• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

New APC 42 Stabilized (1 Viewer)

Winterdune

Well-known member
Kite have released new stabilised binoculars available as 12x42 and 16x42, fully waterproof. On first impressions looking at the specs they are not at the top of the range optics level I had hoped for. I have the 10x30 APCs and was eagerly awaiting these new ones, but the fov is still narrow and no ED glass.
Sean
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
How are the 10x30's Winterdune? Perhaps you could start a thread about them here. I don't believe I've seen much talk of them or any reviews here (or if there have been, I've missed them!)
 

mbb

Well-known member
Thank you for letting us know! I was waiting for the announcement.

Kite has a set of really great binoculars without ED glass, with great optics: their top range «*Bonelli 2.0*». Thus maybe the lack of ED glass won’t be an issue for the APC either.

However, I fully agree that the FOV (3,85° for the 12x) is a bummer :( That is an AFOV of only 46,2°. I don’t want manufacturers to race for the largest FOV if it results in lesser optical quality, but this is really a small FOV. I’m almost wondering if this isn’t a typo, as the 16x is mentioned to have a (insignificantly) larger FOV of 3,9°, which would result in a good AFOV of 62,4° |:S| If it isn’t a typo, I won’t be considering the 12x42 personally, especially considering the suggested selling price of nearly €1000. But maybe the small FOV is of lesser issue for other applications (not birding), or maybe it was a typo and than it would be back on my shortlist to try out...

I’m wondering if the stabilization is really good enough for 16x to be perfectly steady handheld. If so, the 16x42 might be an interesting pair of binoculars for specific observing situations. Maybe complementing a small 6-8x25 binocular for scanning, replacing larger and heavier spotting scope + tripod setups on longer walks...
However, my next binoculars should complement my smaller binoculars better regarding use in low light, thus with bigger exit pupils, the reason why I’m curious about Kite’s Lynx HD+ 10x50. But again, that is a personal prioritization...
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
In reply to pbjosh: I enjoy using them quite a lot. I did post a bit about them in the thread about the new crop of 30mm is binoculars. Here's what I wrote:

My main binoculars are Swaro 10x42 ELs. The Kites are obviously worse in terms of field of view, and depth of field is very shallow, making them quite twitchy on the focusing. Ergonomically they are pretty nice although the IS lever would be better as an on/off button and located closer to the focus wheel. The image stabilisation is really excellent, and I find myself taking the Kites into the field more often than my Swarovskis at the moment, if the light is good and I'm concentrating more on birds in trees and bushes than the sky. Certainly if Kite do a 10x42 IS in the future and it's better ergonomically than the Canon 10x42 brick I can see myself ditching the Swarovskis.
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
I've emailed to ask about the fov anomaly. It's really the fov that is the most disappointing. I could live without ED/HD glass.
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
The field of view quoted on the website for the 12x42 is much smaller than for the already released 12x30! The website gives 91m at 1000m for the 12x30 and only 67m at 1000m for the 12x42mm: I am really hoping this is an error and that the new 42mm binoculars have a better field of view that the smaller 30mm one. It would be absurd if this was not the case!
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
I have had a reply:

"There is no mistake, that the 12x42 has the same FOV as the 16x42.

The optical system is very particular and unique, it is not a standard bino in which a lower magnification automatically means a wider FOV.

The FOV may seam narrow at first sight on the technical spec sheet, but in fact the 16x42 has an apparent field of view almost the same as a Swarovski EL 10x42.



The 42mm APC is the next big step in our stabilized programme after the APC 30.

Obviously the 42mm is brighter because of its bigger objectives, but it is also sharper. Also it is fully waterproof. It has a much longer battery life and it is not much bigger or heavier than the 32mm.

So a lot of progress has been made with this 42mm model, and it is a true revolution of the binocular market.

Soon you can try it out at a local dealership, or perhaps a fair in the UK when the covid situation improves.

But optical performance was not what we aimed for here. We had to tackle above issues first. There is no point for stabilized high-end optics that are not waterproof or only last for 2 hours.

But you may certainly know that stabilized models with high end optical performance will come."

