I own a pair of the 10x42s and they are indistinguishable from magic. When you press that button, the wobbly image becomes rock-solid and allows you to perceive and enjoy way more detail than would otherwise be possible.
Perfect for observing birds, planes, double stars, nebulae, satellites, and planets. I can't resolve Saturn's ring, but Jupiter and its moons and the Hercules cluster are not to be missed.
A tripod doesn't solve the same problem. You can walk around, pass these to other people, take it on a hike, use them in a car.
Some downsides: expensive, battery maintenance, and heavy (not as much a problem with smaller pairs.)
Why is there a button ? Why not just image stabilize at all times ?
I think perhaps it must be energetically expensive and therefore eats the batteries ?
If I am correct, then a follow-up that I didn't see answered in the OP: how long does the image stay stabilized after you press the button ? Can you turn it off or does it time out ?
You are correct, it eats battery; it lasts about 8 hours or so on li-ion. If you look down the lens and move it around, you can really see the mechanical movement in action.
It has two operating modes.
1, it stays on as long as the button is depressed. This is good for quick looks.
2, you press it once and it stays on until either (a) 5 minutes pass, or (b) you press it again, or (c) you put the binoculars down (it knows when they are vertical, like hanging around your neck.)
There are image-stabilized cameras and lenses around, and they've been around for awhile. Modern mid to high end cameras all have image stabilization on the sensor, and most longer lenses have stabilization as well to achieve between 3 and 5 stops of achieved stabilization.
You're not going to get a camera in your binoculars, but you can get a stabilized camera with some long lenses. If you pay enough.
Hmm, the binoculars cost $800. For that amount, you could buy a budget APS-C or micro four thirds body with IBIS and pair it with a vintage telephoto prime if you wanted to do some image-stabilized photography. Obviously, this combo would be less portable and less suitable for just looking at stuff.
Honestly, you probably don’t even need a vintage lens. If you look for a deal the Panasonic 100-300mm lens if fairly affordable and very stable with sync is.
You're not going to get a camera in your binoculars
Sure you can, that is actually a thing, though image quality isn't all that from what I heard and it's also not offered by the major brands (I think). Probably because it's really hard to make something high quality.
For something high quality, I have heard great things about the Kowa Prominar 500mm f/5.6 FL, which can either be used as a spotting scope or mounted to a camera as a lens. Apparently, the image quality is amazing, but then again it is also rather expensive (can be found on ebay for around $1000-1500 but retailed for more when new).
Sure, and there are multiple choices for lenses like that, also telescopes to which a camera can be attached. It' the standard thing if you want large ranges and camera. But none of those are binoculars, which is what the OP was talking about.
Reminds me of the war stories Arne Toman tells about his Cannonball Runs[0] from NYC to LA. Apparently, the front-seat passenger ("spotter") is constantly (for hours!) on the lookout for cops using binoculars.
Toman is this guy:
> In May 2020, Arne Toman, Doug Tabbutt, and spotter Dunadel Daryoush set the new cannonball record of 25 hours and 39 minutes in a modified 2016 Audi S6 disguised to look like a Ford Taurus police interceptor. Police-evasion modifications included brake light kill-switches, radar detectors, laser diffusers, CB-radio, and a roof-mounted thermal camera. Performance modifications included a trunk-mounted 67-gallon auxiliary fuel cell sourced from the car used in Toman and Tabbutt's 2019 cannonball run, modified turbochargers, an upgraded heat-exchanger, and custom ECU tuning that allowed for engine-mapping to be changed on-demand to suit either 91 or 93-octane fuel; allowing the car to generate an estimated 600 horsepower. The run achieved an overall average speed of 110 miles per hour (180 km/h) for the entire run, with average speeds upwards of 125 miles per hour (201 km/h) across some states, and which at no time exceeded 175 miles per hour (282 km/h).
I am a bit torn. I attended a talk by Toman and he mentioned that, apart from having a spotter on the passenger seat, they have many spotters along the entire way and also use drones and thermal cameras to spot cars, so they always know ahead of time what's coming. In particular, he said that they slow down to legal speeds whenever they get near another car.
Given all that, I don't think the risk is that crazy high anymore but I do see where you're coming from.
It’s probably safe if they are just going fast in areas where they know it’s empty.
But telling the story provides cover for 19-year old kids trying to impress their friends who definitely do not have an advance drone checking for other cars.
As long as 30,000+ people die on our roads every year…my patience for these antics is very limited.
I think you might be severely overestimating the risk, people doing these runs obviously do everything in their power to spend as much time on empty roads as possible.
