Is the 15x50 IS worth it if you already have a 12x36 IS? (1 Viewer)

[exup]

@has530 Well, that's really interesting. I never thought of looking at magnification gains as a fraction. I don't know if there's a thread here (or a theory) looking at it this way, but it's kind of intriguing and at the same time enlightening, so I'd be really happy to read more about this.

I've done a fast an simple table of most typical magnifications and their relationship with typical alternative magnifications.

8/6 = 1,33
8/7 = 1,14
10/7 = 1,4
10/8 = 1,25
12/8 = 1,5
12/10 = 1,2
14/10 = 1,4
14/12 = 1,16
15/10 = 1,5
15/12 = 1,25
16/12 = 1,33

I've always found that the jump from 8x to 10x wasn't really noticeable to have boht an 8x and a 10x. It was only when I tried 12x that I somehow "felt" that 12x was giving me what I expected to see from 12x. Which is a factor of 1,5.

If the jump from 8 to 10 and 12 to 15 is both 1,25, as a hypothesis it would be interesting to focus on larger numbers in order to get a distinctly different "perception" of magnification if you decide to have different binoculars. So, something like.
7x + 12x = 1,7
8x + 12x = 1,5
10x + 15x = 1,5

Or if you were to have three
6x + 10x +15x (which is 1,6 and 1,5)

I have to make some comparisons with the binoculars I have at home (6, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 10 and 12) to see if this works for me, but on a theoretical level I find it fascinating. Thanks.

I would suggest that simple magnification ratios are too simple.

As we know objective size also plays a significant part on total 'resolving' ability and optimal exit pupil for the given viewing conditions.

What also counts significantly is if there are comparisons of (muggle) non-IS binoculars against IS. At a given mag and objective, there is a huge increase in seeing detail against handheld non-IS.

E.g. a 12x36III could well show much more detail than a top line handheld 10x56, costing 4 times the cost. Moreover, increasing the mag to 12x56 will unlikely increase the seeing detail as the handheld shake will be much more prevalent.

I use my muggle and IS bins like manual 'zooms'. I use low mag muggles to look around, if I see something of interest, I go up the IS mags ( X10, x12, x15, x18), until I see the level of detail I want. If that's still deficient, then I use spotting scopes, 65mm, 80mm, 100mm (x67), 125mm SCT.

Thus in the mag range <= 8 handheld non-IS and IS are closer.
x8 and up handheld non-IS and IS can't be directly compared.
Above x18, spotting scopes take over for me.

 

[yarrellii]

@exup Also very interesting point. I was quite impressed when I did a handheld comparison between the Swarovski EL 8x32 and the Canon IS 8x20... the Canon simply showed more detail, that was amazing. So, contrary to popular belief, even at 8x the use of IS binoculars can improve detail. Depending on the circumstances, you could probably get the level of detail of a 8x IS with a muggle 10x (no wind, brazed against something, etc.).

In my case, focusing on the original question, whether 15x would be a noticeable enough jump from the 12x to be worth the purchase to complement both, I'm still undecided. I tried the 15x50 Canon and last Summer also the 16x42 Kite APC. I found the Kite to have noticeable CA, but I did confirm a noticeable difference in resolving power. The Canon have the advantage of a wider FOV and bigger lenses and thus better low light performance as well as a bigger exit pupil, which makes use more comfortable, 3,3 mm vs 2,6 mm for the Canon and Kite respectively. But then there's the obvious difference in weight and size. The Canon is 1180 g while the Kite is only 735 g, which is a huge difference.

While testing the Canon I was surprised by the image quality, it was a brief test, so weight-induced fatigue wasn't noticeable, while the Kite felt nearly like your usual 42 mm bino (with the caveat of the weird shape).

In short, the more I use the 12x36, the more I like them. The latest 12x32 Canon has not received unanimous praise, quite the opposite, and doesn't address the waterproofing issue that I'd like to solve.

 

[takitam]

I concur about the difference in magnification. I had expressed my opinion on it before in another thread, but we all perceive things differently and there were plenty of different views on the subject. The most interesting thing I personally discovered when comparing a 7x with a 12x was that it was easier to read car license plates with a 7x. I definitely did not expect that.

