Canon 10x42 L IS waterproof binoculars coming soon

[dreamseason]

I didn't find any mention of these binoculars in the Canon IS binoculars thread and I thought this news might be interesting enough to deserve its own thread. Isn't L series glass used in Canon's professional camera lenses? If so, I'll be interested to see if the quality combined with the IS makes this a serious birding binocular. Has anyone else got more info about these?

Available in March 2005

The much-anticipated 10x42 L IS WP is the first waterproof binocular to incorporate Canon's exclusive Image Stabilizer technology for steady, shake-free viewing. The high quality L series optics, featuring 2 Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) lens elements (on each side), deliver excellent correction for chromatic aberration. With a large lens diameter and a 4.2mm exit pupil diameter, this binocular provides an exceptionally bright view, even in low-light conditions. The 10x42 L IS WP binocular offers both the desired brightness and excellent waterproof capabilities, making it ideal for a host of activities including marine use, stargazing and wildlife observation - just to name a few.

Canon's first waterproof IS Binocular.
High performance L Lens with 2 Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) elements on each side.
Doublet Field Flattener Lenses for sharp, distortion-free images edge-to-edge.
Bright field-of-view from a 4.2mm exit pupil diameter, the largest of any Canon IS Binocular.
Wide angle rating from an apparent angle-of-view of 65&deg.
One touch IS usage.
Body components feature metallic coating to prevent fogging.
Distinctive, easy grip design.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=128&modelid=11092

[dipped]

Hi Dreamseason. The original thread got lost in the crash. This bin. is now listed at Anacortes at $1195 roughly equivalent to £660 (UK pounds). I think at this sort of price and if it's as good as it has the potential to be it could really shake up the market. As has been noted in other threads the limiting factor in top high power bins is the ability to hold them still which the IS overcomes. So has anybody seen them yet? Can't find any reviews on the web so far. Don't know when they're due for release in the UK but I for one can't wait to try a pair. I tried to email Canon UK but I don't think they got the message, also it wasn't listed on their product page the last time I looked. May have to wait for the Bird Fair!

[Swissboy]

Hi Dreamseason. The original thread got lost in the crash. This bin. is now listed at Anacortes at $1195 roughly equivalent to £660 (UK pounds). I think at this sort of price and if it's as good as it has the potential to be it could really shake up the market. As has been noted in other threads the limiting factor in top high power bins is the ability to hold them still which the IS overcomes. So has anybody seen them yet? Can't find any reviews on the web so far. Don't know when they're due for release in the UK but I for one can't wait to try a pair. I tried to email Canon UK but I don't think they got the message, also it wasn't listed on their product page the last time I looked. May have to wait for the Bird Fair!


Any tech data around? Min focus and weight might be critical. I can't find anything at the Canon site.

[Bill Atwood]

Field of View 340 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 16 mm
Close Focus 8.2 ft.
Weight 36.8 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 6.9 x 5.4 in.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=4213

[Zolarcon]

Field of View 340 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 16 mm
Close Focus 8.2 ft.
Weight 36.8 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 6.9 x 5.4 in.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=4213

I hear a few BF'ers complain about the weight of the Nikon Venturer old HG 8x42, 36 oz. How are people going to feel comfortable hanging this around their neck all day? Are people willing to sacrifice weight for view. It seems from what Nikon did- HGL, they weren't?


These look like a real fun pair of bins. For pelagic trips.

Carlos

[Geoff Brown]

I have the 10x30 IS bins and they are pretty good, also not too heavy. Tried the larger mag models at the birdfair and they were like having a car battery hanging round your neck with the weight.

[dipped]

Well I've just visited Warehouse Express and these babies are priced at a staggering £1099! It will surely be cheaper to import these from America for UK buyers. Of course the price may come down in due course as did the Nikon Hi grades after they were introduced. I was expecting £600-£700 range. They will have to be something special to tempt most birders at that price though I see a lot of Swarovski scopes about of which the HD versions are in the same price range.

