Canon vs Kite stabilized binoculars (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

As I've written in another thread about the repair of my Canon IS III 12x36, I’ve briefly tried some Kite APC stabilized binoculars at De Kijkerspecialist in the Netherlands. The test was just a few minutes looking from a window, reading a resolution test (a series of text in diminishing sizes) and the landscape in general, so I can’t seriously comment on the performance on the field, durability, etc., but here are some considerations after playing with three different Kite and comparing them to my Canon, I hope you find them useful, as well as the pictures with the compared sizes.



Kite 12x42, Canon 12x36, Kite 12x30 and Kite 16x42.

The Canon 12x36 IS III have been my main binoculars over the last two years. I hated it at the beginning and now I live with its many drawbacks, but with the amazing level of detail it provides (acceptable size/weight, great IS, nice FOV, very nice battery life, no waterproofing whatsoever, no shockproof as has been demonstrated). Some time ago I was eagerly looking forward to try the new IS line of Canon, to see if they have addressed some of the things I seriously dislike about my IS III, namely:

The need to constantly press the button if I want the IS to work: YES, they've sorted that out.
Waterproofing: NO.
Weight/size: NO, the new ones are heavier!
Close focus: YES.

So, going from 800 to 1200+ € has not make Canon give us waterproofing, the new IS is heavier and bulkier in 12x32 (compared to the old 12x36), but at least they've improved the close focus and you don't have to press the button all the time anymore. I personally find it disappointing and have close to zero interest in going from my 12x36 to the new 12x32 (and even less after reading what Roger Vine has to say about them).

Now enter the Kite stabilized line, more especifically the 12x30.
Waterproofing: YES, IPX7, nitrogen purged.
Auto power off and auto shut off if not in use.
Lighter than the Canon IS 12x32 (by a huge margin)
Cheaper, by a relevant margin.
Longer battery life.
Better warranty?

All wrapped in a robust rubber armoured body, twist-up eyecups and a compact design, promising a 3º stabilization compared to 1º in the Canon.

A short summary of some key features.
Model: Canon IS III 12x36 / Canon IS 12x32 / Kite 12x30
Weight (g): 660 / 780 / 620
Close Focus: 6 / 2 / 2,6
FOV: 5 / 5 / 5,2
Waterproof: NO / NO / YES
Battery life: 9 / 10 / 30 (plus included backup battery)
Price (€): 800 / 1200+ / 1000

It seems that Kite took good note of the weaknesses of the Canon line and one by one improved on every major area.

And what about the view?
As I wrote at the beginning, I can't do any serious review of the performance (let alone durability), but here are some findings comparing the he Canon IS III 12x36 and the Kite 12x30 (yes, the IS III is a bit dated, and I should have compared the Kite to the newest Canon IS 12x32, but I don't own one).
Resolution: I could read a similar level of detail with both.
Build: this is something that has always worried me about my 12x36 ISIII. The Canon feels like a cheap toy made of plastic with a terrible "hollow" sound; the Kite has some rubber armouring and when you hold it the feeling is that of a properly built device: nothing rattles, it feels robust and reassuring. In addition to this, you can get a dedicated rubber "skin" (not unlike a rubber case for a smartphone) that should improve the level of protection to some extent.

Operation: the Kite is a breeze. What a change. The focus wheel on the Kite is a bit awkward at the beginning, compared to the more conventional focus wheel position and operation on the Canon. Obviously this is the kind of thing where you need time to see if you get used to it.

Image quality. Bear in mind that I had a brief encounter with the Kite, but enough to be really impressed. Given the small dimensions and price (compared to the current Canon IS) I expected the optical performance to be on a lower level, but the basic parameters of brightness and contrast were similar. As a matter of fact, I found the Kite to be sharper and display a more constrasty image than the Canon (this was quite a surprise). It somehow reminded me of the Canon IS 8x20, which I find offers a more contrasty image compare to the 12x36 ISIII
CA: not enough time with the Kite, but what I could see was not worse than the Canon (well, how could it be!! ).

Field of view was very similar, pleasing in both cases. One thing I could not compare was the sweet spot size, which is one of the biggest strengths of the Canon, especially noticeable when stargazing. I doubt the Kite can approach the stellar performance, but I simply didn't have the chance to compare that particular feature. However, I didn't feel the sweet spot on the Kite was lacking.


