Image Stabilisation Paradox (1 Viewer)

[agus_m]

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.

Could you see the phase of the planet? I was looking at it the other night with my binos but it just looked like a bright, not shaky, star

 

[wllmspd]

12x IS is a reasonable “one optic” solution to birding, more detail than normal bins, but still handheld. I store mine in a peli case, so they take up more space than normal binos and when I am birding I almost always bring a bigger mounted optic that gives me the detail. A nice light, wide 8x normal bino allows me to find stuff and then the other optic gives the details. I used my 12x IS for a good number of years, but more recently I prefer the the 2 optic set-up. Another IS is some way down my optical wishlist. For other people with different priorities, eg camera users, or those who don’t fancy being weighed down with a scope and tripod IS cockle be a very useful tool.

Peter

 

[Hermann]

Some literature: Dobermann, Dirk (2013): Stabilisierung der Bildlage abbildender optischer Systeme. Berichte aus dem Institut für Maschinen- und Gerätekonstruktion (IMGK). Universitätsverlag Ilmenau, Ilmenau.

That dissertation is available on the net. Very technical (as you might expect), and of course in German. But plenty of useful information, for instance on physiologic tremor, and a brief comparison between different stabilisation systems.

Hermann

 

[elkcub]

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

Two things have prevented me from considering the Canon 10x42 L WP: (1) limited eye relief (16mm), and (2) use of a field flattener. The former limits the field of view, and the latter distorts spatial perception. My solution to the stability problem is still a finn stick (An Optimal Finn-Stick/Monopod). This approach also provides necessary support to overcome the binocular's weight for extended viewing.

Ed

 

[tenex]

Could you see the phase of the planet? I was looking at it the other night with my binos but it just looked like a bright, not shaky, star

It's waning towards half full, see EarthSky
But it's so bright and small that this can be difficult to see in darkness. You can try observing at dusk, or using a tripod. The crescent phases are easier.

As to terrestrial observation, I think some subtlety remains to be elucidated. I know what it's like to see stars jumping around in a handheld bin at night, but I don't have the same experience in daytime, even at 12 or 15x. There is some level of shaking but my vision (i.e. brain) seems able to cope with that somehow, as if I can follow things anyway, and detail doesn't seem lacking in what I see. This may initially have required some practice, but I've been doing it for many years now and don't recall how that went. I don't know exactly how to explain it, or why it doesn't work with stars at night, or why everyone may not be equally good at it, apart from lack of practice or the fact that there's individual variation in everything.

 

[4 The Birds1]

I know what it's like to see stars jumping around in a handheld bin at night, but I don't have the same experience in daytime, even at 12 or 15x. There is some level of shaking but my vision (i.e. brain) seems able to cope with that somehow, as if I can follow things anyway, and detail doesn't seem lacking in what I see.

Of course image shake is more disturbing when star gazing than when viewing a less distant object by day.
And the ability to hold binoculars still is variable in different individuals.
However - please do yourself a favour and conduct a simple trial: compare your ability to read letters or numbers on a distant test chart - handheld vs tripod-mounted.

 

[Sancho]

Could you see the phase of the planet? I was looking at it the other night with my binos but it just looked like a bright, not shaky, star

I could see it "just about". I wish I'd had my old 10x42 IS, though (sold them!!!)

 

[tenex]

Of course image shake is more disturbing when star gazing than when viewing a less distant object by day.

"Of course"? Why? "Less distant" is surely irrelevant.

However - please do yourself a favour and conduct a simple trial: compare your ability to read letters or numbers on a distant test chart - handheld vs tripod-mounted.

In fact I hadn't compared my 15x56 handheld vs mounted recently, so I just did, and reconfirmed my impression that as nice as a tripod can be for more relaxed observation over a longer period of time, there's nothing I'm actually unable to see without it apart from reading small text at long distances. If birds all looked the same except for little printed species labels, I'd definitely need an IS binocular. But as things are, I don't seem to. You can talk about your average 40% resolution loss all day, but I don't see it.

Of course there are some cases of very similar species in an area (which didn't appear during my test) where I can imagine that IS might help distinguish tiny crucial details. But then again, maybe not. It's not a problem that technology can ultimately solve due to natural variability, hybridization etc; even expert birders sometimes remain unsure of IDs.

So that's my story. I keep asking the birders who swear by IS to tell theirs, to share clear examples of how it's made such a difference for them, but oddly they never do. Except Denco with his neighbor's air conditioner. It's as bad as trying to talk about "3D".

 

[Stanbo]

"Of course"? Why? "Less distant" is surely irrelevant.