My take on this is that going one step between magnifications, e.g. 7x to 8x or 8x to 10x, is noticeable but not a big difference. It is definitely a significant change when you move two steps between e.g. 7x to 10x or 8x to 12x. In short, it's not really worth it from a practical standpoint to have every magnification imo, but if you simply like binoculars, why not. We are all a little crazy here

When it comes to Canon's stabilized bins, I was looking for the best optical quality and that's why I bought a 10x42. I also tested 10x30II (really enjoyable and portable, probably the most reasonable buy in the whole range) and 15x50 (did not enjoy its optical quality, comfort of use and size). My problem with 10x42 is that it is simply too big to carry around. It is designed for people who travel around in a car and do not carry binoculars with them at all times. Which is the opposite of how I travel. So they just sit on top of a chest of drawers waiting for better times

 

[exup]

@exup Also very interesting point. I was quite impressed when I did a handheld comparison between the Swarovski EL 8x32 and the Canon IS 8x20... the Canon simply showed more detail, that was amazing. So, contrary to popular belief, even at 8x the use of IS binoculars can improve detail. Depending on the circumstances, you could probably get the level of detail of a 8x IS with a muggle 10x (no wind, brazed against something, etc.).

In my case, focusing on the original question, whether 15x would be a noticeable enough jump from the 12x to be worth the purchase to complement both, I'm still undecided. I tried the 15x50 Canon and last Summer also the 16x42 Kite APC. I found the Kite to have noticeable CA, but I did confirm a noticeable difference in resolving power. The Canon have the advantage of a wider FOV and bigger lenses and thus better low light performance as well as a bigger exit pupil, which makes use more comfortable, 3,3 mm vs 2,6 mm for the Canon and Kite respectively. But then there's the obvious difference in weight and size. The Canon is 1180 g while the Kite is only 735 g, which is a huge difference.

While testing the Canon I was surprised by the image quality, it was a brief test, so weight-induced fatigue wasn't noticeable, while the Kite felt nearly like your usual 42 mm bino (with the caveat of the weird shape).

In short, the more I use the 12x36, the more I like them. The latest 12x32 Canon has not received unanimous praise, quite the opposite, and doesn't address the waterproofing issue that I'd like to solve.

Your fundamental query about whether the 15x50 is a worthwhile step if you already have the 12x36 is a valid but tricky question. I would say yes ..... 15x50 bins are useful for light gathering and magnification reach. This bin is popular with the astronomy chaps .... It gathers good light, has good reach and the IS adds a mag or more to star visibility; it is portable compared to a tripod or parallel mount.
For terrestrial use .... It is similar weight to some larger muggle bins, but is still heavy if you are hiking or spending long durations viewing. A recent comment I read ( on binominia site I believe) .... "a major advantage of an IS bin when hiking is that when you are tired and panting up an incline, when you get to the top, the IS is essential to calm the bin movement" ... thus the advantage is even greater than use when standing static in a bird hide.

Here is an example of the reach of the 18x50.....excuse the photo quality, but you should get the idea if long distance viewing is one of your use cases.

Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized

He is likely on two wheels. Either gas or electric?

www.birdforum.net

 

[yarrellii]

@exup Wow, thanks, I completely forgot that thread. That pictures you posted are insane... at first I thought the buzzard was perched on the big green tree in the centre of the image, until I realised it was actually on the tiny tree at the back

When I tested the 15x50 I brought along my 12x36 and thought the difference was worth it, but one underlying question was whether or not take the jump further and get the 18x50 instead, given that both 15x50 and 18x50 weight the same. But then, what I find interesting about the 15x50 is that the FOV is 4,5º (for a 15x) while the 12x36 ISIII that I use on a daily basis is 5º, and I seem to live quite happily with that, so I guess AFOV on the 15x50 must be way more rewarding.

So that's part of the doubt, the fear of getting the 15x50 and not gaining enough of a difference, but on the other hand, the fear of getting the 18x50 and end up overshooting with a device that is too specialized and of limited use.
Thanks as always for your very interesting remarks.

 

[exup]

@yarrellii

I am away at present (migrated to mountains of southern Spain to avoid the lovely UK weather). However, I am back to the UK this weekend for a couple of weeks and what might be useful to you is if I post another couple of photos.... using the 15x50 and 12x36iii.....you can then compare these against the original 18x50. Doubtful if the Buzzard will oblige for a photoshoot, but the same tree on the horizon will be the target.
With all three mags to compare....it might help you decide.

 

[yarrellii]

@exup Oh, thank you so much. That is really very kind of you. So you have all three! Wow. One thing I would be grateful to hear is for what purpose you use each one, or maybe a purchase timeline, as to what made you choose each one.