The covid canonballers also had volunteers tie up the cops by intentionally breaking the law at speed traps ahead of the arriving racer. Not something to be proud of.
It'd be easier to see this as strictly bad if speed traps were usually motivated by road safety, not revenue collection or discovering secondary crimes.
This has been a really fun project to work on during the weekends, definitely recommend it. Next step for me will be to get automatic direction finding working, hopefully will finish that during the next year.
FWIW, I find just looking at the world through binoculars can be consciousness-changing, as might be putting on glasses for the first time by someone with poor sight.
The Canon 12x36 IS binoculars are a great companion to the 10x30 IS II due to the different minimum focus distance. I use them both almost daily for birdwatching on my porch. Energizer lithium AA batteries last for months. I press the button and hold it for around 30s at a time.
On a hike I’d probably reach for the smaller and lighter 10x30 which also has a 13ft minimum focal distance which is 7ft closer than the larger pair. They’re great!
But the 12x36 has the larger FOV and 3rd generation IS that really does almost let you see what the bird is _thinking_ and that it’s not the same woodpecker that visited yesterday.
As someone with a shaky hand, I could never use 12x36 binoculars without IS and so the price tag was really not a big premium over something with possibly superior optics that I would not enjoy.
Since Canon has MAP pricing and I wanted to buy an actual new pair of the 12x36 IS III from an authorized retailer like B&H Photo ($800) instead of Amazon, on a hunch I checked some Canadian photo shops and found
Excellentphoto.ca who shipped them to my US address for $850 CAD ≈ $650 USD. Which is possibly a fulfillment bug and not a feature.
I have that also. About two months ago I went to the optometrist and one of the tests was for alignment of both eyes (I don't recall ever having that test previously).
The doctor says something like "There should be one line in front of each eye, do You see a single straight line?"
I replied "Heck no... the line on this side is higher and pretty far to the left, the other is centered and much lower."
Now with glasses binoculars work as intended. I can also make out some icons on computer screens where before almost none made sense (and the same icons would appear different based on viewing angle). The glasses do wonders for movie and television viewing, too.
One caveat: the glasses have a very restrictive horizontal viewing angle.
No problems reading without glasses. Crazy.
Have an optometrist check for eye alignment next time.
I have, and they are! I bought their 18x50 image-stabilized binoculars back in 2004, and still use them to this day.
The first number refers to the magnification (18x) and the second is the size (50mm) of each objective lens, or the lens pointed at the object you’re looking at. The larger the objective, the more light they can gather.
At night, your pupil is probably 6-7mm in diameter. The 50mm objective can gather much more light than your unassisted pupils! Those binoculars also weigh over a kilogram, so they’re best for short handheld sessions if you’re standing. If you’re sitting or lying down, you won’t tire as quickly.
They’re wonderful for looking at globular clusters and nebulae, as well as for viewing Saturn or Jupiter; the Galilean moons are easy to spot! For lunar viewing, the stereoscopic view actually feels almost 3D.
Keep in mind, though: most binoculars aren’t specifically designed for astronomical observation. You won’t be able to attach ND filters, polarizers, or emission filters. So your best bet is to use them from dark skies with good “seeing” where you can just lay back and enjoy the view as you scan around trying to do a Messier Marathon. :)
Edit: it does have a standard tripod screw on the bottom, so a monopod with an added trigger-ball grip can make extended observation sessions more comfortable. Many binoculars require a bracket to mount to a monopod/tripod, but image-stabilized binos aren’t hinged; their relatively flat bottom means that larger image-stabilized binos often have a tripod screw.
2nd edit: I tracked ISS across the sky (with the stabilization on) last year, and I could clearly make out its shape.
I have a pair of the 10x42 stabilized canon binoculars. I think they're very good though over-priced (esp compared to the price of an IS supertelephoto canon lens). I didn't get them for astronomy but they get used for that some.
I also have zhumell 25x100 binoculars (which also get oemed under a number of other brand names). These are huge and must be used on a tripod.
The canon are easy and convenient to use. As a result they get used more often. That said, for astronomy the big binoculars are obviously better. E.g. A couple weeks ago I looked out the window with the 25x100 and the blue glow of the Orion nebula h-beta emission was quite obvious to me, but I couldn't really see it with the canon. Juipter's moons are always nicely visible on the big binocs but harder to see with the canon. On the astro binocs jupiter almost always gets a "wait! are those moons?!?".
