dogon dory
New member
Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author
Image Stabilized Binoculars
- Thread starter dogon dory
- Start date
William and Beth Tucker
New member
Dan,DogonDory, We use the Cannon image stabilizer in a 10 X 42 L I S..I like them but my wife can not get used to them..When we bought them last year they were new on the market and cost about $ 1,500 or so...I also have several pair of Bushnell in a 10x 50 auto focus..We both like them and easy to use..We have a pair of Cali-opics in a 12 X 36 x70 zoom that we use here at the house.. They too are grreat..In fact we bought this pair at the Seattle boat show.. tucker
William and Beth Tucker
New member
Dan,DogonDory, We use the Cannon image stabilizer in a 10 X 42 L I S..I like them but my wife can not get used to them..When we bought them last year they were new on the market and cost about $ 1,500 or so...I also have several pair of Bushnell in a 10x 50 auto focus..We both like them and easy to use..We have a pair of Cali-opics in a 12 X 36 x70 zoom that we use here at the house.. They too are grreat..In fact we bought this pair at the Seattle boat show.. tucker
We bought the Canon 8x30 IS before heading to the Keys. Price was definitely a factor - found them at B&H for $249 (after a $50 rebate). We use them primarily for determining the next navaid, and they work great. Much brighter than my old Tasco 7x50 with the built-in compass, and the IS is a great feature.
You might check the archives - this was discussed in length several months ago; lots of good opinions on the different models on the market.
Best wishes,
Jim B.
You might check the archives - this was discussed in length several months ago; lots of good opinions on the different models on the market.
Best wishes,
Jim B.
Dan – the subject came up late last year.
Lots of feedback. Link to it is here Image stabilized binoculars
________
Dave
Lots of feedback. Link to it is here Image stabilized binoculars
________
Dave
After reading the thread that oldgrowth references (back when it was posted) I went to my local telescope shop and they had the Fujinon as well as Nikon. I am going back a couple more times to make sure I feel the same way, but the first (and only) time I used both I liked the Nikon more because they were 50s, not 42s -- had a bigger, brighter image. The IS ability for both seemed similar, but that is what I want to check out.
The salesman told me that the IS will not compensate for gross movement of the boat but will help dampen the minor movement caused by hand-holding powerful optics. Any comment from the peanut gallery on this assertion?
Warren
The salesman told me that the IS will not compensate for gross movement of the boat but will help dampen the minor movement caused by hand-holding powerful optics. Any comment from the peanut gallery on this assertion?
Warren
I posted on the thread in Dec--as I was hunting for the Fujinon Techno Stabalized 14 x 40. I have had the binoculars for about 3 months and had a chance to use them on the boat. They work very well. The Canon compensate for 0.7 degrees. The smaller Fujinon's 3 degrees and the 14 x 40 compensate for 5 degrees of motion. Reading Practical Sailor / Power Boat reviews also gives the nod to the Fujinon's.
I do have the chance to compare the Fujinon with the Canon IS lenses (which cost as much or more than the Fujinon binoculars--of course lots of exotic glass in these lenses)--In my opinion the Fujinon is a better stabalization system.
As for night vision and light gathering. Generally there is some decrease of the pupil's ability to dialate as we age. The effective apperature of the binoculars are a factor of the objective (large lenses) divined by the power. For example a 7 x 50 gives a 7 mm pupilar diameter--which is about max for an adult. Some folks say that an 18 x 70 binocular will give better light gathering--but that is really questionable. This gives an exit pupile of 3.9 mm and may actually give less light gathering ability than a 7 x 50, despite having a larger objective lense. The 14 x 40 glass gives an effective exit pupil of only 2.8 mm. This is considerably less than the 7 mm of the 7 x 50 "traditional night glass". However the stabaliazation makes a images sharper, so they still work well at night.
(Incidently 6 x 30 only have a 5 mm exit pupil--and if your pupil is smaller than that when fully dark adapted, then will be adequte.
If you really need night vision, then consider the generation 2.5 Fujinon PS910--(there is no magnification) for $1600. If you want gen 3 and magnification then the ticket goes up to about $2800--but the FLIR night scopes come in at $7000....
So far we have gotten by with 7 x 50 binoculars, the Fujinon stabalized and a gen 1 night scope (plus radar)--on the other hand we sailed at night for many years with none of the above--just our senses.
I do have the chance to compare the Fujinon with the Canon IS lenses (which cost as much or more than the Fujinon binoculars--of course lots of exotic glass in these lenses)--In my opinion the Fujinon is a better stabalization system.
