Image Stabilisation Paradox (1 Viewer)

[Sancho]

Bear with me on this one. I know it's illogical. I've had, over the years, all iterations of Canon IS except the 18x. I currently use my IS 8x30 a lot, when out walking but not "actively" birding. I love them...small, light, great views. All IS binos I've had give better views of the bird, far superior to any alpha bins I've owned or my current fave "active birding" bins, Zeiss TFL 8x32 or SRBC 8x42. So why don't I use the little Canons on birding outings? Apart from the IS 10x42, other Canons have moderately good glass. On a stable support, the TFL/SRBC smoke the non L-series Canons. But one doesn't use binos on a support for birding. SO....here's the problem. The IS feature gives more detail of the bird, but it also shows up the shortcomings of the "moderately good" glass. Kind of lifeless, not as "pleasant" to look through, low light transmission, etc. This shouldn't matter to me, but it does, maybe because twenty years on BF has made me very picky about the glass. Obviously on a dedicated birding outing I have a scope/tripod, so I don't "need" IS in my binos. The Canon IS 10x42 would be fine, if they weren't designed to look and feel like something from a futuristic dystopian movie. If Canon or Nikon produced a nice, ergonomic IS bino, with L-series glass, in 8x30/42, I'd be first in line, and never look back. I wouldn't even demand waterproofingBut it's not going to happen, is it?
I realise there are more pressing problems facing humanity than my desire for a regular IS bino with superb glass, but is this why IS binos haven't taken off, despite the tech being available for decades? The glass just isn't up to scratch, and the IS merely serves to show it's shortcomings?
(P.S. I'm just musing, none of this matters)

 

[Dennis Mau]

Most of the Canon IS binoculars are as you say are lifeless, lack contrast and have below average transmission except for the Canon 10x42 IS-L, and then you have to put up with its bulky size and weight. Unfortunately, the Canon 10x42 IS-L is state of the art when it comes to IS binoculars, and they are the best technology we have right now in an IS birding binocular. Nikon just came out with a new compact IS binocular that is a step in the right direction. It is the Nikon 10x25 S and although it doesn't have alpha level optics, it is better than most of the other Canon's optically and ergonomically.

I compared it to a Canon 10x30 IS II and I much preferred the optics in the Nikon because it wasn't as lifeless as the Canon, it was brighter and had better contrast. Maybe Nikon will take it a step further and come out with 8x30/42 IS and a 10x30/42 IS. I would like to see a Nikon 8x30 IS with an 8.0 degree FOV and a Nikon 10x30 IS with a 6.5 degree FOV with optics at least equal to the Nikon MHG and sell for about $1500. They would be the best birding binoculars around. All we can do is hope.

Nikon STABILIZED 10x25 S Binoculars | Compact 10x Magnification

Nikon STABILIZED 10x25 S binoculars are compact and offer a blur-free view that's easier on the eyes and fits in a pocket.

www.nikonusa.com

 

[tenex]

Of course this matters, and it's not just you, Sancho. It's come up repeatedly in recent threads, guessing that more people (more birders anyway) would buy IS if the optics were better, or wondering who these are being made for instead that don't care. Perhaps it's just nervousness about trying to compete with established players in the alpha market, which Canon hasn't really tried and Nikon didn't manage with EDGs. Or that market doesn't seem so big after all to such companies. We probably have to wait for Swarovski to do it. In the meantime, as you said, it does seem a real dilemma.

 

[Hermann]

Excellent post, Sancho! I settled for the big Canon for "serious" birding - despite its weight. The ergonomics - well, I don't find them too bad, actually. I also use low-power ((lighter!) binoculars when I carry a scope. And, like you, I use the 8x20 IS as a binocular I carry on walks and the like. The exit pupil is just too small for "real" birding.

And yes, I'm also waiting for an IS binocular with excellent optics and a half-way acceptable weight. But I'm not that optimistic. I ranted about the present situations a few days ago in a different thread: My review of Nikon 10x25 with Iphone sample video.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

It's come up repeatedly in recent threads, guessing that more people (more birders anyway) would buy IS if the optics were better, or wondering who these are being made for instead that don't care. Perhaps it's just nervousness about trying to compete with established players in the alpha market, which Canon hasn't really tried and Nikon didn't manage with EDGs. Or that market doesn't seem so big after all to such companies.

True.

We probably have to wait for Swarovski to do it. In the meantime, as you said, it does seem a real dilemma.

Or Zeiss. (Leica is surely out of the game, they didn't even manage to make a 32mm Noctivid.)

