View Single Post
Old 06-26-2021, 10:28 AM   #11
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 447
Thanks: 144
Thanked 171 Times in 105 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pricestavern View Post
Not sure how what I said can be construed as a 'negative' comment. It is simply a consideration. The IS device adds weight. It is something, amongst the '20 parameters' that must be considered. Nothing 'obvious' here about my experience, so keep that bit to yourself, please.
Don’t forget to also “consider”

Better optics adds weight.
Better build adds weight.
Waterproofing adds weight.
Larger objective adds more weight.

It’s obvious you have no experience because you are focusing on one aspect when you have to look at the whole thing.

Canon makes some nice 32mm IS in 10x,12x,14x that have nominally a small amount of weighted add for IS.

Here is a good example, which I’m sure you won’t bother to read comparing them to a very high end Binocular (Swarovski). And how they all agreed the Canon was a better experience.

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/ca...-10x56.355635/

Lot’s of folks carry monopods or tripods to get the most out of their glass. So for hiking the IS makes your pack weight LESS and more versatile.
There are heavier and lighter IS binocs. These are the sweet spot. You generally don’t need 42mm for day time viewing. 42mm and up kicks in on night skies.

Last edited by mswlogo; 06-26-2021 at 11:33 PM.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote