• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

New APC 42 Stabilized (1 Viewer)

PeterPS

MEMBER
Yes I like the ergonomics and the weight of my 10x30 APCs, and the 16x42 fov is actually better than the 10x42, but both are much worse that the 10x30, sadly. When the fov issue is sorted, hopefully in the next generation of Kite IS binoculars, I will be ditching my Swarovski 10x42s for sure.

The AFoV of the 16x42 is 62.4* whereas that of the 10x30 is only 55*, so you definitely don't get the feeling of tunnel vision when you look thru the 16x, but true its FoV of 3.9* is too narrow for anything but stationary targets.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
PeterPS, post 32,
Made in Japan and/or in China, but it very well could be exactly the same company that has a production facility both in Japan and in China and, if quality control is alright, there is nothing wrong with it.
Gijs van Ginkel

Yes, Gijs, I know but despite this fact many people prefer the MiJ label.
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
The AFoV of the 16x42 is 62.4* whereas that of the 10x30 is only 55*, so you definitely don't get the feeling of tunnel vision when you look thru the 16x, but true its FoV of 3.9* is too narrow for anything but stationary targets.

No the afov of the x30 is 96 so much better than the x42
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
No the afov of the x30 is 96 so much better than the x42
The FoV of the 10x30 is 5.5* (or 96m/1000m), its AFoV is equal to magnification x FoV= 55* (approximately, the tangent-formula gives a more precise value). A similar calculation for the 16x42 yields AFoV=62.4*.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
Oh OK thanks for the clarification. What's the afov of the 10x42?

Which 10x42? If Swaro 10x42, with a FoV=6.4* then the simple formula for the AFoV yields 64*
(which is an approximation, typically an overestimate; the AFoV can be measured and the value in the specs for the 10x42 is 60*) .
Kite 12x42 has a rather narrow AFoV=46.2---probably it has a tunnel vision issue.
 
Last edited:

Binastro

Well-known member
Which 10x42? If Swaro 10x42, with a FoV=6.4* then the simple formula for the AFoV yields 64*
(which is an approximation, typically an overestimate; the AFoV can be measured and the value in the specs for the 10x42 is 60*) .
Kite 12x42 has a rather narrow AFoV=46.2---probably it has a tunnel vision issue.
If the Kite 16x42 IS is as good as Kite and reviewers claim then how about a
Kite 22x52 IS and a
Kite 24x56 IS.

These would be alternatives to a small spotting scope.

Regards,
B.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
If the Kite 16x42 IS is as good as Kite and reviewers claim then how about a
Kite 22x52 IS and a
Kite 24x56 IS.

These would be alternatives to a small spotting scope.

Regards,
B.
Hi B.,
This is an excerpt from an email I received from Kite:
"...in the future you will be able to see more instruments in this line, and the results of our continuous working on further improving and developing of this technology....",
which suggests that we can expect to see new Kite IS models. Because they already have 30mm and 42mm IS binos maybe the next step would be Mx56mm models with M>20.. If the latter will weigh around 1kg then as you said they can be interesting alternatives to a scope.
Peter
 

Thomas_M

Active member
The 30 and 42 mm seem to use the same stabilization unit and it seems that this determines the separatin of the objective lenses. The 42 mm lenses show already some vignetting, presumably the exit pupil is not round anymore. Therefore, if Kite intends to offer new models with large aperture, I guess they neeed to develop a new IS unit, or get it from somewhere else. At least on a short time this seems highly unlikely to me.

Thomas

p.s. What about the 16x42, is there any reliable information on the optical qualilty (sharpness, CA) and the field of view?
 

Binastro

Well-known member
Thanks for the video.

I cannot tell from just one video, but the Kite stabilizer does not on first impressions seem better than, say, the Canon 18x50 IS.
My Canon 10x30 Mk2 IS is I think better even allowing for the lower magnification.

Incidentally, the electronics warranty seems to be two years not thirty.
Also I think the 2 degree IS is not that much of an advantage over the 0.7 degrees of the Canon 15x50 IS for birders.
Waterproofing to a high standard is better for the Kite 16x42.

In addition, I don't think the fact that the Canon uses an old IS system means that the Kite is better.
My Canon 18x50 IS is twenty years old and is still spectacular despite the odd artifacts.
Glare control is also superb.

I don't think I will buy the Kite 16x42 although I would like to thoroughly test one.
In my experience all the IS binoculars vary sample to sample.

As to the query about spotting scopes.
I think that at 20x and more tripod mounted spotting scopes are superior to IS binoculars, except for the Zeiss 20x60S, which competes well with a 20x spotting scope.