In short: a more compact body (nearly 1 cm shorter), a way (but way) better feel on the hand, similar (not worse, better in some cases) performance in some key optical areas and the peace of mind of waterproofnes and the renowned warranty of the Belgian brand. Had my Canon not been repaired, I'm confident I would have walked out of the shop with a 12x30 Kite. I would advise anyone considering an IS to check it out before deciding on a model.

And why the 12x30? It seems 12 times for a 30 mm objective is a bit on the tight side. Well, "yes, but". Let's see (same suspects as on the previous picture).



Kite 12x42, Canon 12x36, Kite 12x30 and Kite 16x42.

I was able to also try the 12x42 and 16x42, but here's the thing.

The 12x42 is surprisingly light (lighter than a 12x32 Canon), but there's a dealbreaker: FOV. It has been mentioned here on BF before, but there's a puzzling issue with the new APC lines of Kite, both in 42 and 30 mm. There are two models for each objective size, 10x/12x30 and 12x/16x42, and in both cases it's the higher mag that enjoys the better FOV. I don't know if it has to do with some decisions during the production (in order to save costs) but here it is, the sad a raw figures:

10x30: 5,5º
12x30: 5,2º
12x42: 3,85º
16x42: 3,9º

Yes, you read it right, the 16x has a wider FOV than its 12 sibling, which is puzzling and disappointing to say the least. The 10x30 is not that bad at 5,5º (although 6º like a Canon would have been better obviously), but 5,2º for a 12x seems to be more satisfying.

So, after trying the 12x30, the 12x42 simply feels claustrophobic. Maybe if you didn't try anything else, you could use it, but 3,85º for a 12x is really noticeable if you're used to 5º-ish devices.

When it comes to detail, I could resolve more or less the same level of detail with both the 12x30 and 12x42 (and my 12x36 Canon). Obviously the 12x42 should outperform the 12x30 on gloomy days and low light.

And then there's the 16x42, which I think of as an speciality glass. Yes, you could resolve things with the 16x that you simply can't with a 12x, but I found the level of CA worrying (and mind you, I'm coming from a 12x36 Canon, a model with CA to spare). So, while I haven't tried the 10x30, which sounds like an interesting proposition (I imagine CA at a lower level), I found 12x30 was a stunning little IS with remarkable performance. I prefer it basically on almost every aspect to my Canon (sweet spot size remains to be confirmed).
I hope this little gaze into the line of Kite can give you some clues and interesting insights.

 

[Harrier22]

Fine report, thanks. That you point out the narrow FOV on the 12x42 is important for both birding and stargazing. I've been on the fence about the Kite 12x42 but your analysis has nudged me to the 12x30.

 

[[email protected]]

Nice review! Too bad you can't get the SIG Sauer HDX Zulu 6 in Spain because I have had most of the Canon IS and Kite IS binoculars and the Sig Sauer is considerably better in many ways. The Sig Sauer is much lighter and smaller, and it has a better IS system but most importantly it has ED glass that the Canon's and Kite's do not have outside of the Canon 10x42 IS-L.

The ED glass reduces CA to almost null and also improves contrast and brightness, compared to the higher CA of the Canon 12x36 IS III and Kite 16x42. The Sig Sauer HDX also two modes of stabilization called target mode and scan mode. The target mode is for when you have locked on to your target, and the scan mode is for scanning. The target mode is amazing, being almost like a tripod even at 16x. All the new Sig Sauer HDX models are fully IPX7 waterproof, meaning they can be submersed.

ZULU6 HDX

Experience image stabilization in the ZULU6 HDX and change the way you hunt.

www.sigsauer.com

 

[yarrellii]

@[email protected] Very intersting, I don't know if Sig has any importer over here in Europe.
However, if you look at the stats of the Zulu series there is something that instantly catches your eye in the FOV department:
12x42: 3,8º
16x42: 3,8º

... just like the Kite. It seems logical to think that both the Kite and the Sig come from a very similar design (if not actually from the same factory), and then if you look at the overall design (in particular those truncated objective lenses) they look like siblings, so it's interesting to think what the differences in optical performance might be. In my case, the 12x42 would not be an obvious choice (for my needs), given that it's bigger, heavier, bulkier than the 12x30 and offers a much reduced FOV, with the only advantages of bigger objective (low light performance + resolution?). And I'm not in the market for a 16x where, as you point out, there might be a difference between the Kite and the Sig due to ED glass or any other improvement they may have introduced. However, if you look at the price, the Zulu is actually on the same price bracket, so it's even more intriguing to know what improvement there might be.

 

[yarrellii]

Fine report, thanks. That you point out the narrow FOV on the 12x42 is important for both birding and stargazing. I've been on the fence about the Kite 12x42 but your analysis has nudged me to the 12x30.

Well, it was just a very short first contact and some considerations and, well, the FOV is a fact. But then, there are reports here on BF of users living with the 12x42. In my case, having tried both I think I would trade FOV for brightness. As for the ease of use of 12x42 over 12x30, well that is indeed a consideration and something you might want to check, to avoid discovering that 12x30 is too small an exit pupil for your personal use.

A 12x30 has a 2,5 mm exit pupil, like a 10x25 device. I had the Canon IS 8x20 which also has a 2,5 mm exit pupil, and while I prefer a 3 mm EP (like the 12x36 or 10x30 IS), I think I can live with 2,5. On the other hand, a 12x42 offers a 3,5 mm EP, which can be way more forgiving. This is also worth noting.

 

[Conndomat]

@yarrellii

can you say something about the eye relief of the 12x30 kite, the data says 17mm., would be one of the few IF binoculars that would also be suitable for people who wear glasses?!

Andreas

 

[[email protected]]

@[email protected] Very intersting, I don't know if Sig has any importer over here in Europe.
However, if you look at the stats of the Zulu series there is something that instantly catches your eye in the FOV department:
12x42: 3,8º
16x42: 3,8º

... just like the Kite. It seems logical to think that both the Kite and the Sig come from a very similar design (if not actually from the same factory), and then if you look at the overall design (in particular those truncated objective lenses) they look like siblings, so it's interesting to think what the differences in optical performance might be. In my case, the 12x42 would not be an obvious choice (for my needs), given that it's bigger, heavier, bulkier than the 12x30 and offers a much reduced FOV, with the only advantages of bigger objective (low light performance + resolution?). And I'm not in the market for a 16x where, as you point out, there might be a difference between the Kite and the Sig due to ED glass or any other improvement they may have introduced. However, if you look at the price, the Zulu is actually on the same price bracket, so it's even more intriguing to know what improvement there might be.

I have the Sig Sauer HDX Zulu 6 HDX 10x30 and 16x42 and I agree with you n the 12x42 and that is why I avoided it. The big difference in the Sig's and the Canon's and Kites are all the Sig's HDX models have ED glass, and it makes a big difference in transmission, contrast and CA control.

I compared the Sig's closely with my Canon 10x30 IS II and Canon 12x36 IS III, and I immediately liked the view better. The Sig's are way lighter and smaller than either the Canons or the Kites, which is another big advantage. In fact, I sold both Canons the next day. There was no question that the Sig's were brighter, had better contrast and controlled CA better.

The trouble especially with the Canon 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III is they not very bright, have a lot of CA especially the 12x36 IS III and they lack contrast. The Sig's improved glass solve that problem. Also, the Sig's have a markedly improved IS system. The two modes of IS called target mode and scan mode take them to another level of stabilization.

 

[[email protected]]

Well, it was just a very short first contact and some considerations and, well, the FOV is a fact. But then, there are reports here on BF of users living with the 12x42. In my case, having tried both I think I would trade FOV for brightness. As for the ease of use of 12x42 over 12x30, well that is indeed a consideration and something you might want to check, to avoid discovering that 12x30 is too small an exit pupil for your personal use.

A 12x30 has a 2,5 mm exit pupil, like a 10x25 device. I had the Canon IS 8x20 which also has a 2,5 mm exit pupil, and while I prefer a 3 mm EP (like the 12x36 or 10x30 IS), I think I can live with 2,5. On the other hand, a 12x42 offers a 3,5 mm EP, which can be way more forgiving. This is also worth noting.

You're correct about being careful with the models that have too small of an EP. I at first tried the Sig Sauer HDX Zulu 6 20x42 and found the the EP was just too small for eye placement comfort even though it was bright enough in the daytime, so I went back to the 16x42 and I prefer it much more.

 

[yarrellii]

@yarrellii

can you say something about the eye relief of the 12x30 kite, the data says 17mm., would be one of the few IF binoculars that would also be suitable for people who wear glasses?!

Andreas

I'm afraid I can't help you with this. I don't wear glasses, so eye relief it's not the first thing I check (or I experience as crucial). In this case, I guess I had limited time with the binoculars, so honestly I didn't think about it However, I tend to be annoyed by binoculars prone to blackouts, and the 2,5 exit pupil worried me at first, but in my short test I found the ease of view satisfactory, I can't say the same about other much anticipated binoculars, I can remember the day I first tried the Nikon MHG 8x30. I walked into the optics shop with the clear idea of buying them, only to discover I experienced terrible blackouts (something I've confirmed in further tests). I don't know if that's of any help, sorry. If I ever have the chance to try it again, I'll pay more attention. In fact, what worried me was:

• basic image quality: sharpness, brightness, CA
• ease of view
• build quality
• size
• usability

And I was surprised in all the departments but the last one, because of doubts about how comfortable the awkwardly positioned focus wheel could be in the long term. Image quality-wise, no, this are not like Zeiss Conquest or Nikon MHG (models not far off in terms of price), but at least I found the Kite to be at least as satisfactory as my Canon, and even better in constrast.

 

[Hermann]

yarrelli: Thanks for an interesting thread!

I'd love to learn more about both the 10x30 and the 12x30, especially their image quality, their build quality, and their eyerelief. Is there anyone here who used a recent Kite 10x30 and/or 12x30 at least for a few months in the field? Any comparison to one of the well-known Canons (10x30, 12x36) would help, as well as detailed evaluations of the optical quality in comparison to some well-known conventional binoculars.

Canip, where are you? We need you ... 🙂🙃🙂

Hermann

 

[Canip]

Hermann, I am really flattered!!
But I am afraid I am not going to review any further IS bino, unless something dramatic changes. This is why:

I currently own 10 binoculars with image stabilization from Canon, Fujinon, Kenko and Vixen, I know the Zeiss 2x60, and I tested the recent models from Kite in an optics shop (I have not personally seen any of the SIG models but read what has been said about them).

Unless someone comes up with a bold move and presents an IS bino that is not only optically first class and has an excellent IS mechanism, but also decent ergonomics, a large FOV and acceptable eyecups, I will retire at some point with the feeling that the history of the stabilized binocular is in fact a history of missed opportunities.

Since Zeiss‘ ingenious mechanical 20x60 and Canon‘s breakthrough with affordable and effective electronic stabilization, not much has happened. New models get introduced with tiny exit pupils, modest fields of view and impossible ergonomics, or high levels of CA (the x32 Canons); optically, I know only one IS bino that fully satisfies me, the Canon 10x42. But it‘s heavy and brick shaped body and huge eyecups make me cry. The small Vixens, Fujinons and Kenkos, some of which are the same bino in different packaging, as well as the newer Kites and SIGs are either optically, or ergonomically, or in both disciplines, no more than a mediocre compromise.

Sorry for ranting. Perhaps there is a reason that Canon doesn‘t make slim attractive binocular bodies, and perhaps there is a reason why we have no IS bino from Swaro, Leica or Zeiss (after their 20x60) ???

Canip

Postscript: of course I am aware that you see a thousand times more details with any mediocre IS bino than with the best unstabilized same size bino. But I hate the compromises I have to accept when using the IS instruments.

 

[Binastro]

There are certain observations that are only possible with IS binoculars that hand held standard binoculars don't provide.

I use a mixture of IS and non IS.

I have no trouble with Canon eye cups.

I have little trouble with the shape or bulk of the Canon 18x50 IS.

It is really a personal choice.

As soon as Canon came out with IS binoculars, I bought one, even though it was heavy and bulky.

To me it is the observation that is important.

I accept that many people won't use IS binoculars, but that is their choice.

My choice is different.

As to the Canon 18x50 IS, it has many faults, but it delivers.

One surprising thing is that the Canon 730 HS camera shows more detail than the Canon 18x50 IS binocular, which is enormous in size comparison. But I usually prefer to see rather than photograph.

For others the Canon 10x42L IS delivers.

Regards,
B.

