Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Canon Image Stabilised Binoculars – Honest Appraisals Please


Recommended Posts

I have found myself getting back to binocular astronomy, having started out with them over a quarter of century ago, but after winning a pair of 15x70s over a year ago, I have realised my passion for binoculars are slightly lower powers with wider fields.  The big bugbear for me about the 15x is to get the most out of them they really need to be mounted which in my opinion completely negates the primary benefit of being truly grab and go.  If I am going to use a tripod and mount, I might as well use my Tak-60 and have access to magnifications of 10x to over 100.

However, having used powers of 8-10x I know that while natural body movements are less noticeable, I am always left feeling that when handheld, the binoculars are still not showing me everything that they are capable of.  This line of thinking is leading me down the path of image stabilisation.  I vaguely recall reading a review in the late 90s in Sky and Telescope where they raved about the Canon IS binoculars and the ability to have tripod like views without the tripod.  My experience with IS so far was a quick 30 second look through a pair of 15x50 and I was rather impressed.

The 10x42L IS binoculars are the model which is seems to fit my requirements of wide fields (6.5 degrees) and there may be some logic to assume that 10x would put less strain on the stabilisation system.  In addition, the L designation should hopefully ensure that the optical quality would be up there with the best bino brands like Swarovski and Zeiss.  If anyone has done a comparison of the 10x42L vs other similar spec binoculars such as the Swarovski Swarovision 10x42s, how did they compare, especially when handheld?

I do have a couple of concerns.  The biggest being repair costs should the electronics fail.  Has anyone experienced a failure and what was the cost to repair (any model in the Canon IS line)?  Does anyone have a sense of the generally failure rate?  Perhaps you have been using them for a decade or more without issue.  If so, please say so.

I have read, and it is quite possibly an urban legend, that the binoculars should be stored horizontally.  Anyone heard such things and any justification for it?

I would also love to hear what the SGL community in general thinks of their Image Stabilised binoculars (any model)?

Thanks and clear skies,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Matthew

I've had my 18x50IS bins for some time. I can't remember when I bought them but it is well over your suggested decade. They have never gone wrong although I did begin to suspect that maybe things were not as sharp as they used to be and perhaps I should get then serviced, cleaned etc. However, I made some enquiries and couldn't find anyone in the UK willing to do it. It seem that they have to go back to Japan, and that sounded expensive. I suspect it may just be my eyes - I find it impossible to wear my glasses with them and they do seem better with contact lenses.

I went for the higher magnification and IS is essential then and works well. I don't think that it entirely replaces the use of a tripod (or monopod) and I have thought of using them with one or the other. The main reason is their weight - for a start they contain two AA batteries so for prolonged observing they are a bit weighty. But it is great to see the IS click in and the image settle down to a non-shaky  view although with longer viewing there is still some slower motion - a sort of swimming effect which you get used to.

I suppose that their main plus point is that they are the ultimate grab-and-go equipment. I often use them for a quick comet hunt (Lovejoy Q2 was a good example) or looking for planets in the twilight - the crescent Venus always looks superb and really benefits from the IS.

Larger objects such as the Double Cluster and Andromeda Galaxy are also good.

They are very good for taking on holiday  - I took them on  my recent USA trip when I didn't want the extra baggage of scope, tripod and eyepieces. When away they also get a lot of use for terrestrial viewing; birdwatching etc where the extra magnification is really good.

So, despite having a few scopes, I still get a lot of use out of the Canons and think I've had my money's worth over the years. They are no substitute for a scope but as an additional item I would thoroughly recommend  them.

BTW I always store mine vertically! I have never compared the optics with other brands 

Go on - you know you're going to get some!

Kerry 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the comment about higher powers but at the time that bought them I had pair of lower power binoculars and thought that I would like to try the 18x with the benefit of IS. I agree with the comments in the review - there are benefits and drawbacks - it can be difficult to orientate where you are sometimes and they obviously test the IS a bit more. I don't regret the choice and, as I said above, I've had a lot of fun with them. In the end, of course, it's down to personal preference and that depends on what you intend to do with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 15X50s and I love them. I've never had a problem with mine but I've read that if they go wrong the cost of repair is high. I've only had mine for a year but I bought them second hand. I've no idea about horizontal storage. I store mine vertically without any apparent ill effects.