Hermann

 

[Stanbo]

.
Bear with me on this one. I know it's illogical. I've had, over the years, all iterations of Canon IS except the 18x. I currently use my IS 8x30 a lot, when out walking but not "actively" birding. I love them...small, light, great views. All IS binos I've had give better views of the bird, far superior to any alpha bins I've owned or my current fave "active birding" bins, Zeiss TFL 8x32 or SRBC 8x42. So why don't I use the little Canons on birding outings? Apart from the IS 10x42, other Canons have moderately good glass. On a stable support, the TFL/SRBC smoke the non L-series Canons. But one doesn't use binos on a support for birding. SO....here's the problem. The IS feature gives more detail of the bird, but it also shows up the shortcomings of the "moderately good" glass. Kind of lifeless, not as "pleasant" to look through, low light transmission, etc. This shouldn't matter to me, but it does, maybe because twenty years on BF has made me very picky about the glass. Obviously on a dedicated birding outing I have a scope/tripod, so I don't "need" IS in my binos. The Canon IS 10x42 would be fine, if they weren't designed to look and feel like something from a futuristic dystopian movie. If Canon or Nikon produced a nice, ergonomic IS bino, with L-series glass, in 8x30/42, I'd be first in line, and never look back. I wouldn't even demand waterproofingBut it's not going to happen, is it?
I realise there are more pressing problems facing humanity than my desire for a regular IS bino with superb glass, but is this why IS binos haven't taken off, despite the tech being available for decades? The glass just isn't up to scratch, and the IS merely serves to show it's shortcomings?
(P.S. I'm just musing, none of this matters)

Oh Sancho, you have put the cat amongst the pigeons. This will cause so much hot air and as l expected, it is being led by Denco. ( However, l will deal with him later).
The one thing you left out of your appraisal is the commercial aspect.
The so called Alpha manufactures make a very good living out of selling superb optics but without a stable platform - they rely on the owners to provide that, most of whom don't want to carry a tripod, so all they have is the human body. But this proves to be a poor substitute, as everyone has shake to a varying degree. So what do they need to improve the situation. Quite simply, the maufactures need to add Image Stabilization (lS) - which I'm sure they could do. However, this is where they have a commercial problem.
If they use similar optics to the ones in their current models and then add IS the sale price is likely to be in the £5000 region, which begs the question of how many they are going to sell. If they do manage to sell enough is there any other problem. A very strong YES!!
If they start to sell in numbers and can reduce the price to the level of the existing unstabalized binoculars and binoculars users see the benefit, it will inevitably lead to perhaps 90% of current unstabilized becoming obsolete. I wonder how the existing owners will feel when their prized possession has lost
significant value when they come to sell.
Now, who will be the first to take the plunge? Or will it be stalemate.
I don't really care eitherway, as I have had only ued stabilized binoculars for the past 12 years and enjoyed every minute of their usage.,
Stan

 

[Conndomat]

I say this without malice as I would also like a good, comfortable IS but IMO the time of pure IS technology is maybe over, it will always remain a niche product.

Instead of focusing on the IS, Swarovski has thrown this curious AX onto the market and as unsuccessful as this product currently seems, it could pave the first steps into the world of multifunctional binoculars.

It may be that the IS function will be retained, but it is to be feared that in the future this feature will be just one among many other features.
I think the future of binoculars will be multifunctional, much to the chagrin of the purists, but whether and when that will happen remains speculation, of course.

Andreas

 

[LucaPCP]

On the other hand, as a bino to use on a car or boat, the Fujinox 12x28 stabilize is fantastic. Usable from a moving car! Great on a boat on the water! And very light, so one can take normal high-contrast binos for normal use, and the Fuji when one needs a stabilized option.

 

[Patudo]

I absolutely agree with the original post, and voiced something similar about a year ago. It seems to me that because IS works as well as it does, it shows up imperfections in the image even more. I don't think it's the IS itself that is the issue because if you switch it off, image quality is no better. Canon ought to be able to improve image quality given that the porro (in their case porro II) design doesn't require the same tolerances as roof prisms. But it seems they think IS by itself is enough. They also seem to think that high magnification (which in many Canon IS binoculars results in small exit pupil) are desirable in an IS binocular where in fact the stabilisation in itself lets you see better (thus less need for high mag). I do agree with this to some extent, in that IS does (in my experience anyway) result in less eye fatigue and makes using a smaller exit pupil easier; but what those designs give up is FOV, often very desirable for birding - and indeed Canon's top IS model being a 10x42 acknowledges this.

I think something like an 8 or 8.5x32L or 10x36L (same bodies as their existing 12x32 and 12x36 but with similar optical performance and weatherproofing to the 10x42L) would be a better birding tool than the 10x42L for a very large number of situations.

 

[Sancho]

I don't really care eitherway, as I have had only ued stabilized binoculars for the past 12 years and enjoyed every minute of their usage.,
Stan

Darn. You know what that means. I'm going to have to go back to Canon IS 10x42. Shoulda stuck with it
(Full confession...if I buy another pair, it'll be my THIRD. In 20 years. And you guys thought Dennis was insane)

 

[Conndomat]

What is forgotten is that Canon is a huge company and the IS binoculars only make a minimal contribution to maximizing profits.

Canon is practically a large farmer who sells millions of tons of grain every year, the few buckets of apples from the company's own garden are more of a leisure activity.

As far as Canon is concerned, I think one shouldn't have too much hope that a mass-compatible IS binocular will be created at some point, it would hardly contribute to maximizing profits either way.

