Review of the KITE OPTICS APC 18x50 ED stabilized binoculars (1 Viewer)

[binomania]

This evening I present to you something new that many fans have been waiting for. These are stabilized binoculars (2°), made in Japan. It is equipped with ED optics, is well waterproofed, provides a fully usable wide-angle field of view (in daytime use) up to the edge and a battery life of more than 30 hours. Prices starting from 1700 euros with 30 years warranty on optics and mechanics and 5 on electronic components. Happy viewing and happy reading.
Full article: Recensione del binocolo stabilizzato KITE OPTICS APC 18X50 ED: Il nuovo punto di riferimento! -
Video on Youtube:

In the next days i will create english subtitles for the video
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni

 

[Canip]

Thank you, Piergiovanni.

Much welcome and appreciated!!!

This is for me one of the best reviews you ever published.

Canip

 

[binomania]

Dear Canip, your words make me very happy because - as you know I try to produce 6 - 8 video reviews in a month and I have a lot of work to do between observing, writing, taking photos, shooting videos and editing. I know you from your experience and it's the best gift you could have given me! Tomorrow if I can I'll also post the subtitles in the video. Thank you

 

[Canip]

Dear Piergiovanni, „thank you for thanking me“ (I never thought I once would write that odd sentence ). You are a busy man indeed, and it‘s great you still put that much effort into reviews such as the one on the Kite. I not only find it well laid out and written, I also concur with basically everything you say (just acquired the 18x50 myself). I have not seen the SIG Sauer stabis, but have been using stabilized binos from Canon (seven models in total), Fujinon, Kenko and Vixen for a while now; I found the Canons „leading the pack“, despite heavy CA in some of their models. The new Kite APCs may perhaps change the dynamics in that market. Thank you for pointing that out.

Canip
(btw, at least one of the three „alphas“ seems to be definitely working on its own stabi, as my trusted optics dealer tells me).

 

[Ignatius]

I have a question regarding these new wonder binos: the 18x50 has an EP of 2.77 mm, the 14x50 of 3.5 mm according to the manufacturer. In fact all stabi binos seems to have small EPs. How do these perform at dawn and dusk? A normal bino would be useless with such small EPs, so does the stabilization make up for that in any way? I read binomania's paragraph on dusk, but when I put a 10 or 12 x56 on a tripod (Gitzo GT5533LS with a Novoflex CB5-TQM head and a Berlebach bino support) I have a rock steady setup.

 

[[email protected]]

I have a question regarding these new wonder binos: the 18x50 has an EP of 2.77 mm, the 14x50 of 3.5 mm according to the manufacturer. In fact all stabi binos seems to have small EPs. How do these perform at dawn and dusk? A normal bino would be useless with such small EPs, so does the stabilization make up for that in any way? I read binomania's paragraph on dusk, but when I put a 10 or 12 x56 on a tripod (Gitzo GT5533LS with a Novoflex CB5-TQM head and a Berlebach bino support) I have a rock steady setup.

The Kite 18x50 or 14x50 won't perform any better than a normal binocular with similar transmission and similar EP at dawn and dusk. Low light performance is determined solely by EP size and transmission as far as apparent brightness. They will show more detail under low light because of their higher magnification, because they have a higher Twilight Factor than say an 8x or 10x binocular.

The Kite will outperform a regular binocular with a similar EP, as far as eye placement comfort though because the IS helps keep the EP cone of light centered over the eye's pupil. The Kite 14x50 or 18x50 are not going to be stellar performers when it comes to dawn and dusk performance with their smaller EP's, although they should be quite satisfactory with the high magnification helping to see detail.

 

[temmie]

I just had the opportunity to use this stabilized binocular when trying to find a tern in between 100ths of terns on a sandspit, all of this from far away from a small rocking boat, I can absolutely recommend these binoculars if only for this purpose. Any other binocular would be vastly inferior. Same probably goes for open landscape birding (estuaries, marshlands, open fields), where the combination of the 14 or 18x power and stabilisation, + the more than adequate image quality, results in far better observations than any alpha (non-stabilised) 10x binocular. The only improvement for such situation would be a scope, but that's not always comfortable, especially during longer walks. But as said, there goes absolutely nothing above a good stabilized binocular when birding from boats or other moving things like piers during strong winds, or some canopy towers.
With all the fuzz about the latest 14x52 Swaro NL, I would rather consider a 14x stabilized bin for that matter, at least when binoculars can't be fixed / stabilized. For situations where the binoculars can be fixed or stabilized (e.g. on a monopod or the like), the Swaro will more than likely still outshine anything.

 

[Hermann]

I just had the opportunity to use this stabilized binocular when trying to find a tern in between 100ths of terns on a sandspit, all of this from far away from a small rocking boat, I can absolutely recommend these binoculars if only for this purpose. Any other binocular would be vastly inferior.

Yep. That the kind of situation where a stabilized binocular kills every muggle binocular, no matter how good it is. I find I can get more detail on a bird with the lowly Canon 10x30 than with any alpha in such conditions. Easily.