They take some getting used to. You need to hold them fairly steady to get a sharp image. This take practise because you don't get the usual visual feedback as you move about. When you get the knack the views are amazing. I've had more moon viewing pleasure with the IS than with any other bins of scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew, I've had my 15x50is for probably 6 or 7 years with no problems. Never heard of the storing horizontally recommendation, mine are always vertical in their case.

To me, they very successfully remove the high frequency movement such as your heartbeat or hand shaking, this just leaves a low frequency swimming effect as described by Kerry which still allows you to see the target clearly.

Leaning on something does remove this swimming effect too if it bothers you.

Optically I would say they are pretty good, but not the best. I'm sure the 10x42Ls would be excellent; I've often lusted after a pair! I would say that the stabilization on mine works very well, but there is a tiny but noticeable blurring which occurs when it is on, I guess just a function of the prism movement keeping up with the binocular shakes. To me, mine are slightly sharper with the IS off (whilst tripod mounted), than when on. For instance they will split Mizar slightly easier with the IS off.

Don't get me wrong, I still think they are great, and like you if I'm getting a tripod out I feel I would rather use a scope, so these get plenty of use for those times when I don't have a scope available. They are also great for terrestrial use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could only compare them to a pair of bargain bucket Liddls or a Celestron 15x70 - and I don't think you're looking for that. But everyone who've had a look through my 10x42L IS's has been wow'ed. They are awesome both by day and by night. If you have the budget then don't hesitate - get 'em - you won't be disappointed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew,

Some generalised observations of IS binoculars.


I would also love to hear what the SGL community in general thinks of their Image Stabilised binoculars (any model)?

Over the years I have tried several Canon IS binocs, but not the 10x42L, and done no thorough evaluations of any. In all of them, I noticed a slight "sway" of the stabilised image which made me feel slightly nauseous after a while - a bit like wearing varifocals for the first time, so I imagine it is something that I could get used to with a bit of practice, but I haven't felt that they offer enough advantage to warrant the expenditure for the sort of binocular astronomy I enjoy - if I had that sort of money to spend, I'd try to find a good used Tak Astronomer. (I know that's not what you want, but it should give some indication as to my biases in what follows.)

In general, I like the effect of the IS: push the button and more stuff becomes visible. I once did a brief side-by-side of the 10x30 IS and my 10x50 BA8: pretty similar in what I could see in both hand-held but, once the BA8 was monopod-mounted, it showed noticeably more and gave crisper star images. The Canon costs more than a BA8 + monopod & trigger grip.

I've also tried the 15x50 and 18x50 IS. I preferred the 15x, but found both to be heavy and unwieldy. The heaviness obviously doesn't affect image stability, but I found it tiring to hold for more than a few minutes. Others have seemed surprised when I mentioned this, so it may just be a personal thing.

All in all, binocular taste being pretty individual, the best advice is to see if you can play with the 10x42 for a bit and see how you get on with it. It has a pretty good reputation amongst birders (apart from the lens caps & rainguard), but nothng that suggests that it is optically equivalent to a Swaro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like binocular viewing. I have 5 binoviewers and 7 binoculars from the Vixen 2.1x42 to one of 300mm aperture, anything over 80mm I make myself. So why haven't I got an IS version? Pretty much for the same reasons as posted by Binocularsky. I too, found that they didn't match my use requirement. My main binocular use is a quick scan to find a planet in twilight prior to using a telescope or sweeping up a known comet for the same sequence. Although the IS is impressive I would still prefer a mounted hands free binocular for examining a view in detail. The saving, in my opinion, offers the chance of a better binocular. Each to their own, as they say.   :smiley: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if I had that sort of money to spend, I'd try to find a good used Tak Astronomer. (I know that's not what you want, but it should give some indication as to my biases in what follows.)