I am still amazed that it is so much worse that the 12x30 and have emailed back to say so.
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
They have confirmed that the FOV of the 12x42 is indeed worse than the 12x30. That kills them dead for me :(
 
Last edited:

PeterPS

MEMBER
I have had a similar correspondence with the owner of Kite, and he confirmed that the FoV of the 12x42 was correct. I still did not believe the specs and I asked him to check again, but got the same reply: the FoV of the 12x is smaller than that of the 16x, a bit curious to say the least.
 

mbb

Well-known member
I’m now even more curious about the stability handheld of the 16x: how stable is the view handheld compared to e.g. a regular (not stabilized) 8x or 10x ?
If(!) the view of the 16x is as stable handheld as e.g. a regular 8x handheld and the FOV is identical to that of the 12x (their quoted difference in FOV is negligible), than it is hard for me to say why they actually made the 12x42. Solely for the larger exit pupil? It is true that the exit pupil of the 16x, being 2,6mm, seems very small to me for binoculars.
Anyway, the 12x42 is also a ‘no go’ for me now. :-(
I’ll probably rather consider a regular 10x42-50mm. Maybe their Lynx HD+ 10x50.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
Interestingly the Kite person told me that they have received a large number of (pre)orders for the 12x42, more than for the other APC model(s). It seems that some people are not turned off by the small AFoV.
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
From Kite: "The FOV may seam narrow at first sight on the technical spec sheet, but in fact the 16x42 has an apparent field of view almost the same as a Swarovski EL 10x42."
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
Indeed the 16x is the attractive model there. I have a hard time imagining that the 12x will sell all that well but I hope, for Kite's sake, that I'm wrong!

I have a Canon 12x32 III and the optics are very good and the AFOV quite nice. I really like them aside from short eye-relief and absolutely horrid eye cups.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
IS is obviously the next step for any would be alpha binocular, as any supplier trying to bypass this will get crushed by cheaper Chinese glass.
Yet Kite is thus far almost alone in this effort. Clearly they understand that it is hard to make money if comfortably stuck in the middle of the herd. Greener pastures are outside, along with extra risk.
As a long time Canon 10x42 bearer, I can only say 'Good on Kite', they are intelligently moving the ball forward.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
From Kite: "The FOV may seam narrow at first sight on the technical spec sheet, but in fact the 16x42 has an apparent field of view almost the same as a Swarovski EL 10x42."
He used exactly the same phrase in his reply to me, and I agree that the AFoVs of the APC 16x42 and the EL 10x42 are about the same, but my question was about the FoV of the 12x42, and I still believe that the specs are wrong----I do not know of any other similar example for which the FoV
increases with magnification.
 

Thomas_M

Active member
The eye relief of the Kite 10x30s is fine for me as a spectacles wearer and they are very well built.

So you own a 10x30 Kite IS?
According to the webpage its field of view is 96 m, that of the 12x30 is 91m, so the one with the higher magnification is also much better. For the 10x I would espect an AFOV of less then 55 degree, for the 12x less than 63 degree. For the 12x42 the specs result in less than 46 degree, for 16x less than 63 degree. That could be an indication that the 12x30 and the 16x42 using the same eyepieces.

Now my question, do you or anybody else has looked trough the 12x30?
 

18000bph

Well-known member
I do not know of any other similar example for which the FoV
increases with magnification.

Check out the FOV on the suspiciously similar 12x28 and 16x28 stabilized Fujinon that were recently released. 12x and 16x have nearly the same FOV, 218' vs 210' (@ 1000 yd).

One thing of note with the Fuji is that the 16x has unusually noticeable larger eyepieces than the 12x. I can't find a side-by-side of the new Kite APC, but am interested if the same is true.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
Check out the FOV on the suspiciously similar 12x28 and 16x28 stabilized Fujinon that were recently released. 12x and 16x have nearly the same FOV, 218' vs 210' (@ 1000 yd).

One thing of note with the Fuji is that the 16x has unusually noticeable larger eyepieces than the 12x. I can't find a side-by-side of the new Kite APC, but am interested if the same is true.

Good point, different eyepieces might indeed explain the similarity of the FoVs of the 12x and 16x. Btw, according to Kite the APC42mm binos are made in Japan.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top