Ok, I've still got my 10x30 IS set and its working just fine, except the finish has mostly curled up and gone away. Doesn't impact the function at all. But now I'm thinking of the bigger and more powerful 15x50s they advertise. If those work as well as the 10x30s, it would be a winner.

No, I don't waste my time looking at birds on dry land. I look out at the river all the damn time. So some things I don't understand. Will the 50mm objective lenses be worth anything? What will the binoc's do with all that extra light? The 10x does a remarkable job of stabilizing my shaky hands. I assume the 15x will do the same. Maybe take up more power because I assume they have bigger chunks of glass to move around.

Anybody else have any input?

My Steiner 10x50s are really nice, they let in almost as much light as my surplus Zeiss East German border guard binocs.

But going larger has its issues. They can let you see a lot, but they get bigger and heavier. My 15x70s pretty much need to be tripod mounted for any significant viewing.

Larger lenses let in more light, this is great in the mornings and evenings or when in forests etc.


In my experience, 12x is about as large as I'd go unless I plan on using a tripod, the higher magnifications magnifies any shaking/trembling etc.

Over the years, I've decided that the best fit for me is 8x and if I need more, I'm using a spotting scope on a tripod.

I don’t have any idea what binoculars you’re referring to, but as a generic answer to the question about a 50mm objective lens versus one that’s smaller, it’s what your eye does with the extra light, not what the binoculars do with it.

When the eye is fully adapted to the dark, the pupil usually expands to 6 to 7 millimeters in diameter. The “exit pupil” diameter of the binoculars is calculated by dividing the size of the objective lens by the magnification power. A 10×50mm optic has an EP of 5mm, or less than the maximum size of the eye pupil, so it’s not allowing as much light through as the eye could conceivably use. At one time 7×50 binoculars were very popular as “night glasses” because their EP was just over 7mm, or the max the eye could take in.

For daylight viewing, however, and if our pupils will expand only to a maximum diameter somewhat less than 6-7mm (due to age, etc.), then a larger exit pupil offers no advantage. Assuming similar quality glass, an 8.5×42 with its EP of ~4.9 won’t seem any brighter or clearer than an 8×25 set with an EP of ~3.1.

Of course, not all optics have the same quality of glass. A cheap set with large exit pupil may not provide the same “seeing” as an expensive set with a smaller EP. I have three sets of high quality binoculars, two Swarovski and one old Zeiss. I can’t tell any difference in optical quality in the uses I put them to, but because the Zeiss is 7×42mm and has an EP of 6.0, that’s what I use when I’m trying to see in the dark. Otherwise it’s the 8.5×42 for general viewing when I don’t mind the size and weight, and the 8×25 when I want lighter and more compact.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I don’t have any idea what binoculars you’re referring to,

I currently have 10x30 Canon IS. The IS is for internally stabilized. They don't shake at all when the button is pushed. I use them from the comfort of my recliner. They don't shake at all, I do. But the stabilization feature stops it dead. I have no interest in unstabilized binoculars. Once you've tried them, you'd understand.

I'm not sure of other manufacturers glass. Canon is one of the major players in camera glass, and also in binoculars. The question to Shugart is if he'd ever seen or used that higher power, or known anyone who had. Except for an aversion to using high tech optics, I can't imagine anyone using shaky old tech. The glass can be first rate, but you'll still induce shaking.

Oh, and the cost might deter some from them.

About a decade or 2+ ago I went through a phase where I was intensely seeking the IS style Canon bino.
Their price was rather steep for my budget so was shopping about for other players.

Found a pair that had great anti-shaking feature, & was very economical in comparison.

Before purchase, I discovered *that particular design* achieved its clarity & stability by a method that just stunned my naivete. Unsure what I expected, but this model achieved 'motionless stability' by incorporating a type of digital camera image. When pushing the 'stabilize' button, it display THAT image, which it would retain until released by pushing the button again. No wonder the econoPrice.

I was aghast. I didn't want to look at a frozen image, but live action, in stabilized format.