If I came across a Tak Astronomer binocular I would find myself mighty tempted to reallocate the budget to those rather than the IS bins despite the far higher magnification and the requirement of a mount which goes against my initial brief!

Very much appreciate all the comments and views so far.  If anyone else has opinions, please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matthew. I have the Canon IS 15x50 and I think the comments so far highlight the two key issues with these, i.e. the "swimming effect" and the weight, however I find I can mitigate these to a considerable degree by screwing in a Manfrotto Pixi mini tripod and holding the Canons by the tripod legs (folded in) rather than the binocular itself. This allows you to rest the weight more on your chest or arms of a recliner rather than have your arms bear the full weight of the binoculars.

Additionally, the mini hand-held tripod solution reduces the more severe shakes which cause the swimming effect and allows the IS system to remove the final small micro movments from the view. My personal experience is that with a bit of experiment you can indeed achieve an extremely worthwhile and very stable view.

I find the Canon IS 15x50 IS indispensible for stargazing and nothing beats it for grab and go. I don't think they're as good for daytime use and certainly don't come anywhere near the premium makes such as Swarovski. I only use them for stargazing, which might make the cost questionable to some.

I have no experience of the 10x42 IS however it has a very good reputation among birders.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what the range is now, I tried them when there was 3 I think 10x (maybe 12x), 15x and 18x.

The first 2 were excellent the higher set (18x) did not quite match. They were not by any means bad but the others were very good.

In 2 weeks there is the bird fair at Rutland Water and there will be a huge number of binoculars to try out there, Canons included. Bit of a drive and the entry fee may be a bit much if you only wanted to browse the binoculars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I came across a Tak Astronomer binocular I would find myself mighty tempted to reallocate the budget to those rather than the IS bins despite the far higher magnification and the requirement of a mount which goes against my initial brief!

Very much appreciate all the comments and views so far. If anyone else has opinions, please share.

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=web&id=161786163439&globalID=EBAY-GB

........... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matthew.

My 15x50s are from 2004 (cost £600 back then)

They've always been stored vertically (objectives facing down), rather than flat horizontally all the years i've had them.

Never had an issue with them. They are very reliable. They've always worked flawlessly.

Make sure you buy decent cells that won't leak etc if you leave them unused for a long time.

Recently brought my son his first pair of binocs : Canon 10x30's.

I've often thought about 10x42's. Is it worth me upgrading ??  Undecided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW I'll chuck my tuppence worth in. I recently bought the 15x50s on a trip to the U.S.

They are simply remarkable. Not perfect, but remarkably good. I added a pair of Hoya UV filters to the front, but they added a large degree of 'something' bad, so use without. I find them ludicrously sharp, and the IS is staggeringly good. From a comfy deckchiar the views are wonderful.

Swimming effect - yes, it's there, but it's the IS trying to counteract large magnitude movements I am introducing - solution: stop moving so much

Slight fizzing - yes it is there (but VERY slight) when I introduce too much small magnitude vibration - solution: tuck my elbows in a bit

They are not the complete answer, but they are truly remarkable.

can you tell I love them? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 12x36... I would buy another pair the instant they broke... I keep them in a peli case to stop that happening. Excellent daytime use... Handheld detail like you have a tripod... Though not quite Leica optics, but when you can examine tiny details holding them with one hand.... who needs wobbly perfection!

However they are a bit small for nighttime use... Point star images none the less, just not many stars as bigger bins.

So buy the 12x and spend the money you save from not buying the bigger ones on a scope.

Cheers

PeterW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canon IS binocular system is very tempting. The views are remarkably good and if I wanted some purely birding bins I might well go that way in order to have the crispness at higher magnification, which would be nice on birds.

In astro I don't want high magnification, I want low, because I have telescopes. It then comes down to a shootout between technology and glass. I'm lucky in that our guests do bring the nicest toys with them and I was able to compare Leica and Zeiss glass with Canon technology. At low power the glass won - for me. At 8x, it won fairly easily. By 10x I'd go for the technology, but I don't have super-steady hands at 62.