[hinnark]

Hi,

in another thread of the Swarovski forum the winding path of discussion finally led to the new Canon 10x42. Further discussion fits better to this thread so I hope it´s ok to copy some msgs to let you know what has happend so far and to go on here with this topic.



Steve





Steve,

Not to take this thread veering off course, but I am quite interested in the new Canon 10x42s. I have unable to find much info so far but it seems that you might have some insights. Is there anything you can share?

Thanks,

Tony
__________________________________________________ _______________

Hi Tony,

I wasn´t online around the weekend (because of birding of course ; ) but now here comes the answer. If this is too off topic the admin may move my msg to the Canon forum.

I had a short opportunity to try the new 10x42 IS WP L Canon in a shop. As you probably know the possibilities of testing a piece of optics in a shop are quite limited but I found my own methods. Nevertheless I was very impressed by the view the new Canon was offering. In short words: the optics of this bino are superb and a real challenge for every high end binocular of the 10x42 range. The red rings around the tubes near to the objectives are indicating something special like we know for example with the Nikon ED scopes and some other Japanese high quality photo equipment. I saw bright, contrasty Images, very good sharpness over almost the whole field of view, great fov, good sharpness at the edge. I compared it with a demo Leica 10x42 Ultravid but the Leica must be a lemon (often a problem with demo binos) since the Canon was much sharper. So the optics seemed to be first class ones but additional to that the IS mechanism works in a way that let the view comes to an outstanding experience. BTW the colour of the objective coatings are others than with the big 15/18x50 IS which have a kind of bluish coating. The colour of the coatings so far as visible has turned to green with the 10x42, while the oculars seemed to be quite neutral.

The shape of this 10x42 looks like a little brother of the known 15 or 18x50 Canon IS binoculars. Like with them a tripod mount is included on the bottom side. It is still bulky and a bit heavy but with modern twistable eyecups and as I said before very good accessoiries being on the level we know with recent series of Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski, like a good case, caps for the objectives and eyepieces etc. Remember, these are only first impressions. I´d realy like to compare the Canon with the other kings of the hill ( for example Zeiss Victory FL and Nikon HG) of the 10x42 range.


__________________________________________________ __________________

Steve,

Thanks for your comments.

A couple of quick questions, but perhaps, if you can be bothered, you could post your answer on the Canon 10x42 thread so this branch of the discussion could continue there.

First, what is the price in Germany?

Secondly, when you say that the Canon was much sharper than the Leica, do you mean centerfield sharpness also, or only edge sharpness. Off-center sharpness in the 10x42 Ultravid is not spectacular, and Canon's field flatteners should easily provide much better off-axis performance. Dead center there could be a noticeable difference also, but if the difference is dramatic, then the Leica must indeed have been a lemon. Leica is very rugged, though, so simply being a demo should not compromise its performance. Any binocular which stands up well to the Ultravid in sharpness, brightness and contrast is definitely top-class.

Kimmo

[hinnark]

Thanks for your comments.

A couple of quick questions, but perhaps, if you can be bothered, you could post your answer on the Canon 10x42 thread so this branch of the discussion could continue there.

First, what is the price in Germany?

Secondly, when you say that the Canon was much sharper than the Leica, do you mean centerfield sharpness also, or only edge sharpness. Off-center sharpness in the 10x42 Ultravid is not spectacular, and Canon's field flatteners should easily provide much better off-axis performance. Dead center there could be a noticeable difference also, but if the difference is dramatic, then the Leica must indeed have been a lemon. Leica is very rugged, though, so simply being a demo should not compromise its performance. Any binocular which stands up well to the Ultravid in sharpness, brightness and contrast is definitely top-class.

Kimmo

Kimmo,

as you can see on Canon´s German website the official price in Germany is 1599,- Euro:
http://www.canon.de/for_home/product_finder/binoculars/optical_image_stabilisation/10x42l_is_wp/index.asp
While the price in the store where I tried the 10x42 Canon was 1600,- Euro I saw a much more favorable offer of about 1300,- Euro on a German internet photoshop.