 

[Hermann]

But I am afraid I am not going to review any further IS bino, unless something dramatic changes. This is why:

I currently own 10 binoculars with image stabilization from Canon, Fujinon, Kenko and Vixen, I know the Zeiss 2x60, and I tested the recent models from Kite in an optics shop (I have not personally seen any of the SIG models but read what has been said about them).

Unless someone comes up with a bold move and presents an IS bino that is not only optically first class and has an excellent IS mechanism, but also decent ergonomics, a large FOV and acceptable eyecups, I will retire at some point with the feeling that the history of the stabilized binocular is in fact a history of missed opportunities.

I agree, the history of the stabilized binocular is a history of missed opportunities so far. Zeiss never followed up on their 20x60S (and the long discontinued 20x60S Mono), and today its optics are somewhat outdated. And the various Canons, Fujinons and so on do their job in that they show more detail than conventional binoculars. But sure, they could (and should) be better by now. And yet they do show more detail than any handheld conventional binocular.

Since Zeiss‘ ingenious mechanical 20x60 and Canon‘s breakthrough with affordable and effective electronic stabilization, not much has happened. New models get introduced with tiny exit pupils, modest fields of view and impossible ergonomics, or high levels of CA (the x32 Canons); optically, I know only one IS bino that fully satisfies me, the Canon 10x42. But it‘s heavy and brick shaped body and huge eyecups make me cry.

I agree, the only two IS binoculars I find optically fully satisfactory are the Zeiss (even though it would benefit from an overhaul of the optics) and the Canon 10x42. And yet even mediocre IS binoculars (like e.g. the Canon 8x20 IS and the 10x30) show more detail than any handheld conventional binocular, despite all their weaknesses.

The small Vixens, Fujinons and Kenkos, some of which are the same bino in different packaging, as well as the newer Kites and SIGs are either optically, or ergonomically, or in both disciplines, no more than a mediocre compromise.

Yes. And yet they show more detail than ... and so on.

Sorry for ranting. Perhaps there is a reason that Canon doesn‘t make slim attractive binocular bodies, and perhaps there is a reason why we have no IS bino from Swaro, Leica or Zeiss (after their 20x60) ???

What is clear is that a stabilised binocular can't be as slim as an unstabilised one. That's physically impossible, you need some space for the stabiliser. What also seems clear is that large exit pupils are difficult to achieve unless you increase the size of the binoculars even further. There's a reason why the Canon 10x42 is so "fat". And why no well-known manufacturer so far tried to build an IS binocular with a large exit pupil, say a 10x50.

Swaro, Leica, Zeiss ... No comment. There are a few explanations, some more charitable to the manufacturers than others. There has for instance been at least one example where manufacturers switched from one technology to another technology that was optically clearly inferior at the time. Maybe it would be naive to believe they'll always produce the products that work best for the user. But I don't want to start a flamewar here.

Postscript: of course I am aware that you see a thousand times more details with any mediocre IS bino than with the best unstabilized same size bino. But I hate the compromises I have to accept when using the IS instruments.

And that is surely the crux of the matter. Many people on this forum are mainly interested in "nice", ergonomically perfect binoculars that look nice and have a very good, aesthetically pleasing and perhaps even "perfect" image and may well last decades in use (except for the armour in some cases ... 😁) That's pretty obvious from many of the threads on this forum.

I, on the other hand, am first and foremost a birder and interested in what I consider to be the main function of binoculars: To show me as much detail as possible on a bird in the field. That's where the IS binoculars deliver in spades. More so than conventional binoculars.

You hate the compromises you have to accept when using IS binoculars. And I hate the compromises I have to accept when using unstabilised binoculars.

Hermann

 

[Binocollector]

The Sig Sauer is much lighter and smaller, and it has a better IS system but most importantly it has ED glass that the Canon's and Kite's do not have outside of the Canon 10x42 IS-L.

That's false. All the bigger Canon IS binos have ED glass (15x50 and 18x50). The 10x42 however has 2 ED elements on each side, the others just one.

 

[Elkhornsun]

When reading the reviews for the Canon IS binos I found many reports of them failing without warning or injury and that the cost to repair them was nearly the same as the price for new ones.

 

[etudiant]

When reading the reviews for the Canon IS binos I found many reports of them failing without warning or injury and that the cost to repair them was nearly the same as the price for new ones.

