Absolutely right.All optics incorporate one or more compromises, which become more numerous and more severe as we move downward in price.
When you shop in a certain price range, you must accept the compromises consistent with that tier.
All else is haggling over marginal differences within a tier, and claims that the next tier up isn’t really “worth” the difference in price.
Lee,Absolutely right.
Lee
Aurora is Opticron's most expensive model at around £770 (if I remember correctly) but I have a big fondness for its £350 cousin, the Opticron Traveller 32 and use it a lot.Lee,
This is one thing that intrigues me.
Ignoring IS 😉 which is an apple/ orange debate.
I think I saw some reviews on an Optician Aurora from yourself. Cost wise it is about a 3rd of the price of the most costly glass.
Are there significant drops in resolution and seeing, etc?
Cheers Lee.I suggest that you have think about what is 'significant' for you personally
The Auroras are great binos so don't dismiss them without trying them, but for some reason the Travellers really clicked with me and I am very fond of them.Cheers Lee.
As already evident, I am mostly going down the IS route, but that won't preclude me considering non-IS bins that standout from the crowd. I got the impression that the Aurora fell into that category, hence my enquiry.
I have Opticron 15x70, SR.GA and Savanna porros, but no roofs. I'll put Travellers on the 'consider' list.
This is an understandable point of view... until you assume that any other must be mere prejudice. One can also ask "best in what respect", complain about image quality and FOV, glitches in IS especially the time taken to begin stabilizing, fragility, ergonomics, and so on. If there were a 15x binocular with IS as good as our Nikon lenses and a view as good as my SLC 56, with just a bit more bulk and a battery, I'd certainly consider it... but that instrument does not exist, and is not about to be announced anytime soon. Development lags in stabilization as well as the optics. They're mainly produced by a single manufacturer (that doesn't normally sell bins at all) as some sort of incidental niche product for whom exactly they're not even sure, as the curious plethora of models indicates.So optically, it would seem there is no contest ...... a 10x42L blows away everything else ..... every time, full stop.
I generally concur.IS has been the (small young) elephant in the room of the "alpha" debate for some time now, so it's good to acknowledge. It's useful enough to a very small minority to choose even now, but has a surprisingly long way to go.
IS binoculars don't have the same level of optics as high grade or alpha binoculars in general, and the only one that is close is the Canon 10x42 IS-L, and it is heavy and has poor ergonomics, and it still has artifacts when it stabilizes the image. When they get rid of the artifacts in IS binoculars, I will try them again. IS binoculars are not for the optics nuts that enjoy the WOW that a regular alpha binocular gives you. You can see more detail with IS, but the optics are not at the same level as a regular alpha or even high grade binocular. If you like the colorful, contrast view with the "pop" that an alpha binocular gives you, IS are not for you. If you just want to see detail, then IS might be for you.This is an understandable point of view... until you assume that any other must be mere prejudice. One can also ask "best in what respect", complain about image quality and FOV, glitches in IS especially the time taken to begin stabilizing, fragility, ergonomics, and so on. If there were a 15x binocular with IS as good as our Nikon lenses and a view as good as my SLC 56, with just a bit more bulk and a battery, I'd certainly consider it... but that instrument does not exist, and is not about to be announced anytime soon. Development lags in stabilization as well as the optics. They're mainly produced by a single manufacturer (that doesn't normally sell bins at all) as some sort of incidental niche product for whom exactly they're not even sure, as the curious plethora of models indicates.
IS has been the (small young) elephant in the room of the "alpha" debate for some time now, so it's good to acknowledge. It's useful enough to a very small minority to choose even now, but still has a surprisingly long way to go.
If you add a set of German Lightweight Wheels to the Pinarello it can go even much higher with the set of wheels alone USD$10,000.00 +If I thought that Alphas were "phenomenal and breathtaking", then I would buy. Fortunately, I don't need to do budgets, but I need to be convinced that they are truly worth it.
I have quite a few hobbies and find them similar.....e.g. I refuse to buy a Pinarello at £12000. It is undoubtedly very good, but I do not believe it is a massive improvement over my £3000ish kit. In fact, I enjoy observing the Pino boys on their brilliant kit, going backwards.....😁.
A wicked emotion perhaps 😉👍
I would suggest that Canon used their skills and did a QFD (engineering tool) during design. They probably identified that the shake coming from handholding bins was a big shortcoming, when trying to get an image to the brain. They counteracted this with IS.
I believe that NLs have a headrest ..... That is another attempt to gain a better image, to counteract human 'shortcomings'. However, the Canon solution is much more effective and arguably, renders all non-IS bins as 'Betas' in comparison.
Wrong suggestion! Should have said "spend a bit more on the bike and open a bottle of Chablis"My mate has one of those mega bucks type of bike.
I suggested he lost a bit of weight himself, instead of spending thousands on the bike.
If people are gonna post up such pictures.... they are going to get a response.First watches in another thread, now bicycles...
Chablis will be drunk...........Songs will be sung …….. Tales will be told …….. Dead horses will be beaten ……
True for people ready to carry a tripod. And also having a "where".Interesting thread and good discussions, until unfortunately from page 16, with these battles about IS or not IS !.... and all in all the more stupid because it is completely forgotten a simple tool : the tripod, or the monopod.
No, you can't see more details with IS, but with Alpha + tripod !!