What I ment by sharpness was mainly off-center sharpness as well as sharpness at the edges. I only had a few minutes to compare the mentioned bins. So I think it´s necessary to do some more testing. But my first impression as a whole while trying the Canon was just: wow! These are amazing sharp and bright bins. To verify these impression I asked the salesman to give me another high class 10x42 bino and so he gave me the Ultravid which didn´t impress me like the Canon. I didn´t make any further investigations in center sharpness comparing both binoculars. This could be an interesting task for the next Alula review of 10x42 binoculars (but please including the 10x42 Nikon HGL) ;).
The difference between the Leica and the Canon was indeed quite clear. I have some more reasons to believe that the Leica was a lemon. I also tested some other binoculars at this day like the Canon 15x50 and 18x50 IS. With the 15x50 the
batteries had lost their power and need to change. For some reason they didn´t want to fall out of the housing first, so the salesman knocked very hard on the binocular to get them out. If this is they way they tread their binoculars I thought I should be very careful when planning to buy something there. Anyway while the Leica was probably a lemon I´m pretty sure that the 10x42 is a top-class binocular.

I´m sorry that I can´t give your more exactly informations but I just wanted to share my first impressions because Tony asked me for that. BTW this is the way I try optics: To try it again and again against different comparing models in shops and in the field under different circumstances of light.

Regards

Steve

[Donzo98]

Kimmo,

as you can see on Canon´s German website the official price in Germany is 1599,- Euro:
http://www.canon.de/for_home/product_finder/binoculars/optical_image_stabilisation/10x42l_is_wp/index.asp
While the price in the store where I tried the 10x42 Canon was 1600,- Euro I saw a much more favorable offer of about 1300,- Euro on a German internet photoshop.

What I ment by sharpness was mainly off-center sharpness as well as sharpness at the edges. I only had a few minutes to compare the mentioned bins. So I think it´s necessary to do some more testing. But my first impression as a whole while trying the Canon was just: wow! These are amazing sharp and bright bins. To verify these impression I asked the salesman to give me another high class 10x42 bino and so he gave me the Ultravid which didn´t impress me like the Canon. I didn´t make any further investigations in center sharpness comparing both binoculars. This could be an interesting task for the next Alula review of 10x42 binoculars (but please including the 10x42 Nikon HGL) ;).
The difference between the Leica and the Canon was indeed quite clear. I have some more reasons to believe that the Leica was a lemon. I also tested some other binoculars at this day like the Canon 15x50 and 18x50 IS. With the 15x50 the
batteries had lost their power and need to change. For some reason they didn´t want to fall out of the housing first, so the salesman knocked very hard on the binocular to get them out. If this is they way they tread their binoculars I thought I should be very careful when planning to buy something there. Anyway while the Leica was probably a lemon I´m pretty sure that the 10x42 is a top-class binocular.

I´m sorry that I can´t give your more exactly informations but I just wanted to share my first impressions because Tony asked me for that. BTW this is the way I try optics: To try it again and again against different comparing models in shops and in the field under different circumstances of light.

Regards

Steve

HI Gang...

Looks like these are finally available in the US. Hopefully we will get some reviews soon. BTW... I' m in no way associated with this listing. Just informing the members.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=50538&item=7512833004&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Don

[jogiba]

I just received the 10x42's today and the rain is about to start but I had a quick comparison with my 12x36's. The view looks much better under dark cloudy skies since they have a 4.2mm exit pupil and 65° AFOV vs 3.0mm and 60° AFOV for the 12x36's. I will still keep the 12x36 IS II's for their lighter weight and higher power. I will do more testing after the weather clears up.

Joe

[dipped]

I just received the 10x42's today and the rain is about to start but I had a quick comparison with my 12x36's. The view looks much better under dark cloudy skies since they have a 4.2mm exit pupil and 65° AFOV vs 3.0mm and 60° AFOV for the 12x36's. I will still keep the 12x36 IS II's for their lighter weight and higher power. I will do more testing after the weather clears up.

Joe

Hi Joe and thanks for taking the plunge and being the first to actually buy these (on BF at any rate).