As for night vision and light gathering. Generally there is some decrease of the pupil's ability to dialate as we age. The effective apperature of the binoculars are a factor of the objective (large lenses) divined by the power. For example a 7 x 50 gives a 7 mm pupilar diameter--which is about max for an adult. Some folks say that an 18 x 70 binocular will give better light gathering--but that is really questionable. This gives an exit pupile of 3.9 mm and may actually give less light gathering ability than a 7 x 50, despite having a larger objective lense. The 14 x 40 glass gives an effective exit pupil of only 2.8 mm. This is considerably less than the 7 mm of the 7 x 50 "traditional night glass". However the stabaliazation makes a images sharper, so they still work well at night.
(Incidently 6 x 30 only have a 5 mm exit pupil--and if your pupil is smaller than that when fully dark adapted, then will be adequte.
If you really need night vision, then consider the generation 2.5 Fujinon PS910--(there is no magnification) for $1600. If you want gen 3 and magnification then the ticket goes up to about $2800--but the FLIR night scopes come in at $7000....
So far we have gotten by with 7 x 50 binoculars, the Fujinon stabalized and a gen 1 night scope (plus radar)--on the other hand we sailed at night for many years with none of the above--just our senses.
dogon dory
New member
Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author
squidslayer
New member
The Canon Image stab. binoc's are awsome...I have two....10 & 12 X
I saw the moons of Saturn ..hand held ..on the big island of Hawaii..with the 10x
Dick
TomCat
"Shirley Mae"
I saw the moons of Saturn ..hand held ..on the big island of Hawaii..with the 10x
Dick
TomCat
"Shirley Mae"
You are correct that most of the IS binoculars have an exit pupil of about 3 mm. Part may be that is what works as a good compromise. (weight, size, cost etc) I use a pair of Steiner 8 x 30's often during the day on the boat when we are not bouncing around a lot. There is only a little difference in what I can see at night (at this age, having had Catarac surgery and lens implants) in comparison to the 7 x 50's.
I found that all of the IS binoculars seemed to work fine in the parking lot or in calm weather--but the Fujicons did much better when it got rough.
We do a fair amount of boating at night--and the 7 x 50's were fine on our sailboats and trawlers--but with the Tom Cat going 15 to 25 knots--into 3 foot seas, you cannot hold binocs steady enough to be of any value--the 14 x 40s work in these conditions. However, neight the 7 x 50 or the 14 x 40 would show non light ICW markers by starlight. For this we had to settle for the gainer and minimal sharpness of a gen 1 monocular night scope.
I'll try and compare the three (8 x 30, 7 x 50 and 14 x 40 side by side tonight on the bayou) for precived light. But this may vary from person to person depending on their specific night vision, dark accomidation and pupil size.
I found that all of the IS binoculars seemed to work fine in the parking lot or in calm weather--but the Fujicons did much better when it got rough.
We do a fair amount of boating at night--and the 7 x 50's were fine on our sailboats and trawlers--but with the Tom Cat going 15 to 25 knots--into 3 foot seas, you cannot hold binocs steady enough to be of any value--the 14 x 40s work in these conditions. However, neight the 7 x 50 or the 14 x 40 would show non light ICW markers by starlight. For this we had to settle for the gainer and minimal sharpness of a gen 1 monocular night scope.
I'll try and compare the three (8 x 30, 7 x 50 and 14 x 40 side by side tonight on the bayou) for precived light. But this may vary from person to person depending on their specific night vision, dark accomidation and pupil size.
dogon dory
New member
Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author
I went outside, and allowed 15minutes to semi light adapt. (I would prefer 30 minutes in total darkness) As I was sitting watching the world across the bayou--a wildlife preserve, which was dimly lit by some light by a 15 watt flourescent bulb which defines the side of my boat in the sling, it came to me, that we really don't use the sharp focus of our binoculars for night vision. As we night adopt, there is the dialation of the pupil, but also the chemical adoptation of the rods which are the main part of our night, or low light level vision. The cones at the fovia of the eye (in the center of the Macula) are the sharpest part of our vision, yet are very poor night low light receptors. The rods which are about the periphery of the eye (and very few in the macular area) are the most sensitive for night vision. We try and look for the "sharp focus" thru the binoculars--but unless this is a bright point of light--it will not be visiable or really in as good focus as an area in light would be.
When we are at sea, I don't have any lights visiable below deck except some very dim red lights--and of course the running lights which are well shielded from the helm area. Even our lights for charting etc are dim red, and I use just one eye for visual acuity for chart marking. We keep the radar dim and only look at the GPS once an hour or so--again with one eye.
