-
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.
Canon IS binoculars for pelagic birding? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BinoBoy
- Start date
I've used Canon 10x42s on a wide variety of boats. They work well. I think there's been a certain amount of debate on here about whether IS cancels out the swell from the sea. Even if they don't, as well as the normal benefits of IS on land, I think it also helps offset vibrations you get from boat engines and the buffeting of the wind.
BryanP
Little known member
I had a pair of Canon 8x25’s which were the primary bins on our boat for about ten years. We live aboard and for the conditions we often found ourselves (open ocean, variable conditions) the Canon’s were a revelation and made pelagic birding a pleasure. They were great for navigation as well. We also had a pair of standard marine bins on board but the Canon’s were easier to use at sea.
In spite of the Canon’s not being water proof or even water resistant they held up well in the spray and harsh conditions we often encountered. I’d just wipe them down with a fresh water dampened cloth.
I eventually gave them away as the battery door fell off and the left eyecup went walkabout somewhere. I do plan on replacing them someday.
Cheers,
Bryan
In spite of the Canon’s not being water proof or even water resistant they held up well in the spray and harsh conditions we often encountered. I’d just wipe them down with a fresh water dampened cloth.
I eventually gave them away as the battery door fell off and the left eyecup went walkabout somewhere. I do plan on replacing them someday.
Cheers,
Bryan
BryanP
Little known member
Binastro,
My dumb question of the day is, what’s an optical window? is it like a UV filter on a camera lens?
I was surprised how well the Canon’s stood up to the salt water and rain over the years. Granted they were only ever in the elements long enough to find that nav buoy or Petrel. They then went back under the rain dodger which probably helped in the long term.
Cheers,
Bryan
The Canon IS III 12x36 have been my main binoculars over the last 4 months, and I have used them on a couple of trips on smallish open deck boats as well as on big ferries and I must say they do a terrific job at easing the vibrations of both the motor and the waves and wind. Watching shearwaters and gulls is really a pleasure, and you can study their plumage in a way I think would be difficult with a non-IS device.
Oddly enough, the only time when they didn't work at all was once I sat directly on the deck/lid above the motor of a small open deck boat. In that circumstance, the vibration was of such force and rhythm that to turn the IS on or off simply didn't make any different at all. Somehow the vibrations of the motor had a similar pattern and counteracted whatever the IS was doing, and the result was quite surprising: the view was exactly the same with the IS on, exactly the same jittering in rhythm and dimension. So much so, that for a second I thought that I had ran out of batteries. Simply seating a couple of feet away and the IS worked great again. Other than that, I think IS is (also) great for pelagic trips.
Oddly enough, the only time when they didn't work at all was once I sat directly on the deck/lid above the motor of a small open deck boat. In that circumstance, the vibration was of such force and rhythm that to turn the IS on or off simply didn't make any different at all. Somehow the vibrations of the motor had a similar pattern and counteracted whatever the IS was doing, and the result was quite surprising: the view was exactly the same with the IS on, exactly the same jittering in rhythm and dimension. So much so, that for a second I thought that I had ran out of batteries. Simply seating a couple of feet away and the IS worked great again. Other than that, I think IS is (also) great for pelagic trips.
Generally stabilized Fujinons are considered better marine binoculars than Canon. The 10x42L IS is excellent, but it is heavy.
Hi Bryan,
Optical windows are very flat pieces of high quality glass in the front of an optical system.
They should be of better quality than a camera lens UV filter.
In binoculars they are usually used to seal a system.
For instance in the Minolta Mariner binocular.
The optical window of my 317mm Dall Kirkham telescope cost more than the primary mirror.
It was mainly used to hold the secondary in place and to reduce tube currents.
However, a friend took the glass out of a Chinese? wall clock that cost about £6 new and put it in front of his 200mm Newtonian telescope and the scope is very good at 200x.
So a surprising result.
I suppose the clock still works.
Making optical windows really flat is more difficult than making a spherical surface.
With binoculars the windows are usually small and used at low magnification, so they don't have to be as good as with a high magnification telescope.
Some of the Canon IS binoculars have optical windows, some don't.
The reflections will be as in a flat mirror rather than reduced or magnified from curved glass elements.
In a large telescope tilting the optical window one degree will eliminate ghost images, but this won't work with binoculars that have wide fields.
But the Canon IS optical windows are well coated and don't usually show ghost images from the front flat glass.
Regards,
B.
Optical windows are very flat pieces of high quality glass in the front of an optical system.
They should be of better quality than a camera lens UV filter.
In binoculars they are usually used to seal a system.
For instance in the Minolta Mariner binocular.
The optical window of my 317mm Dall Kirkham telescope cost more than the primary mirror.
It was mainly used to hold the secondary in place and to reduce tube currents.
However, a friend took the glass out of a Chinese? wall clock that cost about £6 new and put it in front of his 200mm Newtonian telescope and the scope is very good at 200x.
So a surprising result.
I suppose the clock still works.
Making optical windows really flat is more difficult than making a spherical surface.
With binoculars the windows are usually small and used at low magnification, so they don't have to be as good as with a high magnification telescope.
Some of the Canon IS binoculars have optical windows, some don't.
The reflections will be as in a flat mirror rather than reduced or magnified from curved glass elements.
In a large telescope tilting the optical window one degree will eliminate ghost images, but this won't work with binoculars that have wide fields.
But the Canon IS optical windows are well coated and don't usually show ghost images from the front flat glass.
Regards,
B.
Last edited:
BryanP
Little known member
Thanks for that info Binastro, very helpful! I'm sure the clock still works 😉
I take it it then that having an optical window on the Canon 8x30's has no bearing on the IP rating of those binoculars.
Fazalmajid,
Have you had a chance to try the Opticron Imagic Image stabilized bins. I’m wondering how they compare to the Fujinons for pelagic birding from a boat.
Cheers,
Bryan
No. I only have the Canon 10x42L IS and the Kite APC 16x42. Opticron don't mention ED lenses, the Kite doesn't have them and there is quite noticeable chromatic aberration. I don't think there is much of a hardware difference between marine and other stabilized binoculars, but the software algorithms are different. Nikon also sell stabilized binoculars (StabilEyes) that look suspiciously like Fujinons.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
It seems that the new Fujinon TSX1440 (this is the second generation) are pretty class leading - perhaps equal to the Canon 10x42 but 6 degrees of stabilization instead of 1 degree. I've not yet gotten a pair but the few things I've heard from people who have them, thus far, have been excellent.
I have a 12x32 Canon, and it's good, and it resolves more detail than any non-IS bin by a big margin, but the ergonomics are terrible and the optics are only good - excessive CA particularly makes them decidedly non alpha. The 12x32 is good/excellent from larger boats. On a genuinely small boat I think an 8x or lower is still the way to go, and it seems that there aren't really any great 8x IS options.
I have a 12x32 Canon, and it's good, and it resolves more detail than any non-IS bin by a big margin, but the ergonomics are terrible and the optics are only good - excessive CA particularly makes them decidedly non alpha. The 12x32 is good/excellent from larger boats. On a genuinely small boat I think an 8x or lower is still the way to go, and it seems that there aren't really any great 8x IS options.
BryanP
Little known member
Thanks for that Fazalmajid,
Maybe I missed them but checking this morning the Nikon USA website doesn’t show any IS bins in their product list.
if I’m not mistaken it sounds like the Fujinon 12x28 TS1228 might be better optically than the Opticrons and could be a decent compromise for a small boat. I’m not too worried about their nonexistent IP rating but still...
At the same time the Fujinon TSX1440 is a consideration despite its weight. In our use case scenarios they’re never handheld for any length of time so would be fine on the boat. According to the B&H site they’re waterproof and float so bonus points there. For ordinary terrestrial birding lugging around the almost 3 pounds they weighs for any length of time sounds a bit arduous.
Hello pbjosh
That makes sense. I prefer a higher magnification IS bin (12-16) for birding places like the open marshlands and Paramos of Central America and Colombia. As you point out a lower IS bins (8-10) is the better choice for small boat pelagic birding and navigation.
Does this mean I have to save up for two IS bins? Having two to play with wouldn’t be awful would it? 😉
Cheers,
Bryan
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Thus far the 12x32 Canon's are decidedly better for bird ID of distant birds either from land or from a large boat than 10x42 Swarovskis. However the ergonomics are pretty terrible as mentioned, and the image quality is a step behind, so I don't use them much from land.
I will get a pair of the Fujinon's at some point here as I really, really enjoy time on the ocean and do a fair bit of long trips where you're on more decently sized boats. For small pelagics from lanchas / little fishing boats / etc, I still just take a pair of 8x. A pair of 6-8x with 6+ degrees of IS would be amazing here but I doubt such a product will ever exist due to a vanishingly small market.
BryanP
Little known member
‘I agree a 6 plus IS bin would be nice. Can you imagine? A Wide ish relaxed FOV ”and” IS! what‘s not to like. More’s the pity it’ll never happen.
I once ran out of batteries for the Canon 8x25’s and had to use the bins sans IS for navigating in boisterous seas, it was awful (and nauseating) to the point of being useless.
Our boat which is over 40 years old has a yaw/pitch/roll frequency which is much slower and longer than modern boats. I suspect IS bins might be more effective with our boats particular kind of motion but how well they handle the faster and shorter motions of modern sailboats I can’t say.
I often wonder if the IS bin manufacturers ever test their products under a variety of sea conditions and vessels. I’d sure be interested in trying out a collection of them in varying sea states just to see which ones would suit our boats particular motion best.
Regarding the maximum stops an IS instrument can achieve I found this interesting.
Earth’s Rotation Limits IBIS Performance to 6.3 Stops
In the interest of full disclosure I did read the article but am really hoping none of it is on the test😂
Cheers,
Bryan
Afaik, the speed of response of the IS really matters.
Canon opted to prioritize jitter correction, the tiny movements one makes to try to keep something centered in view.
It works very well on terra firma, but is outclassed on the water by the Fuji systems, which were designed to take out most wave or vehicle motions,
so perhaps 6* of stabilization versus 0.7-1.0* for Canon. Canon response time is well under 1/10th of a second, don't know the equivalent for Fuji, but would expect that a larger correction would take longer.
Interestingly, I've found the Canon approach to be very effective on pelagics, one can easily adjust for the swell under normal mild pelagic conditions, so the bird stays glued to the FoV, even as one compensates for the boat going up and down. In nasty weather, things might be very different.