I'm sure you will but please, please let us know what you think of them. Weight issues and ergonomics as well as optics on flying and stationary objects. In the UK they are only available on mail order at present from WHexpress so I can't get to test them (though the Birdfair is in August and I'm sure they will be there). We need a shop like Eagle Optics which lets you buy, test and keep or send back the bins you don't want (at least for the high end stuff).

Thanks in advance.
PS Hope the weather clears up soon.

[jogiba]

The weather today is mostly cloudy with 10-20mph winds and I tried them out today in my backyard . They are the sharpest binoculars I ever looked into and have no noticable chromatic aberration on axis and very little near the edge. The IS works best in five-minute mode so you don't have to hold the button down. I panned a few birds and planes and the IS works even better than my 12x36 IS II's since the lower power doesn't use up the maximum degrees of correction as much. Overall image has an APO look to it like my 80mm F6 Fluorite Triplet APO with Denkmier II binoviewer and a pair of 20mm Pentax XW's or 16mm Nagler eyepieces. My 12x36 IS II's have slightly better ergonomics when holding down the IS button and at the same time focusing but when using the five-minute mode with the 10x42's they are equal. The only con is the added weight over the 12x36's but since the 10x42's are waterproof and have much larger exit pupil I don't mind it.

The bottom line is the view is as good as it gets in a 10x binocular.

Joe

[dipped]

The bottom line is the view is as good as it gets in a 10x binocular.

Joe

Hi Joe
Thanks for that. They sound great. Perhaps the Leicas, they were compared to earlier weren't such lemons. I remember trying out the 10x and 12x IS Canon's at the Rutland Birdfair years ago and thinking this was the future-with the arrival of this model it would seem the future has become the present for birding purposes(at last).

I know you've only just got them but after you've had more time using them perhaps you'd consider putting a review in the review section. It would seem that these bins are worthy of wider attention from the birding community than has been the case for the Canon IS series till now.

I wonder if one of the more well known advocates of Canon IS bins has any comments at this stage?

[AlanFrench]

With the trend toward lighter weight binoculars - a trend apparently welcomed by consumers - I fear the Canon 10x42 IS are not going to catch wide attention. I could be wrong. The IS feature may persuade people to put up with the weight, but I am skeptical. It certainly lessened my interest, although my preference for 12x was also a factor.

I had a superb 12x view of a male Pileated Woodpecker climbing down a tree and hopping along the forest floor to a small pool for a drink yesterday.

Clear skies, Alan

[Rich N]

I have the Canon 15x50 IS. It is fine for "high power" astronomical observing. I seldom us it for birding. I prefer to take a lighter weight non-IS binocular and lug a spotting scope and carbon fiber tripod for high power views.

But, this new 10x42 L IS Canon certainly has my interest. I don't know if the eye relief, field of view and weight will be enough of a problem to off set the virtues of the IS feature.

Rich

[jogiba]

I have the Canon 15x50 IS. It is fine for "high power" astronomical observing. I seldom us it for birding. I prefer to take a lighter weight non-IS binocular and lug a spotting scope and carbon fiber tripod for high power views.

But, this new 10x42 L IS Canon certainly has my interest. I don't know if the eye relief, field of view and weight will be enough of a problem to off set the virtues of the IS feature.

Rich
It has 16mm eye relief vs 15mm for the 15x50, 65° AFOV /340.6ft FOV @1000yds vs 67.5° AFOV / 236ft @ 1000yds for the 15x50 and a weight of 36.8 oz vs 41.7oz for the 15x50's. I don't think thats a big problem to get the best 10x view in binoculars.

Joe

[Rich N]

It has 16mm eye relief vs 15mm for the 15x50, 65° AFOV /340.6ft FOV @1000yds vs 67.5° AFOV / 236ft @ 1000yds for the 15x50 and a weight of 36.8 oz vs 41.7oz for the 15x50's. I don't think thats a big problem to get the best 10x view in binoculars.

Joe

It sounds great and I will give one a try as soon as I can find one.

