有关尼康StabiEyes14x40 VR、佳能15x50 IS、富士Techo－stabi 14x40和俄罗斯16x40稳

EDF · 发表于 2006-3-2 23:48

[B]以下是引用[I]ranger[/I]在2006-3-2 15:28:23的发言：[/B][BR]<>但是Nikon的稳像模式比Canon好很多，其甲板模式可以用于颠簸的船上和直升机上稳定观察。而Canon只能站在地上看了。<>感觉买12x36IS II心有不甘，再加2000元就可以买Nikon14x40双模式稳像了。

如果你会在车船上用，那想都不用想，NIKON。

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-2 23:58

[B]以下是引用[I]EDF[/I]在2006-3-2 15:26:59的发言：[/B][BR]记忆所及，NIKON的稳像镜无论光学和稳定性能都较好，但CANON的倍率和口径优势也不能少观。如何选择则看你用于何种用途及喜欢N家还是C家的成像风格了。

呵呵，我可是个望远狂，甚至陪着老婆逛商场买衣服时脖子上居然挂着SW8x30呢，自然希望什么时候都可以用上望远镜了，包括坐在汽车驾驶副座上、坐在列车车厢、飞机座舱里我也喜欢用望远镜观察。
也就是说我喜欢我的稳像望远镜什么时候都可以拿出来一用呢，这个稳像也应该可以作天文观察，因为我也喜欢看看星空呢。说到观星，这里似乎Nikon14x40的倍率和口径都偏小了一些呢，不如佳能15x50IS了。

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-3 00:01

Nikon！

柴捆 · 发表于 2006-3-3 03:31

<

>再加2000元,买Nikon14x40双模式稳像得了！！！
<

>鸡腿总比鸡肋感觉好点！！！

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-3 17:18

<

>Canon12x36IS II和Nikon14x40稳像从光学效果上好像差不多。

<

>当然Nikon IS功能强大。但是Canon小巧啊，和一般的8x42屋脊双筒差不多，而Nikon整个就是一个厚方砖了，体积只比俄罗斯16x40稳像小些。

<

>单从使用效率上看，可能Canon12x36 IS II最可能被日常使用。

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-3 18:27

<

>有部分关于12x36IS II的评价称其可以在运动的交通工具上使用？？
<

>另外我关注到Canon第一代的IS镜子称其稳像技术为“图像稳定器”，从Canon10x42L IS和Canon12x36IS II开始都叫“可变角度棱镜的图像稳定器”。这两者之间的稳像技术有差异吗？

北旅之星 · 发表于 2006-3-3 18:29

<

>体积、重量、耗电三个问题是陀螺结构的最大不足。 
<

>对于地面手持用户而言，佳能的电子稳像是比较实际的，电子控制部分的性能己完全没有问题，估计很便宜的普通8位芯片既可完成控制，附属的控制部分成本也不高，目前没有快速发展普及的原因可能还是个别厂家的垄断和市场量有限，如果稳像望远镜能有IS镜头的销量，其它几个日本镜头厂会纷纷介入的，欧洲望远镜厂也会和日本厂家的电子技术合作的，不过这都是我们镜友的愿望，厂家考虑的是商业目的。
<