In any case, putting them back on the shelf I stumbled across a very nice pair of used Zeiss 10x40 within my budget.

make real sure that they are returnable, prior to purchasing
(in writing)

It looks like you've had plenty of input. I suspect that anything greater than 10X in handheld binocs would not be a good idea even with IS.

Sorry for the delay, I was busy taking care of my dog who took a bad turn (but is better now).

I found a really good review of the whole range of Canon IS binoculars, by someone who writes reviews for Sky and Telescope, so he knows what he’s talking about. It’s a real hands-on review.

Review: Canon IS Binoculars

Well what I heard was that the police took away Shugart’s binoculars. Something about a complaint.

Surely this wasn’t actually true.

I believe I would get a tripod mount to go with those. I understand they are stabilized but they have to get heavy quickly. A modest tripod and fluid head would go a long ways. The stabilization covering up for the money saved on a premium tripod.

15x binos are great but they need a tripod. I’ve got a pair of Athlon 15x56 binos I’m testing out (very nice product, and great value for the $$$) but it’s a tripod system, great when I want to look for moose but a spotting scope is just a bit too much.

I've been on SIGFORUM for a long time now. This pretty much follows my impressions. Except how low I've fallen, needing to rely on Jim Shugart as my expert on some things. Its OK, and he's the only person (if he really exists) I know who owns and uses or at least used the specific product I want. Most of the replies are what I expected, trying to shift me to products I don't want. SJTILL gave me a really helpful road test. Guess I need to bite the bullet and just blow a grand on them and get on with my life.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
I've been on SIGFORUM for a long time now. This pretty much follows my impressions. Except how low I've fallen, needing to rely on Jim Shugart as my expert on some things. Its OK, and he's the only person (if he really exists) I know who owns and uses or at least used the specific product I want. Most of the replies are what I expected, trying to shift me to products I don't want. SJTILL gave me a really helpful road test. Guess I need to bite the bullet and just blow a grand on them and get on with my life.

I personally like getting responses to threads I post, I enjoy getting suggestions and opinions from others...that’s why I post. I guess I should add you to the ignore list as I absolutely hate people who cry about getting responses to their threads.

quote:

Its OK, and he's the only person (if he really exists)

I can attest he does. I think so, anyway, we were drinking at the time.

TWANGnBANG reviewed the Fraser Optics 14X stabilized binoculars last month. I appreciate the mechanical design approach they took, no personal experience with their product though.
TWANGnBANG Fraser Binocular Review

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:

quote:

Its OK, and he's the only person (if he really exists)

I can attest he does. I think so, anyway, we were drinking at the time.

Indeed we were (and eating BBQ). This was a meeting of some old S&W Forum members on April 12, 2008. I'm on the left; zoom6zoom is on the right. Merlot chose an unfortunate photographic moment to check out his dick.

OK, this has been fun. Newmexican confuses his response to trying to deter me in my already forming opinion. Opinions and comments are both welcome and well received if they conform to what the question was that I asked. Over the years I've owned a variety of different binoculars. Most became unusable due to the shake problem I was trying to overcome.

So a little while ago my wife ordered the 15x50 that I'd pretty much settled on. But IS not standard shaky ones. I admit my uses are pretty limited. I gave away the last 20x binoc's because they were pretty much usless. As we age, we shake.

I've never met Jim, but I'd like the opportunity. As long as his dog doesn't want to check out my dick.

So my wife says delivery should be Tuesday, which will be good for me. I'm home.

quote:

As long as his dog doesn't want to check out my dick.

Don't worry, she's picky.

Go for it. Shrouds don't have pockets and you're damn near as old as I am. And I'm fucking old: 75 last month.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
Opinions and comments are both welcome and well received if they conform to what the question was that I asked.

Not to be that guy (OK, definitely to be that guy), but you did ask "Anybody else have any input?" at the end of your post, not "Anybody else want to tell me what a great decision I'm making?"

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
I gave away the last 20x binoc's because they were pretty much usless. As we age, we shake.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone credible recommend (non-stabilized) binoculars over 10x magnification for general handheld use, and most people add something like "and really, 7x or 8x is better."

15x or higher (non-stabilized) binoculars are almost invariably either cheap gimmicky garbage or intended to be mounted on a tripod and used like a spotting scope.