Canon 15x50IS - Tripod mounted...... Duh?

[Stu]

With the current awful weather and a significant sell off of kit, I decided to join the ranks of those who tripod mount their binos to get a steadier view. Till now, my thoughts have very much been that if I'm going to put a tripod out, I may as well put a scope out.

At some point if I get on with this setup, I'll consider perhaps a 20x80 pair, but for now, the 15x50IS are the only ones I have with a mounting point. So, what's the point of mounting stabilized binoculars? ?. The truth is that the optics are simply sharper without the stabilization running. For daytime use, or for Astro when I don't have a scope available they are great. You do get a 'swimming effect' with the correction but the high frequency jitters are removed. Star images are not quite as crisp as without the stabilization switched on though, hence the desire to try with the tripod.

Having read about trigger grip ball heads (if that's what they are called!), I decided to purchase one as they come highly recommended. It is very solid and well made, holding the binos with no problem. When mounted on my Gitzo tripod the whole thing feels rigid but nice and light still, an easy one hand carry.

So, the results?

Very easy to use, quick to adjust position and get the target centered. With the stabilization on, the view still swam around, and I was unable to split the Trapezium or Mizar. With it off however, the quality of the optics shines through, Mizar split nicely and I got three stars in the Trap, not easy but there.

Well worth persevering with for quick sessions between the clouds. Will post some pics tomorrow.

[Alfian]

Welcome to the "trigger grip ball head" club - (very descriptive but there has to be better name than that!), it really does make for a very usable set up. A while back I was fortunate to have a go with a couple of pair of Canon IS binos including the 15x50s and was mightily impressed, couldn't quite believe how well the IS system worked. It had not occurred to me that the mounted non-IS views would be measurably better. That's interesting.

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, Alfian said:

Welcome to the "trigger grip ball head" club - (very descriptive but there has to be better name than that!), it really does make for a very usable set up. A while back I was fortunate to have a go with a couple of pair of Canon IS binos including the 15x50s and was mightily impressed, couldn't quite believe how well the IS system worked. It had not occurred to me that the mounted non-IS views would be measurably better. That's interesting.

Thanks Alfian. They certainly are very good just using the stabilization, but there is a definite improvement when mounted and it turned off. I was surprised too.

[BinocularSky]

I'm currently playing with the 12x36 v3. Nice ;swimming lessons hardly required.

[Charic]

I've always believed that IS ( Image Stabilised) binoculars were  meant to be used from a  genuine unstable platform, boat, aeroplane and not just because your hands are unsteady, because lets face it, IS Binoculars, through their design and engineering don't come cheap.

There are on-line videos that demonstrate how effective IS really is, from manual handheld to IS held, and the image is stunning, however, for just looking at the Stars from the garden, you cannot beat a steady binocular  ie mounted or rested on an immoveable object to ensure a steady image and a sharp image too if the optics are up to it.

Its good that you tried mounting your binoculars, and not only proven to yourself that it works, and works very well,  maybe this will confirm to others that unless their platform is unstable, do you really need them?

[Stu]

12 hours ago, Charic said:

I've always believed that IS ( Image Stabilised) binoculars were  meant to be used from a  genuine unstable platform, boat, aeroplane and not just because your hands are unsteady, because lets face it, IS Binoculars, through their design and engineering don't come cheap.

There are on-line videos that demonstrate how effective IS really is, from manual handheld to IS held, and the image is stunning, however, for just looking at the Stars from the garden, you cannot beat a steady binocular  ie mounted or rested on an immoveable object to ensure a steady image and a sharp image too if the optics are up to it.

Its good that you tried mounting your binoculars, and not only proven to yourself that it works, and works very well,  maybe this will confirm to others that unless their platform is unstable, do you really need them?

Hi Charic,

I didn't intend to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the IS, just to show that it is not perfect and actually the optics are even sharper when held steady.