But it's just not compatible in the sense that the canon gets used when the big ones often don't. You can just lay back in a lounge chair with the canon and gaze at the vastness of stars (which are much more visible through the 10x42 than the naked eyes). You're not going to do something like that with 25x100 binos except with some kind of cantilevered balanced mount that looks like a dentist tortured device. :) (laying back is advised: the canon is still kinda heavy even if nothing compared t the astro-monster)
I don't particularly enjoy eyepiece astronomy-- my interest w/ astronomy is in imaging via telescopes.
I have the astro binocs for the benefit of guests and I've found in general that guests don't have the intuition or patience to correctly focus them (and it's hard for me to do it for them because I'm -3 diaopter so if I focus for myself it'll be wrong, and even through my glasses I'm still at the wrong distance). This is a place where the canon beat out the astro binocs too, because the stabilization prevents shaking/blurring the frame when you adjust focus so it's much easier for an untrained person to get it right. Similarly, I find guests will actually manage to make the IPD adjustment on the canons while they tend to give up on the zhumell, as it takes a lot of force on those.
So I would say that if you're considering the canon stabilized binos for other reasons and wonder if they'd work for astro too: Absolutely. If you're looking for astro binocs though there are better results at a lower price possible if you're willing to put up with the tripod. Without a tripod I don't think you can beat the stabilized binocs.
I haven't personally, but they were getting a lot of praise on the forums at cloudynights.com last time I researched binoculars (several years ago). I think the consensus was that the optics are good, and the image stabilization makes it feasible to hand hold at a higher magnification than without.
> Perfect for observing birds, planes, double stars, nebulae, satellites, and planets. I can't resolve Saturn's ring, but Jupiter and its moons and the Hercules cluster are not to be missed.
Funnily my wife bought just bought a stabilized monocular from kite optics (12x25 [1]) today . It really cool how to see how much more one can see with stabilization turned on.
I saw this headline and assumed it was using a digital OLED type screen. Essentially, bringing the MFT viewfinder type screens to a pair of binoculars.
This, is not that, and now I want to try these. Just checked the prices, and now I remember why I've always skipped past and went straight for telescopes instead.
I have the Canon 10x42L IS, the Kite 16x42 APC and the Japan-only Nikon Stabilized 10x25. The latter are surprisingly compact and highly effective, but eat through the crackpot CR2 batteries like popcorn.
The stabilized binocular to beat is the Fujinon TSX1440, but it weighs a whopping 2kg.
are they allowed, or would they assume video capabilities? i've seen some places allow the opera style glasses with much less magnification, but i could see security policies not allowing these. as dumb of a policy it would be, it still would not surprise me
Fraser Optics (formerly Fraser-Volpe) are the best of the best in stabilizing binoculars. Used by the military, law enforcement, coast guard, and at every big game fishing tournament to spot marlin on a rocking boat. They are amazing on a whole other level. And have a $5,000 price tag to match.
Nice, but why not just put an image-stabilized telephoto on a camera? I've lenses for my Fujis and Nikons that do the same as the Canon binoculars---and it _is_ cool when you see stabilization in action---plus you can take pictures.
IS binoculars are best for when you want to look up close with your eyeballs at a bunch of different objects right now in stereo retinal megapixel resolution and keep on looking until your eyeballs are tuckered out.
IS zoom lenses for cameras are optimal for when you know about how I might want to see a particular object up close, mainly for just a couple of 1/100th of a second intervals, but mostly later on after you get home and use software on it and whatnot.
No you wouldn't, because you're not carrying a 5kg tripod with you (and you'd need one, because any less bulky and you don't get a stable platform, you get a wobbly one) just to look at some birds at a random moment during a walk without inconveniencing the people you're walking with because you had to set up your rig. Over and over.
You just carry binoculars, and the image stabilization makes that experience immeasurably better. Good glass costs money, the cost of the image stabilization only tacks on a small amount compared to the rest of the cost of a pair of high quality binoculars.
Why would you set up an observation station with binoculars? That makes no sense: get a camera with a telephoto lens, so you can at least get excellent shots of what you're looking at when the worthwhile parts happen, or set up a spotting scope or telescope if you're serious about "I need to sit here for a long time and observe stuff". You don't need, or want, to use both eyes in that situation.
Binoculars are the absolute worst choice of optical device in this hypothetical setup, go buy something that makes more sense for stake outs with the money you're saving on a high grade pair of binoculars, irrespective of whether it has IS or not =)
I had these for whatever reason growing up. At the level of zoom they stabilize, there wasnt much shaking to begin with. If you are using more powerful binoculars you might as well just get a tripod.
