Since I own a Canon 12x36 IS I hardly use any other pair of binoculars any more. Not that I have top class other binoculars but still if I did (and I have looked through top range binoculars) I would probably still use my Canon IS more then others. Why? Because of IS. This feature give me so much more detail and is just very pleasant to look throw. If I push the button it is just like magic. I would think that the advantage of IS over Non-IS would seem much more than the advantage of lets say ED over Non-ED.
Even if you are able to hold your binoculars very still I still think there is a major advantage.
I know the Canons I have do have some other disadvantages (very ugly, not waterproof, no twist-up eye cups etc.) but the IS-feature itself is just amazing. I think the problem with IS is that the advantage is not (or hard) to measure scientifically because the advantage depends the ability of the binocular user to hold still. I can not say “how much” more detail I can see if I push the button. I can not give any figures. All I can say is that it is “a lot” but that’s it. Is there any way to scientifically value the advantage of IS of non-IS? (how much more detail, contract etc?)
Has anyone ever done some resolution tests handholding IS binoculars and comparing the image with and without the IS button pushed? Even knowing the user plays a major role in this test I would still like to know what the result was.
Cheers Peter
Hello Peter,
I started using a stabilized piece myself in 2001. A 20x60.
My initial purpose was to replace a heavy telescope with a tripod. When I lost my Leica in 2004, I used the 20x60 as a replacement in all circumstances.
Advantages are: It is useable in situations where weight has to be cut down.
It is faster than the set up of a telescope and a tripod.
The last advantage can be found while I am on my recumbent bike and see a bird all of the sudden.
During migration counts, when small passerines fly overhead, this advantage is found all day long, compared to the people who use telescopes. A telescope is definitely slower: one has to walk to the set up, handle the gear.
The Monoscope (mine is not a binoculars) is there immediately.
Disadvantage on the other hand is that when installed behind the Telescope set-up, the set up provides an even more stable view over longer times of operation, higer magnifications can be used with great succes and the light, caught by 88 mm front lens is much much better.
Yet an other good piece came in use with the introduction of the Monoscope. A Monopod.
I use this Monopod for the support of the Monoscope but even more frequently for the ordinary 10x42 bins. If one is scanning over longer time, the support by the Monopod gains great profit for the ordinary bins.
It is at this point where the initial use of the stabilised binoculars was thought to be the replacement for the ordinary bins. But still one has to hold even a heavy Stabi over longer times. A Monopod is good to have with you.
If one wants to walk in difficult terrain, the stick shows anothter advantage .
I don't have any binoculars with IS, but have a Canon digital camera with 12x zoom, and it's awesome. Can take pics off-hand on 12x.
Really, binoculars haven't evolved all that much in many decades. Better coating, yes. Lighter bodies, yes. But I wonder if IS is the next major evolutionary step for Big Three.