| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.174.78) Date: 09/14/2001 07:32:28 pm PST Regarding the above comment, compared to Zeiss? Have you actually tried the crappy $5,000 Zeiss image stabilized binoculars? They weigh a ton so they're not very good as a hand held bino. They only work so long as you hold down the spring loaded image stabilization button, which challenges your endurance very quickly. It is not electronic, so while you will save on batteries, it will only work so long as you are strong enough to hold down the mechanical spring loaded mechanism. Zeiss is the only image stabilized binocular where you need to factor muscle fatigue into the evaluation. These were nice, in the dark ages before electronics. They are still a marvel of design and engineering, kind of the same way the Eiffel Tower is amazing when you consider that they made it so long ago and it was only supposed to stand for a year or two. If you are starting a binocular museum then by all means look for the Zeiss. Otherwise buy the Canons and some lithium batteries, then you won't have to change the batteries every four hours and you'll have a great time viewing through them. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.91.66 By: webmaster Date: 08/02/2002 05:37:40 pm PST Did you try these with a tripod? I would think the IS shouldn't make a difference there whereas at 15x, it would make a huge difference handheld. >Overall a superb optical instrument. What I found interesting was the fact that if you use these binocs with the IS OFF, the optics appear only fair, but when you switch it on, the optics take a quantum leap upward. You can actually see many more stars with the IS on than you could with it off. My only criticisms are the weight and the eye relief(only 15mm), but these minor inconveniences are greatly outweighed by the spectacular optics. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.91.66 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.56.140) In Reply to: webmaster (Original Message) Date: 12/23/2003 11:40:09 am PST >Did you try these with a tripod? I would think the IS shouldn't make a difference there whereas at 15x, it would make a huge difference handheld. > >>Overall a superb optical instrument. What I found interesting was the fact that if you use these binocs with the IS OFF, the optics appear only fair, but when you switch it on, the optics take a quantum leap upward. surely that is the whole point of IS?? you can see a lot more with IS on. that is what it's there for, 15x is no use in a pair of hand held binoculars?? Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.91.66 By: webmaster In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.56.140) (Original Message) Date: 12/23/2003 05:21:33 pm PST The point is that the user had found the optics only fair with the IS off. From a technical perspective, there is no reason for the optics to be any different with the IS on or off -- they're the exact same optics, it's only a matter of whether the prisms are activated to compensate for hand vibrations. Because a tripod would virtually eliminate vibrations, the user could be able to verify that indeed, the IS has no affect on the optics at all. I believe what the user is seeing in the only "fair" optics is merely the vibration of his hands, in which case the optics are irrelevant. >>Did you try these with a tripod? I would think the IS shouldn't make a difference there whereas at 15x, it would make a huge difference handheld. >> >>>Overall a superb optical instrument. What I found interesting was the fact that if you use these binocs with the IS OFF, the optics appear only fair, but when you switch it on, the optics take a quantum leap upward. > >surely that is the whole point of IS?? you can see a lot more with IS on. that is what it's there for, 15x is no use in a pair of hand held binoculars?? Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