Regarding the weather, well, I live in south(east) Spain and I could really use some British weather, to be honest, it's so desolately dry Anyway, enjoy, hopefully you get some nice birding opportunities, who knows maybe a imperial eagle, black vulture or the like!

 

[Patudo]

For those of you who have used both a 12x IS and a 15x IS (even better if you've also used the 18x IS for that matter), does it make any sense at all to get a 15x if you already have a 12x? I ca see a noticeable difference going from 8x to 12x, will the increase up to 15x be as noticeable?

I tried Canon's 15x and 18x IS binoculars at the 2019 Birdfair I believe, but did not try them for a very long time (unlike the 10x42 which I did have a decent amount of time with... all the attention at the Canon stand was focused, excuse the pun, on their high dollar cameras and lenses). Before offering my thoughts I thought it best to wait for those more experienced to offer theirs. For what they're worth:

15x - shake becomes noticeable but tolerable - I would liken it to the level of shake you would get with an 8x muggle binocular.

18x - shake is definitely apparent, I think close to a 10x muggle binocular. Which is still very impressive given the magnification involved - but I think 18x stretches the limits of Canon's tech.

So that's what I found with regard to shake/steadiness. In terms of how useful 15x and 18x magnification are for birding, it depends so much on your particular requirements. Almost all my birding is directed towards raptors, often at long distances, and you would think high magnification would be just what I'd want (and to some extent I do favour relatively high magnification in my muggle binoculars). I do notice a step up from 8x to 10x and from 10x to 12x, each increase does give you more range, along with more shake (with muggle binoculars). The problem is that you also need a certain amount of FOV to scan effectively, and also to keep up with really fast moving birds. I think 10x42 probably fits those requirements best, but I would certainly like to try both the 15x and 18x in the field, especially if observing with a second observer with a wide field muggle binocular to help spot the birds. If Canon had a 12x50 L (the L bit is important as I found image quality of both the 15x and 18x unimpressive whereas the 10x is very good), that would be really interesting.

For long distance identification of stationary birds nothing beats a scope (except a good superzoom camera I suppose!), but obviously scope and tripod represent a different level of encumbrance. I think the 18x50 would be very useful for identifying raptors and seabirds in flight, but hirundines, passerines etc might still be tricky (though at times you probably would be able to get IDs that a muggle binocular would not).

At the end of the day you are the best judge of your own situation and conditions - but I do think they are worth a try. I'm not too sure about buying secondhand for this category of binoculars (IS) though.

 

[exup]

@yarrellii some comparisons through a double glazed window with a phone camera set to low quality (1.0 lens auto) 10x42L

 

[exup]

15x50 1.0 lens

 

[exup]

15x50 1.0 lens

 

[exup]

15x50 0.6 lens

 

[exup]

18x50 1.0 lens (nearly kidney beaning with shadow showing)

 

[exup]

18x50 0.6 lens

 

[exup]

12x36 1.0 lens

 

[exup]

12x36 0.6 lens

 

[exup]

For a reference point ..... Opticron Verano VHD 8x32 (new addition to the stable) 1.0 lens


Hope this helps..... pictures the best I can do at present

 

[yarrellii]

@exup This is much appreciated. I'm going to download them and compare the sizes, thank you much.
As for the Verano, it's a binocular I'm really curious about. I've been enjoying the Traveller ED 8x32 for over 3 years now and I'm beyond pleased. I've looked at the Verano 8x32 in the Opticron website many times, and going by the price, it surely must be quite impressive (the Traveller already is). One thing I love about the Traveller is the way they fit my hands, and their weight. I see the Verano are a little heavier and have a little less FOV, but nothing too worrying (7,5º in 8x is perfectly OK for me). So I hope I'll have the chance to test it some time in the future. Thanks again!

 

[exup]

Another 12x36 vs 15x50 discussion on CN too .... lots of Canon IS users on CN

Canon 12x32 IS vs 15x50 IS Binoculars - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Canon 12x32 IS vs 15x50 IS Binoculars - posted in Binoculars: Other than naked eye observing, which I do casually almost every clear morning and most clear evenings, I find that I observe most often using my binoculars – certainly more than my telescopes, even as I really enjoy using my scopes...

www.cloudynights.com

 

[yarrellii]

@exup Thanks a lot! I've read quite a few threads about the 15x50/12x36 over in CN, but this one is so recent that I still hadn't read it. Thank you