BTW, I hope you got the tern ... What was it?

With all the fuzz about the latest 14x52 Swaro NL, I would rather consider a 14x stabilized bin for that matter, at least when binoculars can't be fixed / stabilized. For situations where the binoculars can be fixed or stabilized (e.g. on a monopod or the like), the Swaro will more than likely still outshine anything.

True. And I personally don't understand why Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss don't put some real effort into making decent stabilized binoculars. For real birding or any other pursuit where seeing detail is paramount (rather than just admiring the "beauty of a perfect view" that seems to be in vogue with some posters here) stabilized binoculars are the future. Non-stabilized binoculars are the dinosaurs of the optics world.

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

Yep. That the kind of situation where a stabilized binocular kills every muggle binocular, no matter how good it is. I find I can get more detail on a bird with the lowly Canon 10x30 than with any alpha in such conditions. Easily.

BTW, I hope you got the tern ... What was it?

True. And I personally don't understand why Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss don't put some real effort into making decent stabilized binoculars. For real birding or any other pursuit where seeing detail is paramount (rather than just admiring the "beauty of a perfect view" that seems to be in vogue with some posters here) stabilized binoculars are the future. Non-stabilized binoculars are the dinosaurs of the optics world.

Hermann

You can see more DETAIL with an IS binocular, but the image QUALITY is nowhere near a normal alpha roof or even a mid-level roof, IMO.

I have compared the view of birds through many IS binoculars including the Canon 10x30 IS and even the Canon 10x42 IS-L to say a Swarovski NL 8x32 side by side and the view through the Canon's even though it was steadier did not compare to the overall quality of the view.

The IS binoculars are all lacking in contrast and accuracy of colors, and that to me is what makes observing a bird so remarkable. The plumage of a bird through an IS binocular is just sorely lacking compared to even a mid-level normal roof prism binocular.

I would look at a bird through an alpha roof, and it would just wow me, and then I would switch to the Canon and I couldn't believe I was looking at the same bird, it was a total let down.

There is no way a $500 Canon 10x30 IS can compare to the optics in a $3000 Swarovski NL, nor even approach the image it produces.

Plus, every IS binocular I have used has artifacts and focuses and refocuses to a certain extent, which is just enough to spoil the view and negate the advantages of the IS system.

Even Allbinos didn't score the Canon 10x30 IS II that high at 140.2. If it was ranked with the normal 10x42 binoculars, it would be about 42nd place, along with the Bushnell Elite 10x42. If it wasn't for the IS system, the Canon 10x30 IS II would be a very below average binocular.

The Canon 12x36 IS III isn't much better. It only scored 143.6 which is pretty pitiful even for a normal binocular. It is sorely lacking in contrast.

Canon 10x30 IS II - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Canon 12x36 IS III - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[temmie]

You can see more DETAIL with an IS binocular, but the image QUALITY is nowhere near a normal alpha roof IMO.

All of that is true, but I also found the Kite APC (new model) a step up in image quality compared to the previous model.
I haven't compared to the Canon, but all I can say is the Kite's image quality is good enough not to be of any annoyance when looking through. It isn't Swaro quality but it's not in the way (anymore) like it was in the previous model. Especially the chromatic aberrations are corrected much better in the new model.

So all in all, I reckon this is a very worthy alternative to any 14-15-16x high quality / alpha binocular that is not stabilized, at least for birding on the move in open terrain, sea watching, and birding from e.g. a ship.
If your aim is to watch from a porch or carry a monopod while birding or have any other possibility to stabilize your binocular on e.g. a pole, wall or other + you have the funds and require the best IQ, in that case something like the Swaro 14x52 will probably be your best choice.

 

[temmie]

BTW, I hope you got the tern ... What was it?

I got it! It was a Roseate Tern which has been an incredibly hard bird to see around here in the last decade, so it was quite the challenge!
I don't have shares in companies of stabilized binoculars, but for once I have to say that I couldn't have done it without those stabilized binoculars (and a little help from my friends who managed sea sickness better than me and found the bird).

 

[Ignatius]

Shame rechargeable AAs void the warranty. Otherwise I could be interested in this.

 

[Canip]

stabilized binoculars are the future. Non-stabilized binoculars are the dinosaurs of the optics world.

True.
But I still very often will go for the dinosaurs:
no batteries, no electronics, only optics and mechanics, so far almost always wider field of view (unless someone finally manages to make an IS bino with a really large FOV), I can mount them if I need a stable image (and then the image is even more stable than with IS), otherwise I use them handheld, ergonomics are generally better, etc etc

 

[Binastro]

Stabilised binoculars are the future if they are the same size as a non stabilised binocular.

Stabilised cameras have been the same size as non stabilised cameras for a long time.

Also the fine Minolta 7x23 autofocus binocular is just too big.

Again autofocus cameras are the same size as non autofocus cameras.

I notice that the new Pentax 17 half frame film camera at £499 has I think 8 focus positions, maybe manual?

A good Olympus Pen D3 will probably outperform it for maybe £100, with other Pen half frame cameras cheaper.

