! At least that's how I find them. The other offerings on the market don't look much (if any) better.

The potential is there, but the category needs much more refinement. All formats should be aiming for 65° AFov minimum. Some weight penalties may seem inevitable (those big Canons really are packed inside), but really they need to be much closer to straight optical instruments. I also think that retaining binocular functionality if the batteries die is a big plus.

With the Canon's I notice varying degrees of artifacts (along with increased resolution) - how do you find purely the stabilization aspect between the Fujis and the Nikons ??








Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

"With the Canon's I notice varying degrees of artifacts (along with increased resolution) - how do you find purely the stabilization aspect between the Fujis and the Nikons ??"

The Fujinon is much better than the Canon as far as stabilization. It doesn't get soft or show artifacts when you use IS like the Canon does. Also, the Fujinon stabilizes big movements better AND small jiggles better than the Canon. The Fujinon is rock steady with no softening of the image and the detail you can see is AMAZING. It is very cool! Read Ken Rockwell's review on the Fujinon on the link below.

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

etudiant said:

Iirc, Henry Link posted a cutaway of the Canon 10x42ISL some time back.
What stood out to me was that the shell was absolutely stuffed, no spare space anywhere. The eye cups for instance are thin and hard because the lens assembly is so fat that a softer, wider eye cup would no longer fit any eye socket. Same for the body, the optics system is barely covered by the case.
My guess is that it is very difficult to put a 10x42IS into a smaller package, something which the even heavier Fuji 14x40IS appears to confirm.
Nikon's 10x25IS seems to have found an answer though, so I'm optimistic we will see more IS glass soon.

Click to expand...

I wonder what different technology Nikon used to build the 10x25 IS so small and compact. The IS on it surprisingly works a little better than the Canon also. It is rock steady without many artifacts.

Chosun Juan said:

For me it's not so much the "square" shape (is it really square ? the sides are pretty rounded) - it's more the "brick" like weight ..... 1-1.3kg is just not an option for me.

Click to expand...

That's the biggie as far as I'm concerned. When I started of over 40 years ago, I happily carried binoculars weighing more than 1 kg. Today I want my binoculars to be no more than 800 gr or less.

Chosun Juan said:

Worse than that though, it is the ergonomics of the controls. I find the focusers dinky on all the Canons, and the position seems very inconvenient for me along with the controls.

Click to expand...

That's something I could get used to no problem. It might take a while - but it takes a while with all binoculars until you get used to them. Admittedly it may take longer with the Canons than with most conventional binoculars but it can be done ... With the Canon 8x20 for instance it took me a few days in the field, and I had to change my grip for them to work for me.

Chosun Juan said:

The potential is there, but the category needs much more refinement. All formats should be aiming for 65° AFov minimum. Some weight penalties may seem inevitable (those big Canons really are packed inside), but really they need to be much closer to straight optical instruments.

Click to expand...

A larges field of view necessitates large eyepieces and large prisms. Add to that the stabilizer and you'll have a pretty large and heavy binocular unless you cut down on objective size. That works surprisingly well with stabilized binoculars IME, however, once you get below ~3mm exit pupil things begin to get difficult as far as I'm concerned.

Chosun Juan said:

I also think that retaining binocular functionality if the batteries die is a big plus.

Click to expand...

The Canons work without batteries no problem at all. It's only the new Nikon that doesn't. That's a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.

Chosun Juan said:

With the Canon's I notice varying degrees of artifacts (along with increased resolution) - how do you find purely the stabilization aspect between the Fujis and the Nikons ??

Click to expand...

I noticed the artifacts of early Canons including the 10x42 many, many years ago and posted about them here. At the time these artifacts were a dealbreaker for me. However, I don't see them in newer Canons no matter how hard I look. That includes the 10x42 as well as the 10x30 and the 12x36 with their variangle prisms as well as the latest generation of Canons. I'm absolutely sure Canon quietly improved the stabilizer function over the years.

BTW, I've got extensive field experience with the Canon 8x20 IS since I got them, with well over 150 hours in the field. That little binocular shows more detail on the bird than any conventional 8x30/8x32 I compared them to. It's not as "nice" as some of the conventional binoculars with its strange ergonomics, the optics are very good but not great, the smallish field of view decidedly bothers me and the dinky little exit pupil make them harder to like than my 8x32s.

But they do show more detail. A lot more detail. And I don't see any artifacts.

Hermann

I haven't tried the new Fujinons, but the older version of the 14x40 as well as the similar Nikons I have tried a few times in the past.

Every time, I have been bothered by a very fast micro-jitter in the image when the stabilisation is engaged. That has been worse for me than the artefacts in the earlier Canons.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

I haven't tried the new Fujinons, but the older version of the 14x40 as well as the similar Nikons I have tried a few times in the past.

Every time, I have been bothered by a very fast micro-jitter in the image when the stabilisation is engaged. That has been worse for me than the artefacts in the earlier Canons.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

You should try the new Fujinons. The IS is rock solid with no jitters, and they are more stable than the Canons. Also, the image on the Fujinons when the IS is engaged doesn't soften like the Canons. It is hard to see the difference between the two unless you side by side them on something like a distant sign and try to read the text. The Fujinons win every time.

[email protected] said:

You should try the new Fujinons. The IS is rock solid with no jitters, and they are more stable than the Canons. Also, the image on the Fujinons when the IS is engaged doesn't soften like the Canons. It is hard to see the difference between the two unless you side by side them on something like a distant sign and try to read the text. The Fujinons win every time.

Click to expand...

What do you know about the new Fujinon 10x40?

bockos said:

What do you know about the new Fujinon 10x40?

Click to expand...

The Fujinon 10x40 Stabiscope is Fujinons IS binoculars which use real gyros and are considered the best IS binoculars available and it is usually only for sale to law enforcement although you can find them on eBay sometimes. I didn't know this but there also is a Fujinon Stabiscope 10x40 IS that can be changed from a regular binocular into a night vision binocular. Here is one for sale on Astromart for $2500 and eBay for $1750. I would imagine that is what you would find in a police helicopter looking for drug dealers at night in LA.

https://astromart.com/classifieds/a...inon-stabiscope-10x40-night-vision-binoculars
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujinon-St...653223?hash=item41e7ab8a67:g:gS8AAOSw4fBbTOtS
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujinon-St...831533?hash=item46930d46ad:g:H7YAAOSwMnZceqlQ

For what it's worth those are older generation Stabiscopes. The new ones are paler gray and have smoother exteriors. I've never dug into detailed specs but there are some basic specs online, among which the weight (1,8 kg) is eye-popping! It appears all the Stabiscopes are also independent focus.

Here's a catalog with their current lineup. Interestingly they have an 8x50 non-IS model for which night vision eye-pieces are available, wasn't aware of that (also independent focus it would appear):

https://asset.fujifilm.com/master/g...58f4449b019/FUJINON_Binoculars_catalog_EN.pdf

Here's a brochure on the 8x50-D/N model for night vision:

https://www.fujifilm.eu/fileadmin/content/opticaldevices/download/binoculars/FMTR_DN_EN181008.pdf