# Anyone with Image Stabilized binoculars?



## avusblue (Jul 9, 2004)

Guys, I have been kicking around the idea of acquiring some high quality binoculars. I really like the Leica 10x42 BA or BN Trinovid series. Then for similar (or less) money, I started researching the merits of the newer Image Stabilized binocs from Nikon ("Stabileyes" series) and Canon. Seems like having the extra magnification power, that is made usable by electronically stabilizing the image, would be a winner. 

Do they really work? Are the optics as good as the high end German binocs? Any pitfalls to watch out for? Reasons to prefer one brand over the other? OR, should I just be sticking to the tried and true. 

Thanks in advance for any advice from the experienced.

Cheers,

Dave


----------



## matt_j (Jul 9, 2004)

I used to sell Canon IS stuff next to leica binos. To answer your first question: yes they really do work. They are heavier and bulkier a bit but they do work. I still personally prefer Leica because I belive that they are brighter and not power dependent. Also I like the traditional feel. 

Matt


----------



## hypernova (Jul 9, 2004)

I have tried most of the Image Stabized binoculars on the market. These include the offerings from Canon, Nikon and Fujinon. I have not tried the model from Zeiss. I found that the Canon's are the best for my needs. 

I currently own the Canon 15x50 IS and the 10x30 IS (My EDC binoculars!) along with a dozen other non-IS binoculars. I will be adding the revised Canon 12x36 IS II to my collection in the near future. Since the 12x36 IS II is now almost the same weight as the 10x30 IS, along with other improvements, it will be my new EDC binocular. 

I use most of my binoculars for astronomy. (I recommend an inexpensive pair of binoculars as the perfect telescope for someone newly interested in learning about astronomy.) My 20x80's and 25x100's are mounted on a heavy duty parallelogram mount as they are too heavy and powerful to hold by hand. They are heavy and a fair amount of work to set up. Considering this, I find that the Canon 15x50 IS are the binoculars that I grab most often to get a quick fix of ancient photons. 

Most binoculars present a softening of focus near the outer +/- 25% edge of the field of view, the Canon IS optics are razor sharp to about 5% from edge. The Canon IS give the impression that you are floating in star fields. 

One of my favorite uses for Image Stabilized binoculars is at air shows. You won't believe the detail you can see on and around fast moving objects with IS.

There are many fine binoculars available. There are endless threads on the web (some quite heated!) that you can follow about optical quality, color correction, definition, porro prism vs. roof prism, etc. There are favorite binoculars for birding, astronomy, etc. I could go on and on. You have to determine your needs and your budget and go from there.


Allan


----------



## paulr (Jul 9, 2004)

www.betterviewdesired.com is an excellent site about binoculars, though mostly oriented towards using them for birdwatching.


----------



## mahoney (Jul 9, 2004)

My parents have a pair, about 10 years old and I'm not sure of the brand (Canon?). The image stabilization does work really well. The image bounces around as you'd expect in a high power binoc, until you push the button and then it locks in, rock steady. It even stays steady when you are panning around. They are a bit heavy but not much bigger than a pair of full size 7X50 binocs. I really enjoy using them whenever we travel together and I might buy a pair if I needed binocs more than once a year. My plain old pair of 7X50s is usually quite sufficient.


----------



## tvodrd (Jul 11, 2004)

I have the older version of the Canon 12x36IS and love it. Darn you hypernova for informing me of the new "downsized" version. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif And welcome to the forums! For me, they relieve eye strain immensly compared to non-stabilized binocs.

Larry


----------



## Josey (Jul 11, 2004)

I, too, love my Canon 15X50 IS. They are big and heavy, but once you hit that button, the image seems to get bigger.

The lens is very good, but the focusing is touchy. You have to focus just exactly to get a perfect image.

Josey


----------



## avusblue (Jul 12, 2004)

Thanks for the comments guys . . . keep 'em coming! I went and looked at several models over the weekend. The Nikon 14x40 Stabileyes . . . Wow! Gorgeous and effective. I like the styling and form factor better than the comparable Canon 15x50, and the image quality seemed pretty equal to me. I also tried the 8 and 10 power Canon and Nikon I.S. pieces, which were also nice. But personally, I think if I choose I.S., I'd go for the gusto of a higher power magnification. 

I also compared these with the tried and true "conventional" Leica 10x42. The Leica still has the I.S. binocs beat for brightness and sharpness, and its ergonomics and build quality are absolutely beautiful. They really are special to behold.

Conclusions? I really am leaning towards I.S., but concede that they are really heavy / bulky for my taste. I'm going to sleep on it for now.

Any other comments and feedback are welcome!

Cheers,

Dave


----------



## Josey (Jul 12, 2004)

I love Nikon lenses, but between a 14X40 and a 15X50, I'd always take the latter because they are so much brighter for low-light situations.

If I know that I'm going to need binoculars, I always take my Cannon 15X50 IS. I see way more than people with regular nocs. If I may need binoculars and am going to be walking, I take my Nikon 10X25 Mountaineers because they are so light and comfortable to carry. I hate to say "buy both," but that's what I would recommend.