Regards,
B
 

Thomas_M

Active member
I agree, it is difficult to judge the quality of IS from a video. I owned a Canon 14x45 IS for many years, tested the 18x50 IS in quite some detail, then got 5 years ago a 10x42 IS and last year the 14x32 IS. Overall the 10x42 IS seems to me the best performer, IS of the 14x42 IS is excellent, much better than that of the 14x45, 15x50 and 18x50 IS. These three models all suffer from focus fluctuations, the image stands still but from time to time it gets unsharp. The 14x32 IS is much better in this respect but has a lot of CA and smaller aparent field of view.

Now the big question, is the Kite 16x42 a step up from the quite recent Canon 10, 12, 14x32 IS binos? How to figure that out without ordering one?

best regards

Thomas
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I agree, it is difficult to judge the quality of IS from a video. I owned a Canon 14x45 IS for many years, tested the 18x50 IS in quite some detail, then got 5 years ago a 10x42 IS and last year the 14x32 IS. Overall the 10x42 IS seems to me the best performer, IS of the 14x42 IS is excellent, much better than that of the 14x45, 15x50 and 18x50 IS. These three models all suffer from focus fluctuations, the image stands still but from time to time it gets unsharp. The 14x32 IS is much better in this respect but has a lot of CA and smaller aparent field of view.

Now the big question, is the Kite 16x42 a step up from the quite recent Canon 10, 12, 14x32 IS binos? How to figure that out without ordering one?

best regards

Thomas

"Now the big question, is the Kite 16x42 a step up from the quite recent Canon 10, 12, 14x32 IS binos? How to figure that out without ordering one?"

I just compared the Canon 14x32 IS to the new Kite 16x42 and I found the Kite a definite step up from it in many ways. Stabilization was better on the Kite with 2 degrees of stabilization versus 1 degree on the Canon, eye cups were much better being adjustable, CA control was superior and ergonomics were better on the Kite. I have also had the Canon 10x32 IS and found it similar to the Canon 14x32 IS. I also like the automatic switch on the Kite which turns the binoculars on when you bring them up to your eyes and turns them off when you bring them back to your chest. It really helps with battery life. Optically I think the Kites are superior to the Canon's also, especially with CA with the Canons showing a lot of CA especially on the edge. I kept the Kites and returned the Canons. Here is my review of the Kite APC 16x42 stabilizer binocular.

"I received the Kite APC 16x42 IS binocular and I really like it. It is probably a better birding binocular than the Fujinon 14x40 TSX and the Fujinon is better for boating and fishing. The Kite at 28 oz. with the batteries in it is way lighter and smaller than the Fujinon which is 46 oz. so for any birding where you are going to be hiking it has a distinct advantage. The Kite is REALLY light for a 42 mm IS binocular when you think about it the Canon 10x42 IS weighs 40 oz! The Kite also has a big aperture advantage over the new Canon 10x32, 12x32 and 14x32's. The Kite with 2 degree of IS is better than the Canon's 1 degree but it didn't seem quite as steady as the Fujinon which has 6 degrees of IS which would be better on a boat in rough seas but you have to remember the Kite is a 16x and the Fujinon is a 14x and 16x is harder to stabilize being a much higher magnification and you really notice the difference with much more detail visible with the Kite. I also like the bigger AFOV of the Kite which is 62 degrees versus the rather small AFOV of 56 degrees for the Fujinon. The optics on both are very similar being very sharp to almost the edge and having very little CA on-axis or on the edge unlike most Canon's which have quite a bit of CA. You rotate the on switch on the Kite which I am not sure I like versus a push button but I believe they designed it that way so you wouldn't accidentally activate it. You only have to turn it on once for an observing session because the IS turns on and off automatically as you bring the binoculars up to your eyes and bring them down against your chest. The Fujinon is built like a tank so it would probably survive better in the harsh environment of a fishing boat being all rubber coated so it won't slip around, whereas, the Kite is built lighter and it is designed more for birding and wildlife viewing. The Kite is well-designed with the battery compartments for two AA batteries on either side of the binocular which is a good idea for balance. One side is for spare batteries. The Kite turns on when you bring it up and shuts off when you put it down which is a great idea and greatly extends your battery life plus you don't have to mess around with a switch all the time. Also, the Kite's IS system activates silently, whereas, the Fujinon makes a fairly loud whirring sound when you press the IS button which would make it almost useless for hunting unless the game you are hunting are deaf! The Kite comes with a nice case and strap and ocular covers but no objective covers which it should have but the objectives are fairly deeply recessed, so they are pretty safe from damage. The eye cups on the Kite are WAY better than any of the Canon's being very comfortable and having three click stops so it is easy to find your perfect eye relief with no black outs. Overall they are both nice IS binoculars but I would have to pick the Kite for Pelagic birding and wildlife observation and the Fujinon for boating and fishing. They are kind of two different animals."