>既使出现稳像望远镜的战国时代，最大的好处是品种、选择性的增多，价格不会下来很多的，国外厂商走的都是高利润，佳能的价格其实己经很“厚道”了。

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-3 22:35

<

>以下文字来自Todd‘s Evaluation中对Canon12x36IS，15x45IS和15x50IS的评论，主要是在天文观察方面的感受和比较。
<

>19. 12x36, and 15x45 Canon IS (image stabilized!) FOV: 5.5 deg, 4.5 deg 15x45, 4.5 deg 15x50 Resolution: EXC+ Bright: EXC for exit pupil (<st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="mm" SourceValue="3" HasSpace="False" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">3mm</st1:chmetcnv> makes it seem less than other models) Edge: EXC (best tested of any..only a bit off at very edge) Eye Relief: EXC Cost: High Size: Med. Weight: Approx. <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="oz" SourceValue="40" HasSpace="True" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">40 oz</st1:chmetcnv> 15x45, <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="oz" SourceValue="42" HasSpace="True" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">42 oz</st1:chmetcnv>. 15x50 . NOTES: Unbelievably good, but with three problems. I tested this by day only (see 12/98 update below tested at night, and then 4/00 tested the 15x50s), but had to post the findings. They are extremely sharp to the edge of field compared to other binoculars, and sport a wide apparent fov of 67 degrees. Eye relief is perfect BOTH for glasses and non-glasses, and the diopter range to -5 allows for most near-sighted viewers to use without their glasses. In addition, the narrow (<st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="mm" SourceValue="3" HasSpace="False" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">3mm</st1:chmetcnv>) exit pupil corrects for many astigmatism problems, so this is an excellent choice for those with eye problems. Very sharp view, but dim, probably because of the exit pupil problem. The image stabilization works wonderfully, steadying everything with a push of a button. Radically changes the whole idea of binocular viewing w/o a tripod. The other problems that the Sky and Tel. article (May 98') left out, is that they weigh a lot, I can't even begin to guess how cumbersome the 15x45 is as I found the 12x<st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="a" SourceValue="36" HasSpace="True" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">36 a</st1:chmetcnv> bit uncomfortable... and #2. It is a bit of a hand-strain (slight) to press the conveniently located Image Stabilization button.. it doesn't lock in place, you have to continuosly hold it, which is mildly distracting. Also..of course..the price, is an issue. Overall, quite a development! 12/98 Update.. I tried the 10x30, and 15x<st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="in" SourceValue="45" HasSpace="True" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">45 in</st1:chmetcnv> the store. Then I bought 15x45s and resold them. Very carefully put them up against the best of the best and these are the winners. Best edge performance hands down. By a small margin..best on-axis resolution. I found the 15x45 use-able despite the heavy weight... too bad they don't make something with a bigger exit pupil. The exit pupil limited nebula performance so that I could gain much more even with the "shakes" using an Orion Little Giant 15x70. The resolution of the star members though of course was much better both with and without the stabilization engaged in these 15x45s. An image stabilization switch was at one time available to hold it "on" but does not seem to be sold anymore. I did indeed find the binoculars a bit too heavy to use, so I sold them. They still rate as the best performing binoculars for their aperture that I have ever seen, especially when it comes down to the edge performance which only began to suffer (slightly) beyond 90 or 95% from center field. 04/00 Update.. I very thoroughly tested the 15x50 pair on a dozen objects or more including galaxies, emission neb, clusters, globulars and the moon. I am most impressed. The extra <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="mm" SourceValue="5" HasSpace="False" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">5mm</st1:chmetcnv> on the new weather resistant pair has propelled the binoculars to just enough light gathering to successfully compete on-axis against my 15x70 Orion Little Giant 2s. M51 displays both galaxies, M27 displayed dim stars on all sides of the object, the moon displayed amazing texture, and stars were as colorful as can be. Contrast was excellent, with the moon barely noticeable just outside the field of view, and no glare entering the field when I moved it in. The edge performance is the best of any unit tested other than the Takahashi 22x60s, and on-axis this is about the tops. There is some lateral "color" when I move the moon from one side of the field to the other. The drop off in contrast and sharpness towards the edge of field is negligible but present. The good news is the image stabilization now works in 5 minute increments and is silent. The unit weighs a tad more than the 15x45s and is a tad cumbersome and tiring. The diopter correction is superb, I can use this with or without glasses and the eyecups are set just right for both glasses-on and off use. You can use these down to about -5.0 diopters. The field of view of 4.5 is perfect, it's at the apparent fov of around 67 degrees which is the maximum a binocular should be set at based on my experience with binoculars and binoviewers. Compared to my 15x70s of course the edge performance was not even an issue (these have the best edge performance of anything yet tried) but even on-axis, hand-held I was able to make out more with the Canons despite the <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="mm" SourceValue="50" HasSpace="False" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">50mm</st1:chmetcnv> aperture, with higher contrast but a dimmer field. Tripod mounted it was a wash, with a slight edge (minimal) to the 15x70s on nebulosity, but really only a "tie" on stars, which these <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" UnitName="mm" SourceValue="50" HasSpace="False" Negative="False" NumberType="1" TCSC="0">50mm</st1:chmetcnv> pulled out of the sky magically due to the high contrast. Comparing to a pair of 10x42 Superior E Nikons, these of course won hands down with no contest, not even remotely close. However, the 10x42 were much easier to hand-hold, and just as easy to hold steady despite the lack of image stabilization. . . due to the low weight. One other negative.. while the image stabilization is "on", if you aren't perfectly steady, your view may not move, but the resolution lowers. **One note: I did the BVD "NEED" resolution test, where you measure how many feet away you can separate the the dark and light line separation within the "ONE" on the back side of a dollar bill, and came out with an astounding 50 feet! However, note that I can see that separation naked eye at 30", which is well beyond the normal range of a person's usual eyesight. (I have about 20-13 vision with my glasses on) <st1:chsdate w:st="on" Year="2000" Month="4" Day="30" IsLunarDate="False" IsROCDate="False">4/30/00</st1:chsdate> Update: Lying down with the binoculars (on a friend's driveway no less) I made these to be about as stable as they would have been on a tripod, and this is how I tested them against a pair of 16x70 Fujinons, which were parallelogram mounted next to me. The contrast made these binoculars almost comparable in how much they could "pull" out of the sky to the Fujis, but not quite. Some threshold stars were just barely seen in the 16x70s and not in these. The mottling in M82 was more clear in the Fujinons. Bright objects like M5 were just as impressive though due to the contrast between the blacker sky (probably partially due to exit pupil) and the bright object itself. Also, the edge performance was better than the Fujis, and the eye relief. Note the difference may have been even more noticeable in darker skies, (the fujis would have the edge there even more than these fairly dark suburban skies) - TG

zhwwww · 发表于 2006-3-6 00:30

ranger的步伐还是应该要加快了，呵呵。建议重排个顺序：目前拥有全7，全10，SW Habicht 8x30W，下一个是NikonSP7x50，下一个是Leica8x42BL或施华EL或菜斯Victory 10*42 T*FL，再下一个是CANON 15x50 IS。。。。。。。

