why not stabilized spotting scopes? (1 Viewer)

[Bob Beck]

Why not a stabilized spotting scope?

I may have missed something obvious, but why is nobody producing a stabilized spotting scope?

 

[Leicaman]

I may have missed something obvious, but why is nobody producing a stabilized spotting scope?

Probabaly because the magnifications involved in spotting scopes are rather large, compared with binoculars, requiring much more correction. Also tripods are cheaper.

 

[Tannin]

I'm not sure that it would make any practical difference, Bob. Honestly, I struggle to see much difference between using my image stabilised lenses with the IS on or off (though it shows up in pictures, of course) and the extra cost and weight seems very hard to justify when you always use a tripod with a scope anyway. IS comes into its own when you are hand-holding, and that isn't something you can do with a spotting scope.

 

[s.g.]

Good Point !

S. G.

 

[Bob Beck]

again, why no stabilized scopes?

Considering that most camera long lenses are stabilized, and are cheap, it would seem to me that a stabilized scope would work. Even with a good sturdy tripod, I find considerable movement at great distances. I repeat my question, why no stabilized scopes?

 

[AlanFrench]

Considering that most camera long lenses are stabilized, and are cheap, it would seem to me that a stabilized scope would work. Even with a good sturdy tripod, I find considerable movement at great distances. I repeat my question, why no stabilized scopes?

The longest IS lens Canon makes is the 600mm. It can be used with a 2x converter to get a 1200mm focal length. That is still only the equivalent of 24x - a bit more than the Canon 18x50 IS binoculars, and, I suspect, at the low end of what most birders use with spotting scopes.

Perhaps a stabilized spotting scope would work at lower powers, but I suspect higher powers would be difficult.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[hollis_f]

No matter what the magnification, IS should help improve the stability of the image - even if it doesn't result in a rock-solid view.

My guess is that the potential manufacturers don't believe that people would pay the extra money for IS. Probably because almost all scopes are used with a tripod (or similar support) customers wouldn't see the need for it.

 

[Tannin]

Considering that most camera long lenses are stabilized, and are cheap ....

In my dreams .... :eat:

Rough, off the top of my head prices in $AU

Canon 100-400 (stabilised) $2700
Canon 400 f/5.6 (NOT stabilised) $2300
Canon 500 f/4 (stabilised) $12000
Canon 600 f/4 (stabilised) $16000
Swarovski ATS80HD (not stabilised) $3000

Nikon lenses cost even more than Canon ones do. Pentax, ditto. And the vast majority of Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lenses do not have IS.

In other words, the best scope you can buy costs just a fracton more than the cheapest stabilised long lens. (Some might argue that Leica or Zeiss make the best scope. This is immaterial, as their top-line prodcts cost around the same as Swarovski's. Possibly even more in the case of the Zeiss.)

Back to the main topic. If you are getting too much movement in your scope, then it sounds very much like one of two things: either tripod/head problems, or else too much zoom. My ATS80HD bounces around (on a good head - a Manfrotto 501) at 60X, but is just fine at a more sensible 20X. I can imagine IS being useful at 40X and higher, but I can't really imagine using such high powers for more than few moments at a time. 60X is great to nail a tricky ID of a distant wader, but the image quality (even with the ATS80) isn't good enough to make me want to use it for regular viewing.

Of course, we are all different, and I can see that some people might want to use 60X regularly and for long enough periods of time to justify the expense of adding IS to a scope. It would cost, at a guess, around US$500 extra, maybe more. Worth it? Not to me, certainly (though I may well have gone that way back when I was digiscoping), but perhaps it is to you.

I guess the real question is how many birders would be willing to pay the premium, and is that number large enough to make it a viable proposition for a scope manufacturer?

One final thought: the companies that make the top scopes and the companies that are big into image stabilisation are not the same companies. Canon are the kings of IS: do they even make scopes at all? A Swarovski or a Zeiss would have to buy or develop the technology, and I doubt they have the spare cash lying around. Nikon might be the best chance - they do VR (Nikon trade name for their IS) lenses for cameras, and pretty good scopes by all reports, so maybe they could do it - but then Nikon have been dragging their feet on getting VR into their camera lenses and are way behind Canon on that front, so I imagine that a Fieldscope VR would be a fairly low priority for them - they need to attend to their camera lens range first.

 

[AlanFrench]

No matter what the magnification, IS should help improve the stability of the image - even if it doesn't result in a rock-solid view.

My guess is that the potential manufacturers don't believe that people would pay the extra money for IS. Probably because almost all scopes are used with a tripod (or similar support) customers wouldn't see the need for it.

Given the difficulty I have hand holding a spotting scope steady at 60x - I'd need a lot of help!

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Mickymouse]

I reckon a scope with IS would be good because you could then build tripods that where much lighter, and concentrate on convenience rather than rigidity.