This weirdly makes me sad. Having grown up with a dad working on microscopes and studying them in college, I have significantly above average ability to look through a lens. It's sad to think my son won't be able to feel the satisfaction of getting that right, as I have.
Don’t give up the dream yet! This article is about binoculars and not image stabilized microscopes, which I don’t know if those are as necessary unless you are in a seismic area or perhaps a big dog is always sitting on your lab table.
Perfect for observing birds, planes, double stars, nebulae, satellites, and planets. I can't resolve Saturn's ring, but Jupiter and its moons and the Hercules cluster are not to be missed.
A tripod doesn't solve the same problem. You can walk around, pass these to other people, take it on a hike, use them in a car.
Some downsides: expensive, battery maintenance, and heavy (not as much a problem with smaller pairs.)
Why is there a button ? Why not just image stabilize at all times ?
I think perhaps it must be energetically expensive and therefore eats the batteries ?
If I am correct, then a follow-up that I didn't see answered in the OP: how long does the image stay stabilized after you press the button ? Can you turn it off or does it time out ?
It has two operating modes.
1, it stays on as long as the button is depressed. This is good for quick looks.
2, you press it once and it stays on until either (a) 5 minutes pass, or (b) you press it again, or (c) you put the binoculars down (it knows when they are vertical, like hanging around your neck.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsy4SMrsT4
You're not going to get a camera in your binoculars, but you can get a stabilized camera with some long lenses. If you pay enough.
It’s an incredible kit for the size and price.
Sure you can, that is actually a thing, though image quality isn't all that from what I heard and it's also not offered by the major brands (I think). Probably because it's really hard to make something high quality.
Sure, and there are multiple choices for lenses like that, also telescopes to which a camera can be attached. It' the standard thing if you want large ranges and camera. But none of those are binoculars, which is what the OP was talking about.
Toman is this guy:
> In May 2020, Arne Toman, Doug Tabbutt, and spotter Dunadel Daryoush set the new cannonball record of 25 hours and 39 minutes in a modified 2016 Audi S6 disguised to look like a Ford Taurus police interceptor. Police-evasion modifications included brake light kill-switches, radar detectors, laser diffusers, CB-radio, and a roof-mounted thermal camera. Performance modifications included a trunk-mounted 67-gallon auxiliary fuel cell sourced from the car used in Toman and Tabbutt's 2019 cannonball run, modified turbochargers, an upgraded heat-exchanger, and custom ECU tuning that allowed for engine-mapping to be changed on-demand to suit either 91 or 93-octane fuel; allowing the car to generate an estimated 600 horsepower. The run achieved an overall average speed of 110 miles per hour (180 km/h) for the entire run, with average speeds upwards of 125 miles per hour (201 km/h) across some states, and which at no time exceeded 175 miles per hour (282 km/h).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Run_challenge
Given all that, I don't think the risk is that crazy high anymore but I do see where you're coming from.
But telling the story provides cover for 19-year old kids trying to impress their friends who definitely do not have an advance drone checking for other cars.
As long as 30,000+ people die on our roads every year…my patience for these antics is very limited.
There are UK companies with a similar commercial products https://www.targetblueye.co.uk https://www.pythondetectors.com
I understand you can't use both eyes, but for that price you get a very long zoom (~3000mm equivalent) and can take photos.
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07F5HPXK4
On a hike I’d probably reach for the smaller and lighter 10x30 which also has a 13ft minimum focal distance which is 7ft closer than the larger pair. They’re great!
But the 12x36 has the larger FOV and 3rd generation IS that really does almost let you see what the bird is _thinking_ and that it’s not the same woodpecker that visited yesterday.
As someone with a shaky hand, I could never use 12x36 binoculars without IS and so the price tag was really not a big premium over something with possibly superior optics that I would not enjoy.
Since Canon has MAP pricing and I wanted to buy an actual new pair of the 12x36 IS III from an authorized retailer like B&H Photo ($800) instead of Amazon, on a hunch I checked some Canadian photo shops and found Excellentphoto.ca who shipped them to my US address for $850 CAD ≈ $650 USD. Which is possibly a fulfillment bug and not a feature.
I always end up having to close one eye.
The doctor says something like "There should be one line in front of each eye, do You see a single straight line?"
I replied "Heck no... the line on this side is higher and pretty far to the left, the other is centered and much lower."
Now with glasses binoculars work as intended. I can also make out some icons on computer screens where before almost none made sense (and the same icons would appear different based on viewing angle). The glasses do wonders for movie and television viewing, too.
One caveat: the glasses have a very restrictive horizontal viewing angle.