[em01][em01][em01]

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-3-5 16:56:33编辑过]

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-6 06:09

[B]以下是引用[I]zhwwww[/I]在2006-3-5 16:30:59的发言：[/B][BR]ranger的步伐还是应该要加快了，呵呵。建议重排个顺序：目前拥有全7，全10，SW Habicht 8x30W，下一个是NikonSP7x50，下一个是Leica8x42BL或施华EL或菜斯Victory 10*42 T*FL，再下一个是CANON 15x50 IS。。。。。。。

[em01][em01][em01]

稳像还是排在前边，但是从目前的使用状况来看，稳像镜子还是不要买太大规格的，还是以便携为主，否则使用频率会很低。
另外双筒镜子不想买的太多了，到时候从SP，SW7x42，8x42BL，8.5x42EL，8x42FL中选择一款就够了。太多的镜子放在家中我感觉难受。

ranger · 发表于 2006-3-6 06:12

主力使用的镜子不想太多了，一个日用旅游型8x，一个轻便稳像12x或14x，一个大出瞳直径型6mm左右。有这三个真是足够我和老婆、儿子用起来了。

pbtvzwza · 发表于 2006-5-21 06:04

网上乱转、看到北京吉安诺科技发展有限公司也生产稳象望远镜。不知是自创？组装？合资？性能？价格？

zhangkc · 发表于 2006-9-2 16:03

从网上標了一台尼康双模稳像.820dola

zhangkc · 发表于 2006-9-2 16:05

网上的使用评论有很失望的：
<

>在网上看到这样一段比较佳能和尼康稳像的：Anyway, I have had a brief encounter with StabilEyes 14x40 recently, and have plenty of experience with the Canon 15x50 IS UD, which I have owned for some four years now. I tried the StabE for only some fifteen minutes, in and out of a store that had it, and did not do any serious testing. I was quite disappointed with what I saw, both through the binocular and in what it was as a tool. The image was pretty dim and not particularly sharp, and I had a hard time finding a suitable diopter adjustment. I was left with the impression that I needed different adjustment for close range and farther out, but am not sure if this was the case. While the Canons give a very good image without the stabilization, these Nikons left a lot to be desired with respect to apparent resolution and contrast. The IS mechanism was noisy, and contrary to my expectations, the image with stabilization engaged was much more jittery than with the Canons. This was especially prominent in the land mode, while the sea mode made me seasick with the image continuing to move in direction x long after I had turned the binocular towards direction z. It is quite possible that this was a faulty specimen also, but as it is the only one I have ever laid my hands on, it had the effect of making me lose interest in this particluar application of image stabilization technology. I have generally liked Nikon's top-of-the-line optics very much, and was quite surprised to see a product which gave such a poor first impression. Handling was way worse than in the Canons also. The latter is pretty easy to hold and has a perfectly placed tripod thread under the body which allows me to use a short Finnstick monopod with a handle at the bottom for relaxed viewing. The Nikon is large and clumsy, has a worse focus wheel and tired my hands quite a lot faster than the Canon does. It also needs more batteries. I did not try to find out wether or not it works with NiMH rechargeables as the Canon does. The only obviously better feature of the Nikon was the eyecups, which in the Canon are pretty awfull (I keep them permanently downturned even though I don't wear glasses, and just lean the upper edges of the eyepieces against my brow), and the waterproofing. However, in his test report of the Fujinon Techno-Stabi, which also is waterproof, Jan Meijerink of Twentse vogelverkgroep stated that in his "freezer test" the Fujis fogged up badly, suggesting poor nitrogen purging (possibly a faulty unit, though). The Canons are not nitrogen purged, although I have had mine purged by a local optical technician. Since they are not sealed, though, the procedure will need to be repeated at some point. So, although I'm convinced that eventually image stabilization will render all conventional binoculars obsolete, the Nikons are not the model, and perhaps not even the technology, to do it. Too bad.

zhangkc · 发表于 2006-9-2 16:08

不过也有很正面的，有这样说尼康14*40的：I just took this one to Africa for a game drive. Fantastic clarity at 1,000 yards. At about 200 yards or closer you can see absolutely every last detail of the animal(s). The image stabilization feature is fantastic! Images are bright and crisp. Easy to focus "on the fly". Recommend!

zhangkc · 发表于 2006-9-2 16:09

国内网上报价太离谱了。我只花了相当人民币6500元。

ranger · 发表于 2006-9-2 16:46

<

>是啊，国内价格离谱！

<

>Canon15x50IS的锐度也不好，需要散光校正才好。在交通工具上Canon基本没法用了。

zhangkc · 发表于 2006-9-3 06:01

到手了，果然物有所值。连极力反对我买这个玩具的老婆都表态：这是一个好东西。
[em01][em01][em01]

有关尼康StabiEyes14x40 VR、佳能15x50 IS、富士Techo－stabi 14x40和俄罗斯16x40稳

发表回复