Views on Canon IS binoculars?

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:58 am

Maybe you can consider the 16x60 or 20x60 Pentax PCF WP II which had some good reviews for sharp-to-the-edge images, is perhaps lightweight enough to handhold for short periods of time and will cost only around $355.

I think what gavin looking for is the image stabilization feature. If IS is not required, you can get Fujinon 7x50 for half the price of Canon IS.

Tachyon · Post by **Tachyon** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:09 pm

If anyone is interested, I can bring my Canon IS 18x50 during the Mars Watch for you to try.

Cheers!

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:18 pm

the Canon IS, because it says it makes him feel a little sea-sick,

I had the same problem too, as I felt a little bit of nausea after using them.

I think what gavin looking for is the image stabilization feature. If IS is not required, you can get Fujinon 7x50 for half the price of Canon IS.

If one is looking for a low-power bino, I would warmly recommend the Nikon Monarch 10x42 which is very light and it gives a wide field of view and with good eye-relief. At the last Mersing trip, a few of us have tested it out and it compared favorably to the Fujinon 7x50. For higher power without tripod, definitely the Canon IS 18x50 is great, IF money is not an issue. I merely highlighted the Pentax 16x60 & 20x60 bino because I think it is value-for-money.

kayheem · Post by **kayheem** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:47 pm

rlow wrote:
I had the same problem too, as I felt a little bit of nausea after using them.

I dunno, maybe due to the fact that when we are scanning, we expect image to move, but the IS tries to keeps it in 1 spot until it reaches the limit before moving. This may make the image jumpy, causing nausea.

Kay Heem

starfinder · Post by **starfinder** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:54 pm

Hi all,

Thanks for your replies.

Tachyon, I sure would like to see the 18x50 IS in action at Mars Watch.

rlow, I have the Nikon 10x42 Monarch too. Got it a few months ago. Strange you mentioned this binocs has good optics, because just two nights ago I compared it with my old good n'cheap Nikon 10x50 Action Lookout IV. The 10x42 Monach is definitely sharper, and I could make out more stars despite the smaller aperture. It also snaps into focus more authoratively. I should have brought that to Mersing earlier this month, rather than the 10x50. (rlow, thanks for the 2" 1rpd suggestion too).

Well, as for IS in general, perhaps it is a matter of getting used to the way it works, then there would not be any nausea/sea-sick feeling. Just speculation on my part. I've never looked through one under the stars before.

elton · Post by **elton** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:03 pm

I think rlow and arief are not referring to the same Fujinon 7x50. The one rlow tried in mersing was a lower range fujinon whereas i believe arief was referring to the FMT-SX (flat field, multicoated etc). Anyway I tried the Nikon monarch too and found it surprisingly bright and sharp for a 42mm bino. Recommended.

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:47 pm

Yes, I used the Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX for my travelscope before I replaced it with Megrez II EDT. Best bino i've ever used.

rlow · Post by **rlow** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:35 am

Well, as for IS in general, perhaps it is a matter of getting used to the way it works, then there would not be any nausea/sea-sick feeling. Just speculation on my part. I've never looked through one under the stars before.

Of course though the Canon IS affected me with a bit of sea-sick feeling, your mileage may differ. You can maybe check it out with Tachyon as he has one.