No problems reading without glasses. Crazy.
Have an optometrist check for eye alignment next time.
The first number refers to the magnification (18x) and the second is the size (50mm) of each objective lens, or the lens pointed at the object you’re looking at. The larger the objective, the more light they can gather.
At night, your pupil is probably 6-7mm in diameter. The 50mm objective can gather much more light than your unassisted pupils! Those binoculars also weigh over a kilogram, so they’re best for short handheld sessions if you’re standing. If you’re sitting or lying down, you won’t tire as quickly.
They’re wonderful for looking at globular clusters and nebulae, as well as for viewing Saturn or Jupiter; the Galilean moons are easy to spot! For lunar viewing, the stereoscopic view actually feels almost 3D.
Keep in mind, though: most binoculars aren’t specifically designed for astronomical observation. You won’t be able to attach ND filters, polarizers, or emission filters. So your best bet is to use them from dark skies with good “seeing” where you can just lay back and enjoy the view as you scan around trying to do a Messier Marathon. :)
Edit: it does have a standard tripod screw on the bottom, so a monopod with an added trigger-ball grip can make extended observation sessions more comfortable. Many binoculars require a bracket to mount to a monopod/tripod, but image-stabilized binos aren’t hinged; their relatively flat bottom means that larger image-stabilized binos often have a tripod screw.
2nd edit: I tracked ISS across the sky (with the stabilization on) last year, and I could clearly make out its shape.
I also have zhumell 25x100 binoculars (which also get oemed under a number of other brand names). These are huge and must be used on a tripod.
The canon are easy and convenient to use. As a result they get used more often. That said, for astronomy the big binoculars are obviously better. E.g. A couple weeks ago I looked out the window with the 25x100 and the blue glow of the Orion nebula h-beta emission was quite obvious to me, but I couldn't really see it with the canon. Juipter's moons are always nicely visible on the big binocs but harder to see with the canon. On the astro binocs jupiter almost always gets a "wait! are those moons?!?".
But it's just not compatible in the sense that the canon gets used when the big ones often don't. You can just lay back in a lounge chair with the canon and gaze at the vastness of stars (which are much more visible through the 10x42 than the naked eyes). You're not going to do something like that with 25x100 binos except with some kind of cantilevered balanced mount that looks like a dentist tortured device. :) (laying back is advised: the canon is still kinda heavy even if nothing compared t the astro-monster)
I don't particularly enjoy eyepiece astronomy-- my interest w/ astronomy is in imaging via telescopes.
I have the astro binocs for the benefit of guests and I've found in general that guests don't have the intuition or patience to correctly focus them (and it's hard for me to do it for them because I'm -3 diaopter so if I focus for myself it'll be wrong, and even through my glasses I'm still at the wrong distance). This is a place where the canon beat out the astro binocs too, because the stabilization prevents shaking/blurring the frame when you adjust focus so it's much easier for an untrained person to get it right. Similarly, I find guests will actually manage to make the IPD adjustment on the canons while they tend to give up on the zhumell, as it takes a lot of force on those.
So I would say that if you're considering the canon stabilized binos for other reasons and wonder if they'd work for astro too: Absolutely. If you're looking for astro binocs though there are better results at a lower price possible if you're willing to put up with the tripod. Without a tripod I don't think you can beat the stabilized binocs.
> Perfect for observing birds, planes, double stars, nebulae, satellites, and planets. I can't resolve Saturn's ring, but Jupiter and its moons and the Hercules cluster are not to be missed.
[1] https://www.kiteoptics.com/en/nature/products/stabilized-opt...
This, is not that, and now I want to try these. Just checked the prices, and now I remember why I've always skipped past and went straight for telescopes instead.
The stabilized binocular to beat is the Fujinon TSX1440, but it weighs a whopping 2kg.
IS zoom lenses for cameras are optimal for when you know about how I might want to see a particular object up close, mainly for just a couple of 1/100th of a second intervals, but mostly later on after you get home and use software on it and whatnot.
Very cool technology though for sure!
You just carry binoculars, and the image stabilization makes that experience immeasurably better. Good glass costs money, the cost of the image stabilization only tacks on a small amount compared to the rest of the cost of a pair of high quality binoculars.
I'm thinking more pre-planned stationary observation for sure though.
Binoculars are the absolute worst choice of optical device in this hypothetical setup, go buy something that makes more sense for stake outs with the money you're saving on a high grade pair of binoculars, irrespective of whether it has IS or not =)
Wish the author was a bit more serious and focused on the tech (no pun intended) (e_e)