Mick

 

[Pinewood]

There is good reason to believe that current, convenient IS technologies cannot work well above 20 power. On the following web site:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...3593/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
Kimmo Absetz explains the limits of IS technologies.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[RAH]

I think Tannin's point is excellent- a stabilized spotting scope would be VERY expensive. Look how expensive those Canon IS binoculars are, compared to regular ones, and that's fairly low power. Considering that no other manufacturer (at least that I know of) even makes IS binocs, they can't be very popular. And IS is much less necessary with a spotting scope, considering the tripod is already used. In other words, there are probably few folks who would be willing to pay such a large premium for such a mild improvement.

 

[medinabrit]

I Think the reason IS binoculars are not yet popular is because few have tried them .Once you try them most people are hooked .They are better & easier to use for most people .
Brian.

 

[Otto McDiesel]

I may have missed something obvious, but why is nobody producing a stabilized spotting scope?

Of course there are stabilized spotting scopes. My stabilization system weighs about 4 or 5 kg and is called Gitzo.

 

[henry link]

Kimmo Absetz has done by far the best writing on the subject of IS binoculars, including excellent descriptions of the the optical artifacts that result. Anybody interested in this technology should read his posts on the Canon binocular forum here and his review of the Canon 15x50 at www.alula.fi.

I'm definitely a novice when it comes to this subject, but I can see there is a fundamental problem with IS which cannot be fully resolved with any current technology. All IS technology involves dynamically de-collimating the optical system to maintain image stabillity. You have a choice between a well collimated optical train with an object bouncing around in the field or a stable centered object and an optical train that is being continually decentered by whatever amount and in whatever direction is required to keep that object centered. The few times I've looked through IS binoculars I've always seen an obvious drop in image quality when the IS is engaged. In the case of low power hand held binoculars the drop in image quality is easily counteracted by the increase in visible detail that comes from the more stable image, but I think a high magnification telescope would be another story. Miscollimated optics look much worse at 60X than at 15X. It might be quite unpleasant to watch the action of the IS at such a high magnification. The image quality would be continually shifting between good and bad much more obviously than it does in IS binoculars below 20x.

 

[Bob Beck]

Leica possibilities?

Kimmo Absetz has done by far the best writing on the subject of IS binoculars, including excellent descriptions of the the optical artifacts that result. Anybody interested in this technology should read his posts on the Canon binocular forum here and his review of the Canon 15x50 at www.alula.fi.

I'm definitely a novice when it comes to this subject, but I can see there is a fundamental problem with IS which cannot be fully resolved with any current technology. All IS technology involves dynamically de-collimating the optical system to maintain image stabillity. You have a choice between a well collimated optical train with an object bouncing around in the field or a stable centered object and an optical train that is being continually decentered by whatever amount and in whatever direction is required to keep that object centered. The few times I've looked through IS binoculars I've always seen an obvious drop in image quality when the IS is engaged. In the case of low power hand held binoculars the drop in image quality is easily counteracted by the increase in visible detail that comes from the more stable image, but I think a high magnification telescope would be another story. Miscollimated optics look much worse at 60X than at 15X. It might be quite unpleasant to watch the action of the IS at such a high magnification. The image quality would be continually shifting between good and bad much more obviously than it does in IS binoculars below 20x.

A highly placed individual at Leica Camera recently told me "no stabilized binos or SC in the next 6 months from Leica". Does that mean we can expect Leica's first attempt sometime after 6 months?

 

[ksbird/foxranch]

I'm surprised that this issue seems to be so one-sided in this discussion. I use Gitzo and Bogen tripods and heads that are all mostly brand new. There are very windy days when the constant gusting makes using a spotting scope very difficult because you can't see an image through it. In addition the soil here in Kansas can be clay with a 3-4 inch covering of matted grass that is as soft as a very plush carpet. Pinpoint feet don't help in this case when there has been recent rain. If a truck drives by 1/2 mile away or someone is walking 50 feet away the hydrostatic transmission of the footfall pressure wave through the wet clay/soil (which is a combo spongy grass and jello-like clay) is obvious viewing through a spotting scope even with no wind at all. I don't think I've ever been viewing at a large body of water when the wind was perfectly still and there always seems to be a small wiggle in the view.

I sold tripods for 8 years in the photo business. Even the largest Majestic triple supported tripods and heads have some wiggle in the wind or on wet clay surfaces. Photographers get around this by using shutter speeds of 1/1000th second and faster. But our eyes don't function that quickly. Digital cameras are even less likely to work well at such high shutter speeds when digiscoping. And the spotting scope with a digital camera and adapter attached is even more prone to have the low period wavy kinds of movement that IS systems are best at counteracting.

The arguement that IS systems are heavy is pretty moot also. ALL spotting scopes are used on tripods except for the rare units that can be used at low power with a shoulder brace/bracket. So the weight of the system when it is in use isn't consequential. The scope is already much larger than binoculars and if the vibration-counteracting lens system was made larger because it would fit easily inside a spotting scope housing then it would be equally as effective. The correcting lenses in the Canon system are small. The cost factor isn't a real problem either. If a $2000 spotting scope cost $2750 but it was useful in wind gusts up to 25mph, it would be worth it.