I had two out of three sets of 72 prints and negatives stolen by a processor after a Sun newspaper event.
The roll I got back was excellent.
I think the f/1.9 lens rather than the f/1.7.

Regards,
B.

 

[[email protected]]

All of that is true, but I also found the Kite APC (new model) a step up in image quality compared to the previous model.
I haven't compared to the Canon, but all I can say is the Kite's image quality is good enough not to be of any annoyance when looking through. It isn't Swaro quality but it's not in the way (anymore) like it was in the previous model. Especially the chromatic aberrations are corrected much better in the new model.

So all in all, I reckon this is a very worthy alternative to any 14-15-16x high quality / alpha binocular that is not stabilized, at least for birding on the move in open terrain, sea watching, and birding from e.g. a ship.
If your aim is to watch from a porch or carry a monopod while birding or have any other possibility to stabilize your binocular on e.g. a pole, wall or other + you have the funds and require the best IQ, in that case something like the Swaro 14x52 will probably be your best choice.

I would rather hand hold a Swarovski NL 14x42 with the headrest than deal with the artifacts from an IS binocular. A little shaking is better than the constant focusing and refocusing every time you pan to a different object with an IS binocular, and most are below average optically.

The Canon 10x42 IS-L has the best optics of any IS binocular and IMO the Nikon MHG 10x42 is better for less money and the Canon 10x30 IS II and Canon 12x36 IS III are about equal optically to a Bushnell Elite 10x42 which is ranked 42nd by Allbinos in the 10x42's.

The Canon 12x36 IS III is flat as a pancake when it comes to contrast and brightness. They are very subpar optically.

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Canon 10x30 IS II - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Canon 12x36 IS III - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[[email protected]]

Stabilised binoculars are the future if they are the same size as a non stabilised binocular.

Stabilised cameras have been the same size as non stabilised cameras for a long time.

Also the fine Minolta 7x23 autofocus binocular is just too big.

Again autofocus cameras are the same size as non autofocus cameras.

I notice that the new Pentax 17 half frame film camera at £499 has I think 8 focus positions, maybe manual?

A good Olympus Pen D3 will probably outperform it for maybe £100, with other Pen half frame cameras cheaper.

I had two out of three sets of 72 prints and negatives stolen by a processor after a Sun newspaper event.
The roll I got back was excellent.
I think the f/1.9 lens rather than the f/1.7.

Regards,
B.

Stabilized binoculars will never be the future UNTIL they get rid of the artifacts and improve the optics, and I don't see that happening in the near future.

For now, there is a huge gap in optical performance between any stabilized binocular and even a mid-priced binocular like the Nikon MHG 8x42.

 

[temmie]

I would rather hand hold a Swarovski NL 14x42 with the headrest than deal with the artifacts from an IS binocular. A little shaking is better than the constant focusing and refocusing every time you pan to a different object with an IS binocular, and most are below average optically.

As said, there was no way you could hold anything stabilized with a headrest on a small, rocking boat.
The 'little shaking' effectively prevented to see anything at all, let alone ID.

Ofcourse, this is a quite extreme situation and in most, you would be perfectly fine with the headrest.

 

[dalat]

Temmie, how do you imagine would the APC 18x work as a scope replacement in tropical forest birding?

 

[temmie]

Temmie, how do you imagine would the APC 18x work as a scope replacement in tropical forest birding?

I haven't tested it for that, but there are two trains of thought:

1. if you want to have something to check canopy birds / forest edges; In that case, I reckon the APC would work very well, and I could add that, even though I am a kind of 'take a picture with my stabilized R6 + 100-500 and check the back of camera' guy, you can see more details with the APC than, at least, my set-up. I still think you could e.g. check ID better with e.g. a 200-800mm or 600mm PF (Nikon) or similar lenses, compared to a stabilized 14x or 18x binocular. So it's more a matter of if you like a good viewing experience (and not necessarily only for ID), and in that case I think the 18x is a good replacement for a scope.

2. if you want to get other people on a bird in e.g. a high tree; In that case, you want any scope / binocular to be able to mount on a tripod. In that case, I don't think a binocular would work as well, particularly because the inter pupil distance has to be re-set, and this can move the position when on the scope.

So to conclude: yes for your own birding / replacing a scope, no for sharing with other people (unless ofcourse you don't need to give directions and you just share using the binocular, hand-held). Also, and I want to stress this, I don't see any of the 14x - 18x as a replacement for a 7/8/10x bin in forest birding, as the view is still very narrow and it's hard to get moving birds in the viewfinder.

 

[dalat]

Hi, thanks for your thoughts! Makes sense!

I'm just wondering about the use case of an 18x IS bin, apart from the rather specific use on a boat.

• I was thinking it might replace scopes, when distances are not too high and very high mags are not really needed, such as forest birding. Advantage would be obviously that no tripod is needed. You mention the disadvantage, that it cannot be used to show others birds in a fixed scope.
• You mention use in open country. Do you think it could then replace a low powered wide angled bin? Or rather the scope?