I am glad you like that Canon IS 8x20. If I remember correctly, I was the one that suggested it for you. It is a surprisingly good small binocular. I have a little of that arthritis also. It is a drag getting older. ðŸ˜
-
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.
Most Popular Canon IS for birding ? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter edwincjones
- Start date
yarrellii
Well-known member
Yes, the night sky is just something else with IS. Stars are like pinpoints, you seem to be floating effortlessly, as in a spaceship, it's just mind-blowing.
As for trying again the 12x36. It is my most used binocular, and there are forum members who have used it for birding as their main binocular for years. However, whenever I recommend it, I am realistic and I always say that there is sooooo much wrong with it, and that I can see how a lot of people despise it for its poor image quality, awkward ergonomics, etc. In make case it took quite a lot of time to sink in, and even to this day, whenever I take my EL (or any other quality binocular for that matter) I feel somehow relieved, like my eyes are being pampered in a spa... but after a while, I simply miss IS.
There's a lot of reference to "shake" on here. Maybe I'm lucky and have a very stable frame?!, As it's something I've never noticed as a problem.
Without being too personal, where is the shake originating, and can't it be resolved by a different technique in holding the binoculars?
I do notice shake with my camera on extremely high powered magnification, even on a tripod, the minute I start panning etc, but not with 8x binoculars
Edit: I bet I would have a problem if I wore glasses though. I think part of my stability, is that the binoculars are wedged against my eye sockets. That plus my upper arms lodged against my body, the only movement is me "swaying"
Without being too personal, where is the shake originating, and can't it be resolved by a different technique in holding the binoculars?
I do notice shake with my camera on extremely high powered magnification, even on a tripod, the minute I start panning etc, but not with 8x binoculars
Edit: I bet I would have a problem if I wore glasses though. I think part of my stability, is that the binoculars are wedged against my eye sockets. That plus my upper arms lodged against my body, the only movement is me "swaying"
yarrellii
Well-known member
@BethEngland I think when we talk about "shake" maybe the term sounds too strong, like if one was rocking the binoculars to and fro with rage.
It simply refers to the innate involuntary and minute movements of the human body, due to the mere fact that our heart beat and we have a pulse, we breathe, etc. When it comes to resolution, that subtle vibration hinders the ability to resolve fine detail even in the best of "conventional" binoculars. It's surprising to discover that top brands invest a lot of money in improving their coatings and their glass to gain a small percenteage of resolution (sometimes only seen if you "boost" the binoculars using a doubler, like a 2x or 3x). And then, you add IS to an otherwise pretty mediocre piece of kit (that could not compete with a 500 € contemporary roof) and voilà , the magic happens and all that is gone.
I have a relatively quiet and steady hand, I don't wear glasses and can't complain about my grip. However, it was not until I tried IS that I discovered that yes, the subtle tremor is there for anyone (except mummies
). I think it has been mentioned here but, while it seems obvious that higher magnifications multiply this "subtle hand tremor", so a 10x, 12x, 15x or 18x seem like obvious choices for an IS device, it is an unexpected surprise that even low magnifications like 8x benefit from IS and offer you a lot more detail. You read from many experienced forum members who have conducted tests on many fine binoculars: a cheap Canon 8x20 IS outresolves any other handheld 8x, be it the almighty Swaro NL, Zeiss SF, etc. Even at 8x our body creates minute movements (a kind of very subtle shake) that hinder resolution. I've tested it myself with my Swarovski EL 8x32 against the Canon.
As it happens, night sky observation is usually a demanding test for some areas of binoculars performance, and shake is one of them. Even with 8x, the stars appear distinctively sharper (and still) with an 8x IS than with a "conventional" handheld 8x, it is a true revelation
So no, no one suffers from any condition here It's just the nature of our body, I wouldn't call it a problem, and I've been birding with traditional binoculars for years and still do with great joy. However, it's not until you try IS that you discover it. Nowadays, even when I grab my 7x (I've always considered that they offered me an incredibly stable, tripod-mounted-like view) I miss IS.
It simply refers to the innate involuntary and minute movements of the human body, due to the mere fact that our heart beat and we have a pulse, we breathe, etc. When it comes to resolution, that subtle vibration hinders the ability to resolve fine detail even in the best of "conventional" binoculars. It's surprising to discover that top brands invest a lot of money in improving their coatings and their glass to gain a small percenteage of resolution (sometimes only seen if you "boost" the binoculars using a doubler, like a 2x or 3x). And then, you add IS to an otherwise pretty mediocre piece of kit (that could not compete with a 500 € contemporary roof) and voilà , the magic happens and all that is gone.
