Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodstar
Brian, when I have enough fee cash, I might just look at those image stabilising bins. Are they a lot more heavy?
|
Hi Rodstar,
I looked at the Canon stabilised binoculars and found a few things I didn't like about them. For their size, they are a little heavy and are also quite bulkier than comparable size binoculars. Also, whilst using them, the battery went flat, so you would need to keep a few batteries handy. Also, I considered that there was more that could go wrong with these binoculars, as they electro-stabilised.
Another thing that I had noticed was that you couldn't aim them at the sky, as the stabiliser only works properly below about 30 - 40 degrees elevation, although I am sure some will disagree with this, as there may be variations in this. If you are watching fast moving objects or on a moving object, they are great, but not completely necessary, in my view.
On the other hand, the Fujinon electro-stabilised binocular is considerably better, but is also very bulky, and much more expensive. The best stabilised binoculars I have ever used are the Fujinon Gyro-stabilised binoculars. These are just fantastic, but at $10,000 approximately, you would expect them to be. Also, this model can take light intensifier tubes and that also looks fantastic, but add another $12,000. If only I could win lotto!
Furthermore, I didn't see a significant advantage in the stabilisation. I shake a little bit, as a result of an accident, and didn't think that they were that stable really. Although, to be fair, I did compare them to the Leica 8x32 Ultravid's, which are very compact, with great light transmission and have a nice wide field. The field of view advantage negated the need for stabilisation.
Considering the price difference, the Canon was well priced, and do work well, however, I really did think the Leica were considerable better, far more robust (little to go wrong with them) and considerably more compact. They would want to be good, given that they are twice the price of the Canon.
After looking at and comparing many binoculars, I settled on the Leica 8x32 Ultravid, as I could see much finer detail. Expensive, I know, but when comparing them I could easily see that they were the best, at least, in my mind. I never set out to spend that much on a compact binocular, and had a very hard time justifying them, but have been very happy that I did. I just love my Leica. Despite their size, they give amazing view of the stars. I now only use my Leica 8x32 for astro work and don't really use my Fujinon 7x50, as they are quite heavy. But, also to be fair, the compactness of these binoculrs mean that I take them more places, unlike my more bulkier binoculars.
A further point to remember is that it isn't all about the optics, as construction is also very important, if not more so than the optics. Good quality construction provides a more robust binocular, which are far less likely to go out of collimation. Good quality optics coupled with poor construction will lead to collimation problems. Sometimes, these collimation problems are not easily seen, as your eyes will adjust, however, that will strain the eyes. Getting binoculars properly collimated can cost anywhere from $45 - $80. So, bare that in mind when selecting binoculars. There is a reason why high quality binoculars are expensive, as they are much better optically and mechanically. Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware).
But, it all comes down to what you can afford, or what you want to pay.
Cheers Peter