I suppose I also quite like not having a button to press and batteries to change and maintenance to worry about. Bins are 'natural' for me, so I like the unobtrusive aspect of 8x and minimal technology. In the end I went for a second hand pair of 11 year old Leica 8x42 because they sit with how I feel about observing with bins. Optically they do beat any Canon IS I've ever tried. Smaller stars, cleaner planetary disks. That said, there is something quite amazing about that 'clunk-virtual tripod' thing with the Canons. I could have jumped either way.

As an aside, Zeiss versus Leica was interesting. The Zeiss were sharper and more contrasty than the Leicas to my eyes but the Leicas were more natural. I liked that 'extension of my own eyes' feeling so went for the Leicas when some came up at a 'possible' price. (Clifton Cameras. Never had a bad moment with that firm.)

Another person might greatly prefer the Canons. So be it.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Canon 10x30 IS model. IS works a treat, no feeling of motion sickness for me, although I can see what others mean. Image quality is good but not outstanding. But they are very nice and easy to look through. I'm sure the 10x42L would be even better.

However, for astro work there's a real benefit in using a tripod of some description (to me at least) that you don't get with image stabilisation. I find it's a bit tiresome having to reacquire the field every time I switch between charts and sky when trying to find a faint fuzzy or confirm the location of a comparison star when studying a variable. I don't think the image stabilisation replaces a tripod in these scenarios.

I am tempted myself to give some of the 10x42's a try, but I could get a lot of nice glass for the same money, so have never pulled the trigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new version of the IS 10x30s are now available for the first time in the UK (that I've seen).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00XX6A9XQ/ref=dra_a_rv_lb_hn_it_P1400_1000?tag=dradisplay0bb-21&ascsubtag=6869606e7acc59cb4cfe3a90d8627818_S

From Germany and £100 more than the originals, but if you like to have the latest thing they might interest. I posted about these before and it's difficulty to see what's different apart from better battery life, presumably due to greater efficiently. I've seen mention that the new version uses computer processing to help with the IS. Does that mean that the old version just uses clever gyroscope wizardry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dirk

I have had a pair of Canon IS 15x50 I think around 5 years or so They have been halfway around the world with me I first got them for when I went to the caribbean cruise from Mexico, Panama Canal and when we got to Costa rica the sky from dusk till dawn laying on a lounger was just phenomenal pin point star and beautiful  nebula every here in the UK I can see M31 heart and soul  Orion nebula centre with 7 stars on a clear night

years ago they very expensive to day for what they are there a steel can't recommend  more ,when I show them to the boy at astronomy club two went out and got them buy the next week if I lost them tomorrow I would buy another pair right away 

hope you get what you want please let us know what you got  as we are a nosey bunch and love binoculars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thoroughly recommend 15x50IS binos for Astronomy use.  Mine have been to Spain twice and US three times plus countless family holidays and work trips around the UK.  Good optics and no need for a tripod although the views are enhanced when using a mount. 

I had a thoroughly enjoyable variable star session the other night while reclining in my sun (star?) lounger - I've put the details here.http://www.refreshingviews.com/8-august-2015-variable-stars-and-timelapse/

The best part was taking two minutes to pack up - and that included putting the lounger away! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matthew,

I took the plunge last year and bought the 12x36 IS and have not regretted it. They get used most days watching the sparrows socialise in the garden, and are great for the night-time scanning the sky for all the old favourites.
As others have said, they’re fantastic for holidays (stars, birds, views, getting closer to architectural details difficult to see with the naked eye.) I got the 12x36 as they seemed to be about the right balance between light-gathering-power, magnification, weight and value-for-money, given my budget.
In terms of the image swimming, I’ve never found this to be distracting at all. The only thing I do notice very occasionally is that the image can be very slightly fuzzy for a few seconds when first pressing the button, but then it settles and the image becomes sharp. 
As others have said, if it broke today I’d buy another pair tomorrow.
Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.