This doesn't consider the problems in blinds/hides that have floors. The wetlands (like the Missouri River marshes 3 miles from our ranch), can only have blinds/hides with floors of some sort, either raised concrete floors that stay slightly above seasonal water, or board floors with gaps for drainage and mounted on small posts 3-6 inches above the ground. When 2 or 3 people are in one of these structures it's relatively easy for our hands/arms to correct for the vibrations caused by the multiple bodies' movements if the user is using binoculars. But I've seen many birders give up when trying to use a spotting scope because the vibrations through the tripod keep moving the view in a wiggly fashion. Even a single birder in a blind/hide can vibrate the ground or the floor enough to shake their own tripod and scope.

An IS system could help any and/or all of these problems. The view through a Canon IS binocular when the vibrations are slight, is the best situation. Turning a binocular's IS system on and off when the amount of correction is small show's what an IS system is really all about. I used to take potential customers out into the street and ask them to read signs (street signs and retailer signs) from a city block or two away, both with the IS system turned on and off. Even on days with dead still wind and no vehicle traffic shaking the ground, the ability to see something clearly as far away as 2 city blocks made many sales.

Everyone in this discussion seems to be saying that the reason to own an IS system is to correct the "large" vibrations, but this isn't the case. It's more important to have an IS system when the tiny vibrations are just enough to prevent you from seeing something very small (ie. details far away) clearly. I even demonstrated Canon IS binoculars on tripods to show how much improvement could be had on windy days or when footfalls or vehicle traffic shook the ground. Even on a concrete platform with a Gitzo tripod carrying 20 pounds of extra ballast weight, the IS worked better than when it was turned off because if you use a tripod you can't damp out the wiggles caused by ground transmitted vibration.

An IS system would be a GREAT idea in a spotting scope or even a gyro system like the Hubble telescope has, built into a tripod head. The real problem is trying to get around all the Canon, Sony and Nikon patents. We all know the story about why the Nikon bayonet mount turns the opposite of everyone else. It was because they didn't want to have to license a patent or have a court battle by making their bayonet turn the same way as Exacta. Canon and Sony have an edge now. Nikon has used up the "opposites" to a great degree. You can make a fine (but huge) spotting scope with a Nikon or Canon long IS photographic lens and a view lens magnifier (these magnify the view through the camera eyepiece 2x-8x). This can give views of up to 80x with remarkable brightness (considering the diameter of the objective lens), and you can take great digiphotos with it too, albeit at a cost of more than US$10,000. So even if you hold the patents on a bunch of IS system components it's still super-expensive to make one of these systems. But there is now an astronomical mirror "correcting/stabilising? system available, and so ingenuity will out. Eventually some enterprising company will find a way to make stabilization work at a reasonable price and then all spotting scopes without an IS system or at least a SteadyCam Gyrobalanced head will be obselete.

A few independent filmaker friends have already mounted their spotting scopes on Sony SteadyCam stabilizing belt-packs and they work great up to 80x. My Sony Mavica with SteadyCam works fine up to 30x HandHeld, and up to 50x on a tripod. And this is for photo purposes, which are much more critical than eye viewing. But between Sony, Canon and Nikon, all of whom have been working on steady-systems for years, allot of the design componentry is "patented-up". Some of the other players are a bit late in the game. Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica were a bit slow on the uptake of the value of a "steady" product. But don't despair. The Germans/Austrians will be able to buy the technology they need from Philps NV who have been pursuing this type of technology for television broadcasting for many years. But for us now, just go buy a Sony Steadycam belt support if you want to walk around and use your spotter at 80x with a clear view.

Kimmo Absetz has done by far the best writing on the subject of IS binoculars, including excellent descriptions of the the optical artifacts that result. Anybody interested in this technology should read his posts on the Canon binocular forum here and his review of the Canon 15x50 at www.alula.fi.

I'm definitely a novice when it comes to this subject, but I can see there is a fundamental problem with IS which cannot be fully resolved with any current technology. All IS technology involves dynamically de-collimating the optical system to maintain image stabillity. You have a choice between a well collimated optical train with an object bouncing around in the field or a stable centered object and an optical train that is being continually decentered by whatever amount and in whatever direction is required to keep that object centered. The few times I've looked through IS binoculars I've always seen an obvious drop in image quality when the IS is engaged. In the case of low power hand held binoculars the drop in image quality is easily counteracted by the increase in visible detail that comes from the more stable image, but I think a high magnification telescope would be another story. Miscollimated optics look much worse at 60X than at 15X. It might be quite unpleasant to watch the action of the IS at such a high magnification. The image quality would be continually shifting between good and bad much more obviously than it does in IS binoculars below 20x.