My limited experience would support the idea that Canon IS binocular repairs are probably a gamble, as the fee to evaluate the situation was about US$500, which would then be deducted from the cost of the actual repair.
In my case, my first Canon 10x42 had served flawlessly for a decade of hard use before it lost stabilization, possibly because the rechargeable batteries were somehow an issue. I simply replaced it, but now only use lithium batteries. It is going strong with six years of service.
Net, including the repair fee, I've spent about $3000 for 16 years of superior visualization performance.
A Swaro would have cost as much. So the trade is the IS benefit versus lifetime ownership without repair fees. To me, the IS is more than worth the price.

 

[Elkhornsun]

I was looking into buying some high power IS binoculars a few weeks ago but there were issues with very old IS designs and limited degrees of correction and issues with them failing and the cost to repair being as great as buying a brand new pair. The failures are likely to occur after the binoculars are out of warranty,

Surveying the reviews for 31 IS binoculars sold by BH Photo, the Fujinon 14x40 have the best IS with 6 degrees of correction, and appear to be more reliable than the Canon ones. I only need to decide that I will use them enough to spend the $1,100. I can easily hand hold my 12x42 and 12x50 binos so for me it is a matter of the gain in going to 14x ones for my own uses.

 

[Binastro]

Firstly, the amount of degrees of correction is a red herring.

It may relevant on a boat or in a tank.

I have been told that in fact the Fujinons may sometimes be less reliable.

I have the Fujinon 14x40 and the image is very good and clean, but the field rather small.
The resolution is good but mine has the jiggles, as is reported elsewhere.
This may now be cured in the latest incarnation.

I have had about 14 IS binoculars over almost 25 years.

Yes, the Canons sometimes fail and some are not waterproof.

I can also hand hold non IS 12x50 binoculars.
12x45 and 12x50 were my standard binoculars for decades.

I looked at Jupiter's moons at 3 a.m. this morning with the 12x50 Ultravid.

It does not compare to the detail seen the previous night with the Canon 18x50 IS.

The fact that the IS systems may be old is another red herring. If it works well, so what.

In fact Canon have made changes to the IS system many times without saying so over the last 25 years.

Whether one buys an IS binocular is a personal choice.

The fact that it uses batteries and may fail applies to almost all modern devices.

Mobile phones, computers, cameras etc. etc.

The resolution of a good 14x IS binocular is probably double that of a hand held 12x50 non IS binocular in the real world.

Regards,
B.

 

[etudiant]

I was looking into buying some high power IS binoculars a few weeks ago but there were issues with very old IS designs and limited degrees of correction and issues with them failing and the cost to repair being as great as buying a brand new pair. The failures are likely to occur after the binoculars are out of warranty,

Surveying the reviews for 31 IS binoculars sold by BH Photo, the Fujinon 14x40 have the best IS with 6 degrees of correction, and appear to be more reliable than the Canon ones. I only need to decide that I will use them enough to spend the $1,100. I can easily hand hold my 12x42 and 12x50 binos so for me it is a matter of the gain in going to 14x ones for my own uses.

Apparently the wide range IS on the Fuji is aimed at smoothing out the motion of the boat the observer is on, while the Canon only aims to offset the jitter inherent in hand holding the glass. The Canon filters out these 1/10th second or less vibrations very well, the Fuji better tames the bigger swings. If you stay on terra firma, the Fujis may be overkill.
I've no IS reliability data for either the Canons or the Fujis, but have enjoyed a decade of trouble free service from my first Canon 10x42. Repair made only marginal economic sense, so I'd recommend against it. Fuji marine binoculars have a stellar quality reputation, hopefully the Fujinon 14x40 is equally worthy.
The high power Canons (15x50 and 18x50) are waterproof afaik, as is the Fujinon. I did find the Fujinon ergonomics rather different, so definitely try before buy.

 

[DRodrigues]

...
In my case, my first Canon 10x42 had served flawlessly for a decade of hard use before it lost stabilization, possibly because the rechargeable batteries were somehow an issue. I simply replaced it, but now only use lithium batteries. ...

Can you please elaborate this?
My 18x50 came with alkaline batteries and I'm using rechargeable batteries since nowadays I don't think it makes sense using disposable batteries...
I just read the manual and doesn't mention rechargeable batteries...