In any case, I can mostly overcome the discomfort of carrying binoculars by slingling the strap over one shoulder and let the nocs ride near my opposite back hip. That way they don't bounce or put a burden on my neck.

Josey


----------



## TOB9595 (Jul 12, 2004)

I've heard raves about the IS.
What is batt life in your normal experiences. If any of us have normal !!!
And what are the cost ranges?
Tom


----------



## Lara (Jul 13, 2004)

I've had a Canon 10x30 IS for quite some time now and I really like it. I cannot compare the quality of the optics, I've only used a cheap noname besides the Canon, but I think the Canon's optics are okay.


----------



## hypernova (Jul 14, 2004)

The following are binocular and telescope review sites: 

http://www.weatherman.com/binocs.htm 

http://www.cloudynights.com/breviews/binorev.htm 

Cloudy Nights is the closest to being the CPF of binoculars and telescopes. Visit the forums at the link below: 

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat= 

I hope these help.

Allan


----------



## avusblue (Jul 14, 2004)

Allright, I looked again at the Nikon and Canon IS binocs and tried them extensively, back to back, indoors and out. The Canon's seemed a bit brighter (as they should be at 15x50 vs. 14x40), sharper, they are more compact although perhaps a bit less robust, and thanks to more heavy discounting, they cost about $200 less. The Canons are more highly regarded in the various enthusiast sites as well (both the birders and the astroheads love 'em). 

So I figure, in the past month I sold my VIP, a McLux, several Arc LS's, and various other flotsam and jetsam. Therefore, I already raised the proceeds to purchase these: 







Order placed at Amazon . . . . a $100 mail in Canon rebate and a free $50 Amazon gift card certainly soften the sting -- enough so that I justified overnight shipping! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Many thanks to all those who chimed in with advice! Will let ya know how they turn out . . . I'm really looking forward to them! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Cheers,

Dave


----------



## avusblue (Jul 16, 2004)

They came today. Initial reaction after the first 10 minutes -- they're TERRIFIC!! They are a joy to behold and use.

Another pleasant surprise. The binocs came with two years of extended warranty from Canon free -- three years in total. I wasn't expecting that, but it was in the box when it arrived. Cheers to them!

I've got the $100 rebate paperwork already mailed.

Looking forward to lots of fun with these binculars.

Dave


----------



## avusblue (Jul 27, 2004)

I've had these binocs (Canon 15x50 IS) for two weeks now and am regretting my purchase . . . . regretting that I didn't buy them years ago, that is!

So far I have put them to work for aircraft spotting, watching hawks soar high overhead, looking at the moon, and general observation of distant terrain. These are by far the best optical instrument I've ever had the pleasure to use. The Image Stabilizer feature is truly outstanding. It allows you to really reach in on astounding views, and enjoy them with rock solid stability. 

For example, to focus in on a Boeing 747 that is still 5 miles out on final appoach, and clearly watch it extend its landing gear in all its glory of doors opening, wheels articulating, and doors closing . . . then enjoy watching it float through the air until WHOOOOOOSH it's upon you, is awe-inspiring! And fun!

Thanks to all who chimed in with their thoughts previously. I'm thrilled with these.

Cheers to Canon for a job well done!

Dave


----------



## FlyUSArmy (Jul 28, 2004)

Well I see you have already made your purchase now, but for others who might be interested...

I have the Nikon 14x40 Stabileyes. They were expensive, but they are fantastic. I bought them just prior to my deployment to Iraq and haven't needed them as much as I thought I might but they were 'insurance' that I'm happy I bought.

Prior to buying the Nikon's I had briefly tried out a friend's Canon stabilized binos and was impressed.

For my purposes, the advantages the Nikon's have is that they stabilize up to 5 degrees of motion. I don't remember the spec on the Canon's but it was a lot less, perhaps 2 degrees. This doesn't matter if you are stationary when you use them, but from a moving vehicle the Nikon's have a huge advantage - its too much movement for the Canon's to stabilize but the Nikon's still can.

The 2nd and clinching advantage the Nikon's had for me is that they are waterproof, where the Canon's are water resistant. For my application that equates to dustproof.


----------



## avusblue (Jul 29, 2004)

FWIW, the Nikon / Fujinon 14x40 (they are exactly the same, just with different brand badges) are very nice. They have more of a "Star Wars" look and feel to them, very cool. 






And the IS indeed works well. To me, the image seemed a bit "creamier" and more nautical intended (does that make sense?). Personally, the $350 price difference, and slightly less magnification and objective size (14x40 vs. 15x50) tipped my decision to Canon. But the Nikon / Fujinon's are certainly worthy!

Cheers,

Dave


----------



## Cones (Aug 14, 2004)

Hi,

I have just bought some Canon 18x50 IS Binoculars. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Very pleased with them so far. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif

I have posted a review on my website with pics.

See here http://www.cones.free-online.co.uk/

Look under 'Optics'

Thanks

Mark


----------