 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Thanks for the video.

I cannot tell from just one video, but the Kite stabilizer does not on first impressions seem better than, say, the Canon 18x50 IS.
My Canon 10x30 Mk2 IS is I think better even allowing for the lower magnification.

Incidentally, the electronics warranty seems to be two years not thirty.
Also I think the 2 degree IS is not that much of an advantage over the 0.7 degrees of the Canon 15x50 IS for birders.
Waterproofing to a high standard is better for the Kite 16x42.

In addition, I don't think the fact that the Canon uses an old IS system means that the Kite is better.
My Canon 18x50 IS is twenty years old and is still spectacular despite the odd artifacts.
Glare control is also superb.

I don't think I will buy the Kite 16x42 although I would like to thoroughly test one.
In my experience all the IS binoculars vary sample to sample.

As to the query about spotting scopes.
I think that at 20x and more tripod mounted spotting scopes are superior to IS binoculars, except for the Zeiss 20x60S, which competes well with a 20x spotting scope.

Regards,
B
"Also I think the 2 degree IS is not that much of an advantage over the 0.7 degrees of the Canon 15x50 IS for birders.Waterproofing to a high standard is better for the Kite 16x42. In addition, I don't think the fact that the Canon uses an old IS system means that the Kite is better. My Canon 18x50 IS is twenty years old and is still spectacular despite the odd artifacts."

When comparing the different Canons including the 18x50 IS with 1 degree of IS using the vari-angle stabilization to the Kite with 2 degree of IS I found a considerable difference in stabilization effectiveness even for birders with the Kite being superior. I definitely found the older vari-angle stabilization used in the older Canon IS binoculars like the 18x50 IS, 12x36 IS II and 10x30 IS to be not near as effective as the newer lens-shift method used in the newer Canons like the 10x32, 12x32 and 14x32 but the Kites IS 2-degree system was superior to even the newer Canon lens-shift stabilization. The most effective IS was the Fujinon 14x40 TSX which has 6 degrees of stabilization but even though it could be used for birding at 46 oz. I feel it is more at home on a boat used in a stationary position because of its weight and size.
 

Thomas_M

Active member
"Now the big question, is the Kite 16x42 a step up from the quite recent Canon 10, 12, 14x32 IS binos? How to figure that out without ordering one?"

I just compared the Canon 14x32 IS to the new Kite 16x42 and I found the Kite a definite step up from it in many ways. Stabilization was better on the Kite with 2 degrees of stabilization versus 1 degree on the Canon, eye cups were much better being adjustable, CA control was superior and ergonomics were better on the Kite. I have also had the Canon 10x32 IS and found it similar to the Canon 14x32 IS. I also like the automatic switch on the Kite which turns the binoculars on when you bring them up to your eyes and turns them off when you bring them back to your chest. It really helps with battery life. Optically I think the Kites are superior to the Canon's also, especially with CA with the Canons showing a lot of CA especially on the edge. I kept the Kites and returned the Canons. Here is my review of the Kite APC 16x42 stabilizer binocular.
Thanks a lot for this detailed information, I am especially surprised that the Kite have only little CA althugh they are not labeled as ED as other Kite. I think I will try the Kite 16x42.

Thomas
 

Thomas_M

Active member
I just compared the Canon 14x32 IS to the new Kite 16x42 and I found the Kite a definite step up from it in many ways. Stabilization was better on the Kite with 2 degrees of stabilization versus 1 degree on the Canon, eye cups were much better being adjustable, CA control was superior and ergonomics were better on the Kite. I have also had the Canon 10x32 IS and found it similar to the Canon 14x32 IS. I also like the automatic switch on the Kite which turns the binoculars on when you bring them up to your eyes and turns them off when you bring them back to your chest. It really helps with battery life. Optically I think the Kites are superior to the Canon's also, especially with CA with the Canons showing a lot of CA especially on the edge. I kept the Kites and returned the Canons. Here is my review of the Kite APC 16x42 stabilizer binocular.
Thanks again for the detailed review, one thing I forgot to ask. Is the exit pupil round? The objectiv is specified as 42 mm, but it looks a bit cut on one side.

Thomas
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top