In fact I hadn't compared my 15x56 handheld vs mounted recently, so I just did, and reconfirmed my impression that as nice as a tripod can be for more relaxed observation over a longer period of time, there's nothing I'm actually unable to see without it apart from reading small text at long distances. If birds all looked the same except for little printed species labels, I'd definitely need an IS binocular. But as things are, I don't seem to. You can talk about your average 40% resolution loss all day, but I don't see it.

Of course there are some cases of very similar species in an area (which didn't appear during my test) where I can imagine that IS might help distinguish tiny crucial details. But then again, maybe not. It's not a problem that technology can ultimately solve due to natural variability, hybridization etc; even expert birders sometimes remain unsure of IDs.

So that's my story. I keep asking the birders who swear by IS to tell theirs, to share clear examples of how it's made such a difference for them, but oddly they never do. Except Denco with his neighbor's air conditioner. It's as bad as trying to talk about "3D".

How many IS binoculars have used for any length of time?
Stan

 

[tenex]

How many IS binoculars have used for any length of time?

Ah, then I would finally see the light? What is this reminding me of...?

I suppose it just boils down to some people finding they like or need IS while others don't, and there's nothing further to discuss. It's good that the option exists.

 

[Hermann]

In fact I hadn't compared my 15x56 handheld vs mounted recently, so I just did, and reconfirmed my impression that as nice as a tripod can be for more relaxed observation over a longer period of time, there's nothing I'm actually unable to see without it apart from reading small text at long distances. If birds all looked the same except for little printed species labels, I'd definitely need an IS binocular. But as things are, I don't seem to. You can talk about your average 40% resolution loss all day, but I don't see it.

I find that surprising. Because if you find putting your binoculars on a tripod helps you reading small text at a distance, I think it follows logically that it should also help you see fine plumage detail.

Of course there are some cases of very similar species in an area (which didn't appear during my test) where I can imagine that IS might help distinguish tiny crucial details. But then again, maybe not. It's not a problem that technology can ultimately solve due to natural variability, hybridization etc; even expert birders sometimes remain unsure of IDs.

I agree with the first part of your statement but not the second. Because even though seeing those tiny crucial details may not help you identify every single bird (for whatever reason, hybridization for instance can really make things difficult), it will help you get more IDs. If that's not that important to you, that's fine. I find it important, so I find IS useful, especially as putting a binocular on a tripod (or monopod) can be a nuisance because you often can't react quickly enough if e.g. a bird flies by.

So that's my story. I keep asking the birders who swear by IS to tell theirs, to share clear examples of how it's made such a difference for them, but oddly they never do.

It's very difficult to give clearcut examples, simply because when you see a bird, you see it with one pair of binoculars. So if, for instance, I use a conventional pair, I'll never know if I would have got more details with an IS binocular. And if I see a bird with an IS binocular, I'll never know which details I would not have got with a conventional binoular. OK, I can switch binoculars, of course, and I've done that when I tried to find out how useful IS is for my style of birding. But it's an artificial situation in many ways.

Anyway, some real life situations where I find IS particularly helpful: A situation where an IS binocular makes IMO a clearcut difference is at migration sites. You often see a passerine for a few seconds, often only for a split second, before it once again disappears in a bush or in some long vegetation. And if it's a bird of one of the "difficult" groups (buntings, warbers or pipits in Europe, for instance), you need to see very fine details to get the ID. That's actually more difficult than reading small text ... And even if I don't get the ID, an IS binocular helps me decide if the bird looks interesting enough to call other birders to the site to search for it.

Another example if some raptor flying by. You often don't have the time to get the scope on it, so you need to get as much detail on the structure, any plumage patterns (if visible), on the way it flies and so on as quickly as possible. I find I get more detail on a flying raptor with an IS binocular.

Hermann

 

[Alexis Powell]

I wrote some relevant comments, especially about the older Nikon 10x25 Stabilized model, in this post in another thread:

My review of Nikon 10x25 with Iphone sample video

Hi guys, thanks all for the comments and sorry for the delay. In the video I said that I should have shot with the smartphone holding the binoculars in an atypical way for this reason - the performance of the stabilization system, are not identical to when I hold them in a classic way. Let's say...

www.birdforum.net

--AP

 

[tenex]

I find that surprising. Because if you find putting your binoculars on a tripod helps you reading small text at a distance, I think it follows logically that it should also help you see fine plumage detail.

And that I seldom seem to need to see more than I am seeing. Or perhaps it wouldn't help because there are certain flycatchers for example that I'd never distinguish anyway. I'm not a world-class birder.