Andreas

 

[crinklystarfish]

The Nikon 10x25 S reminds optically of the Nikon 10x25 LX, and I have always thought the LX was the equal of the alpha compacts. In fact, the Nikon 10x25 S has sharper edges than all of them outside of the Swarovski CL-P which is about the same. Of course the Nikon 10x25 S has a 5.4 degree FOV and the Swarovski CL-P 10x25 has a 5.6 degree FOV and the Zeiss VP 10x25 has a 6.0 degree FOV so the FOV is slightly larger on those two, but they are not optically better in any way. The Nikon 10x25 S is just as bright and has just as good of contrast as any of the alpha compacts. The Zeiss VP 10x25 has considerably more fall off at the edges than the Nikon 10x25 S so that compensates somewhat for the smaller FOV in the Nikon.

Nikon just came out with a new compact IS binocular that is a step in the right direction. It is the Nikon 10x25 S and although it doesn't have alpha level optics, it is better than most of the other Canon's optically and ergonomically.

@[email protected]

I was seriously considering buying a Nikon Stabilized S 10x25 - it would have been my first venture into image stabilisation.

You initially strongly asserted - taking IS out of the equation - that the Nikon Stabilized S 10x25 had comparable optics to the established 'Alpha' pockets (of which, I have owned them all).

You now state the Nikon does not have 'alpha level optics'.

These are extremely unhelpful contradictions.

Taking into consideration your contradiction - plus posts since made by other contributors regarding the purely optical performance of the Nikon Stabilized S 10x25 - my initial enthusiasm is now considerably dampened.

I'm glad I pondered a while and I now think I may just stall my purchase.

I'm out.

 

[limonabe]

Dennis, do you rely solely on memory when you compare binoculars that you may have owned, in some cases I imagine, months or even years apart?

 

[jgraider]

Dennis, do you rely solely on memory when you compare binoculars that you may have owned, in some cases I imagine, months or even years apart?

He repeats the same propaganda many, many, many times so that the reader, as well as himself, will actually believe it.

 

[tenex]

Darn. You know what that means. I'm going to have to go back to Canon IS 10x42. Shoulda stuck with it

Being willing to lug around SLC 15x56, I shouldn't complain about the Canon L's bulk. Is the actual IS on it a bit dated by now? I haven't been following the details as to what the stabilized elements are, etc.

 

[Montereyman]

Weight was why I held off buying a IS binocular until recently when I bought the Sig Sauer 16x42 binos that weigh a relatively light 21.9 ounces. They also can be powered for 12 months with a single AA battery so no need to carry spares.

Up to 12x I do not need stabilization and with most people using 10x or lower magnification binoculars the trade-off with a narrower field of view is not compelling.

 

[Stanbo]

Dennis, do you rely solely on memory when you compare binoculars that you may have owned, in some cases I imagine, months or even years apart?

If you look at the for sale section you will see that Denco has a Swarovski 8x32 NL for sale and he says this is "because he now uses a Nikon 10x25s more in the daytime". So it looks as if he has moved into the "movers and shakers club" like me. It will be interesting to see what he does next; apart from endless criticism of Canons which no doubt will continue.
Stan

 

[Hermann]

Being willing to lug around SLC 15x56, I shouldn't complain about the Canon L's bulk. Is the actual IS on it a bit dated by now? I haven't been following the details as to what the stabilized elements are, etc.

Canon has been gradually improving the 10x42 L over the years without making much fuss about what they did. I know the coatings changed, for instance. They also changed the baffles (in the beginning it was more of a 10x37 rather than a 10x42). And they also clearly changed the algorithm of the stabilizer over the years. Even compared to Canons of the latest generation (I know the 10x32 IS and the 8x20 IS) the stabilizer of the 10x42 is still up-to-date. It works beautifully.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Up to 12x I do not need stabilization and with most people using 10x or lower magnification binoculars the trade-off with a narrower field of view is not compelling.

You do not need stabilization up to 12x? Really? Try putting a binocular on a tripod and see for yourself how much more detail you get compared to handholding them. Sancho summarized the situation perfectly in his initial post: All IS binos I've had give better views of the bird, far superior to any alpha bins I've owned or my current fave "active birding" bins, Zeiss TFL 8x32 or SRBC 8x42. At 8x you lose about 30% when handholding, at 10x about 35% and at 12x about 40%. (Source: Vukobratovich 1989, summarized in Merlitz 2023:149-150) These figures agree roughly with my own impressions.

This of course doesn't mean you can't use non-stabilized binoculars handheld as long as you accept that you lose resolution. So "Up to 12x I do not need stabilization" really means "Up to 12x I can cope with the loss of resolution, above 12x the shaking gets too much."

Hermann

 

[Sancho]

Exactly, what Hermann said. I tried looking at Venus in the evening sky yesterday evening. It didn't matter what binos I used, the best view was with the tiny Canon IS 8x20. Despite the loss of light, the stability made the planet.....look like a planet, not a shaky star.