I have a relatively quiet and steady hand, I don't wear glasses and can't complain about my grip. However, it was not until I tried IS that I discovered that yes, the subtle tremor is there for anyone (except mummies
). I think it has been mentioned here but, while it seems obvious that higher magnifications multiply this "subtle hand tremor", so a 10x, 12x, 15x or 18x seem like obvious choices for an IS device, it is an unexpected surprise that even low magnifications like 8x benefit from IS and offer you a lot more detail. You read from many experienced forum members who have conducted tests on many fine binoculars: a cheap Canon 8x20 IS outresolves any other handheld 8x, be it the almighty Swaro NL, Zeiss SF, etc. Even at 8x our body creates minute movements (a kind of very subtle shake) that hinder resolution. I've tested it myself with my Swarovski EL 8x32 against the Canon.As it happens, night sky observation is usually a demanding test for some areas of binoculars performance, and shake is one of them. Even with 8x, the stars appear distinctively sharper (and still) with an 8x IS than with a "conventional" handheld 8x, it is a true revelation
So no, no one suffers from any condition here
It's just the nature of our body, I wouldn't call it a problem, and I've been birding with traditional binoculars for years and still do with great joy. However, it's not until you try IS that you discover it. Nowadays, even when I grab my 7x (I've always considered that they offered me an incredibly stable, tripod-mounted-like view) I miss IS.
Last edited:
Yes, particularly if I hold a viewfinder a few inches front of my eyes, I notice pulsing, etc.
It does seem reduced to un-noticeable if it's pushed against my face...
I'm not going to investigate further as I suspect it's something that once you are aware of, it'll never go away, and bug me !
It does seem reduced to un-noticeable if it's pushed against my face...
I'm not going to investigate further as I suspect it's something that once you are aware of, it'll never go away, and bug me !
If a person has a pulse and breathes then there is movement in unbraced hands, even for an athlete.
When viewing sunspots with a safe filter, I resolved 10% better with my head resting against a lamp post.
This was confirmed numerous times.
38 arcseconds penumbral sunspots normally with unaided eyes and 34 arcseconds with head braced.
This is with 20/15 acuity.
That is with a magnification of 1x.
Persons with exceptional eyesight see sunspots less than 20 arcseconds across.
I suspect that part of the limitation even with 20/8 acuity and better, is pulse and breathing.
With an old version Canon 8x25 IS I suddenly saw completely invisible detail on a distant aircraft.
It said Etihad and had a yellow or gold coloured fuselage.
I didn't see or suspect the letters, markings or colour with the IS off.
Hidden detail is revealed with IS that is not even suspected without IS.
This is far more relevant than using known test charts, USAF or any other.
However, resolution is not everything with binoculars and we mostly don't need ultimate resolution.
I almost never use a tripod with binoculars.
For me this is completely pointless and negates what a binocular is; a free handed viewing device with a magnified image.
Some, actually many, just don't like IS binoculars, and that is absolutely fine.
Mostly, I use non IS binoculars, but when I want to see fine detail that is not visible with a normal binocular, I use various IS binoculars.
Verbose descriptions of viewing with and without IS doesn't really help.
Either use an IS binocular or don't.
Regards,
B.
When viewing sunspots with a safe filter, I resolved 10% better with my head resting against a lamp post.
This was confirmed numerous times.
38 arcseconds penumbral sunspots normally with unaided eyes and 34 arcseconds with head braced.
This is with 20/15 acuity.
That is with a magnification of 1x.
Persons with exceptional eyesight see sunspots less than 20 arcseconds across.
I suspect that part of the limitation even with 20/8 acuity and better, is pulse and breathing.
With an old version Canon 8x25 IS I suddenly saw completely invisible detail on a distant aircraft.
It said Etihad and had a yellow or gold coloured fuselage.
I didn't see or suspect the letters, markings or colour with the IS off.
Hidden detail is revealed with IS that is not even suspected without IS.
This is far more relevant than using known test charts, USAF or any other.
However, resolution is not everything with binoculars and we mostly don't need ultimate resolution.
I almost never use a tripod with binoculars.
For me this is completely pointless and negates what a binocular is; a free handed viewing device with a magnified image.
Some, actually many, just don't like IS binoculars, and that is absolutely fine.
Mostly, I use non IS binoculars, but when I want to see fine detail that is not visible with a normal binocular, I use various IS binoculars.
Verbose descriptions of viewing with and without IS doesn't really help.
Either use an IS binocular or don't.
Regards,
B.