Anyway, some real life situations where I find IS particularly helpful: A situation where an IS binocular makes IMO a clearcut difference is at migration sites. You often see a passerine for a few seconds, often only for a split second, before it once again disappears in a bush or in some long vegetation. And if it's a bird of one of the "difficult" groups (buntings, warbers or pipits in Europe, for instance), you need to see very fine details to get the ID. That's actually more difficult than reading small text ... And even if I don't get the ID, an IS binocular helps me decide if the bird looks interesting enough to call other birders to the site to search for it.

Another example if some raptor flying by. You often don't have the time to get the scope on it, so you need to get as much detail on the structure, any plumage patterns (if visible), on the way it flies and so on as quickly as possible. I find I get more detail on a flying raptor with an IS binocular.

Getting more detail quickly when necessary: now that is interesting and helpful, thanks.

 

[crinklystarfish]

So that's my story. I keep asking the birders who swear by IS to tell theirs, to share clear examples of how it's made such a difference for them, but oddly they never do.

I can speak only of the reason I'm drawn to the concept, and why I'm still perhaps going to try a new Nikon S 10x25 in spite of (what it now transpires are likely to be) relatively compromised optics.

Boats

This year alone I've spent countless hours bobbing about in open seas, or making relatively short excursions to islands or other landmasses only readily accessible by boat. The effects of wind, water and vibrations from boats' engines etc are extremely difficult to counter using conventional binoculars and though I've yet to evaluate the tech, I feel IS might well make a significant difference to birding / sea watching in these circumstances.

 

[Ignatius]

I can speak only of the reason I'm drawn to the concept, and why I'm still perhaps going to try a new Nikon S 10x25 in spite of (what it now transpires are likely to be) relatively compromised optics.

Boats

This year alone I've spent countless hours bobbing about in open seas, or making relatively short excursions to islands or other landmasses only readily accessible by boat. The effects of wind, water and vibrations from boats' engines etc are extremely difficult to counter using conventional binoculars and though I've yet to evaluate the tech, I feel IS might well make a significant difference to birding / sea watching in these circumstances.

That would be my pov as well. When I was younger I used to do a lot of sailing, even some competitive crewing up to 35'. My love of boats and messing about on the water, or indeed under it, continues, but these days I rarely go on boats (and I have all but given up windsurfing or scuba diving). BUT there are quite a few folks in our circle of friends and family who have boats, some of them even have their yachtmaster to go with that, and offers are always there for shorter or larger trips. And THAT'S where a waterproof IS would become truly interesting for me. However, until I/we start taking these offers up on a regular basis, my 7x50 Steiner Navigator C will suffice.

 

[jackjack]

I have used canon 10x20, 10x30, 10x32, 10x42, 18x50 and fujinon 12x28, 16x28, 14x40.
and nikon 14x40
some are used under briding, some under night sky.
If BF have a way to upload the video file, I can post some of my reviews about stabilizer bino.

I peronally loved to use 10x32 IS.

I have sold it but not because I don't like it's optics but hate it's eyecup and ergonomics (and also durability issue.)
10x32 new Canon IS is sharper and brighter then same 10x32 Nikon EDG and 10x33 Kowa genesis.
still among the sharpest 10x32 without stabilizer.
but I still hate it's CA

I sold it to student majoring ornithology who serching for bino for high resolution in order to identify and count shore birds for his research as a subsidiary option for spotting scope.
and he still happily uses it.

 

[Sancho]

Quick response to various posts....Stanbo, I think the longest I had an IS was about four years. There are situations where it really shines, and others where you don't "need" it. So I think everyone is right. For example...I like IS for seawatching, when you get tired using one eye through a scope. Especially if it's windy. There's nothing like watching a Wilson's Petrel etc. flying reasonably close by, through IS 10x42. Also from a boat, as Crinklystarfish says. (I don't like boats though. I once went on a "pelagic" and hated it...I am no Seafarer). Distant birds over an estuary etc., IS also helps. But of course in most situations like these, you also have scope and tripod, so it's a personal thing. If I'm walking in woods, or up the hills, I prefer a smaller, lighter non-IS bino like my TFL 8x32. If birds are flitting about, it's easier to get very brief views with non-IS; no extra buttons to press, etc.
It really is one's own choice, no-one is "right" or "wrong".
And try as I might to avoid being drawn into excessive consumption, here I am again. We're almost designed to be dissatisfied with whatever we have, and seek out the dopamine rush of a new purchase. And then it fades. And then another trinket takes the eye.....see, desire, purchase, repeat. (There, I've just convinced myself NOT to buy another IS bino).