The stabilization is still very useful even when observing from a steady base. Any shaking of your hands, even your heart beat can cause jitters and these are all smoothed out by the IS. The image swims around to a degree, but is far more stable than without it on.

My ultimate intention is to get a larger pair of binos mounted on the tripod to see how I get on with them. The trigger grip certainly makes all the difference in terms of simplicity of aiming whilst being very steady still.

[seiko]

My 10x42L IS seems to work well for star gazing. I see 3 stars in the trap with IS on. Off its still 3 but with wobble. I couldn't detect a difference in sharpness.

I'll try a tripod mount to compare fairly.

As an aside, I do get quite a bit of halo on bright stars though. Jupiter isn't brilliant through them as although I made out the 4 moons easily as pin points Jupiter itself was a bit of a bright blur.

 

[Stu]

1 minute ago, seiko said:

My 10x42L IS seems to work well for star gazing. I see 3 stars in the trap with IS on. Off its still 3 but with wobble. I couldn't detect a difference in sharpness.

I'll try a tripod mount to compare fairly.

As an aside, I do get quite a bit of halo on bright stars though. Jupiter isn't brilliant through them as although I made out the 4 moons easily as pin points Jupiter itself was a bit of a bright blur.

 

I guess the 'L' optics are likely to be sharper? I have also been wondering if fresh batteries may make a difference? Something to try, although these are still showing 3/4 charged

[LukeSkywatcher]

On 02/02/2016 at 15:07, Stu said:

Thanks Alfian. They certainly are very good just using the stabilization, but there is a definite improvement when mounted and it turned off. I was surprised too.

If i read this correctly (as i think i have), you are saying if you own IS bins and mount them that you should somehow turn off the IS function?. That sounds right to me because ive read in the past that if you use anything with IS function (camera lens' mainly) that if you mount the camera and lens and leave the lens on IS that the tripod/mount and the IS function of the lens clash and cancel each other out.

I'm now in the frame of mind to leave my scopes packed away til the Spring and get to know and use my 20x90 bins more. I have them mounted on an 8115 tripod and it can take the weight very well. Great setup for those fleeting moments between clouds.

p.s.~my 20x90 bins are not IS.

[Space Hopper]

Can you tell us about those lens covers you're using please Stu ?

Size etc. Thanks. 

[Stu]

36 minutes ago, Tubby Bear said:

Can you tell us about those lens covers you're using please Stu ?

Size etc. Thanks. 

They are a pair of 58mm Canon caps, you can source them fairly easily.

I also have a pair of 58 to 48mm step down rings which allow me to fit standard 2" filters to them. I use one UHC and one OIII (as that's all I have!), they work very well from a dark site

[seiko]

I tested the 10x42L's last night using a tripod. In short, the image produced on the tripod was at times an incredibly tiny fraction sharper with IS off compared with IS on. I could not resolve more or anything new with IS off but it was a fraction sharper. At times however the shakes in the tripod from wind or knocks resulted in the none IS image being much worse. The most consistently good overall image was with the IS on. It also confirmed the binoculars strength, I.e. No need for a tripod unless you're planning on extended viewing in which case you'll face fatigue holding them for so long. With IS on the view resembles the tripod view so closely you simply don't need the tripod in relation to producing an excellent image.

Hats off to the Canon team.

 

 

 

[Oli]

On 03/02/2016 at 12:10, Stu said:

I guess the 'L' optics are likely to be sharper? I have also been wondering if fresh batteries may make a difference? Something to try, although these are still showing 3/4 charged

I wonder because of the 10x magnification the loss of sharpness isn't noticeable? With my Canon 15x50 the sharpness is affected when the IS has to compensate for more shake. I've done a quick test in my flat looking at some fridge magnets, and it is more sharp when I am seated with elbows rested when compared to standing. I have also tried both Alkaline and Lithium batteries but didn't notice any improvement in performance. It still wipes the floor with hand holding without IS on though but it's interesting that even on a tripod the Image stabiliser is having an affect on the sharpness.