Now back to binoculars--we use them in confined spaces--like anchorages or for star gazing--like looking at planets, but mostly from more stable platforms. Wild life viewing we have done in low light--but not in darkness--unless with a night vision scope. In the C Dories, Tom Cats and C Rangers, for the most parts we live with depth finders, chart plotters and radar, if we are comming into inlets, harbors or on the ICW. We tend to loose our night vision because of all of the light from screens--even with the dimmest settings, "night vision" settings and even red plastic or gels over the instruments. It is very difficult to get a "sharp binocular image" in the darkness--unless we are looking at other ships lights, shore light effects or some silloette of an object against other lighting is where we use our light gathering binoculars--and are for the most part looking for "sharp" images or lights or a lit object. (and this is where we use the "night glasses" 7 x 50)
In view of this, after light adoption, I tried Steiner 8 x30, Fujinon 7 x 50 and Fujinon Techno Stabli 14 x 40. I could not really see a lot of difference between the three. I was looking a very dimly lit trees. Nothing was sharp--and it was hard to focus the binoculars--because I was using mostly rods in the very dim light of the forrest behind our home.
This brings me back to use of the night vision scope--and even with the gen one night scope--what I could see was better than what I was seeing with the binoculars. I didn't see any advantage of the stabalized binoculars at night--but again this was on land, not in a bouncing boat.
When we are at sea, I don't have any lights visiable below deck except some very dim red lights--and of course the running lights which are well shielded from the helm area. Even our lights for charting etc are dim red, and I use just one eye for visual acuity for chart marking. We keep the radar dim and only look at the GPS once an hour or so--again with one eye.
Now back to binoculars--we use them in confined spaces--like anchorages or for star gazing--like looking at planets, but mostly from more stable platforms. Wild life viewing we have done in low light--but not in darkness--unless with a night vision scope. In the C Dories, Tom Cats and C Rangers, for the most parts we live with depth finders, chart plotters and radar, if we are comming into inlets, harbors or on the ICW. We tend to loose our night vision because of all of the light from screens--even with the dimmest settings, "night vision" settings and even red plastic or gels over the instruments. It is very difficult to get a "sharp binocular image" in the darkness--unless we are looking at other ships lights, shore light effects or some silloette of an object against other lighting is where we use our light gathering binoculars--and are for the most part looking for "sharp" images or lights or a lit object. (and this is where we use the "night glasses" 7 x 50)
In view of this, after light adoption, I tried Steiner 8 x30, Fujinon 7 x 50 and Fujinon Techno Stabli 14 x 40. I could not really see a lot of difference between the three. I was looking a very dimly lit trees. Nothing was sharp--and it was hard to focus the binoculars--because I was using mostly rods in the very dim light of the forrest behind our home.
This brings me back to use of the night vision scope--and even with the gen one night scope--what I could see was better than what I was seeing with the binoculars. I didn't see any advantage of the stabalized binoculars at night--but again this was on land, not in a bouncing boat.
I don't specifically remember the 18 x 50--and I believe the reason I didn't look at them was the size. The specs on these still give the 0.7 degrees of correction angle vs the 5.0 degrees for the Fujinon.
I love my Canon IS photography lenses, but I don't use them on the boat, unless I am using a high shutter speed. They do get rid of the hand shake and allow significantly lower shutter speed when on land (hand shake). Tests of the Canon IS lenses--and I believe that the newest use the same technology--show that 1/15 th of a second is about as slow as you can go hand holding (there is some slight blurr with 1/8 second shutter speed.
One other feature on the Fujinon which I didn't notice at first, is the focus seems to be internal. The focus knob is by the right index finder, and the eye pieces do not seem to move as "normal" center focus binoculars do. This would seem to be less likely to allow moisture or dust into the binocs which are nitrogen purged.
I appologize for appearing to "push" the Fujinons, but they seemed by visual observation, and history to work well for boaters. Hopefully you can find a place which will allow return if you are not happy. But folks who have the Canons are happy with them also.
I love my Canon IS photography lenses, but I don't use them on the boat, unless I am using a high shutter speed. They do get rid of the hand shake and allow significantly lower shutter speed when on land (hand shake). Tests of the Canon IS lenses--and I believe that the newest use the same technology--show that 1/15 th of a second is about as slow as you can go hand holding (there is some slight blurr with 1/8 second shutter speed.
One other feature on the Fujinon which I didn't notice at first, is the focus seems to be internal. The focus knob is by the right index finder, and the eye pieces do not seem to move as "normal" center focus binoculars do. This would seem to be less likely to allow moisture or dust into the binocs which are nitrogen purged.
I appologize for appearing to "push" the Fujinons, but they seemed by visual observation, and history to work well for boaters. Hopefully you can find a place which will allow return if you are not happy. But folks who have the Canons are happy with them also.