Rich

[jogiba]

With the trend toward lighter weight binoculars - a trend apparently welcomed by consumers - I fear the Canon 10x42 IS are not going to catch wide attention. I could be wrong. The IS feature may persuade people to put up with the weight, but I am skeptical. It certainly lessened my interest, although my preference for 12x was also a factor.

I had a superb 12x view of a male Pileated Woodpecker climbing down a tree and hopping along the forest floor to a small pool for a drink yesterday.

Clear skies, Alan

Alan , I was just out in my backyard around 7pm and was looking at several species of birds in the trees and it was like I had a brand new pair of eyes, it was jaw dropping. I panned some jet airliners just to my east and the sharpness and IS combined to give me the best views ever with the passenger windows looking like a row of black dots. The detail I seen on the birds was the best I ever seen with sharpness equal to my 80mm F6 Fluorite Triplet APO with Denk II binoviewer and a pair of 20mm Pentax XW's or 16mm Nagler's.

I also have a pair of Canon 12x36 IS II's and fell in love with IS for handheld use and when Canon came out with the 10x42's I purchased the first pair available. I will keep my 12x36's for use when I want a lighter weight 23.3oz vs 36.8oz IS binocular.

Joe

[kabsetz]

Having used the 15x50 IS extensively, mostly for birding, over the last five years, I react with a mixture of great amusement and mild annoyance whenever someone says something alike to: "well, the IS is probably very nice, but isn't that thing rather heavy? And it needs batteries too?"

If IS binoculars had been the norm for the last hundred years and now some top brand would come out with a stunning new binocular which is 5-10% brighter, a tad sharper when tripod mounted (and, hopefully, we can nix these arguments with the advent of the 10x42), and a full 200-300 grams lighter, but as a tradeoff would lack the IS, birders would consider the concept ridiculous. To be honest, though, there is the issue of long-term durability which I admit weighs in the favor of pure optomechanics devoid of any bells and whistles.

As it is, there are so many preconceptions about the IS that I have thought that once I get the 10x42 under our ALULA test regime, I'll split the field tests into two parts: first a field trial without power - to evaluate just the optics and the ergonomics against the best 10x42 references - and the a second field trial with the same users but now with rechargeables inserted.

Joe, related to this, have you used the 10x42 with NiMh cells yet? I have used nothing but on my 15x50 after the first pair of batteries run out, but since the rechargeables have a nominal voltage of 1.2, I cannot be sure they work on each and every IS model. If they do, they pretty much obliterate the objections people have about environmentally unfriendly mountains of used batteries, and as a bonus they work extremely well in cold temperatures. I had thought that just about everyone would use rechargeables by now, but just the other day I met an extremely experienced birder who uses his 15x50 IS a lot and swears by it whenever he is abroad birding in rainforests (which he does a lot, as he also works as a bird guide among other things), but had never even thought of using anything but batteries.

Thanks, Joe, for sharing your experiences. I must admit a slight bit of envy. Spring migration is at its peak here, and it would be nice to combine binocular testing with watching real action in the avian world.

Kimmo

[Rich N]

Having used the 15x50 IS extensively, mostly for birding, over the last five years, I react with a mixture of great amusement and mild annoyance whenever someone says something alike to: "well, the IS is probably very nice, but isn't that thing rather heavy? And it needs batteries too?"

If IS binoculars had been the norm for the last hundred years and now some top brand would come out with a stunning new binocular which is 5-10% brighter, a tad sharper when tripod mounted (and, hopefully, we can nix these arguments with the advent of the 10x42), and a full 200-300 grams lighter, but as a tradeoff would lack the IS, birders would consider the concept ridiculous. To be honest, though, there is the issue of long-term durability which I admit weighs in the favor of pure optomechanics devoid of any bells and whistles.

As it is, there are so many preconceptions about the IS that I have thought that once I get the 10x42 under our ALULA test regime, I'll split the field tests into two parts: first a field trial without power - to evaluate just the optics and the ergonomics against the best 10x42 references - and the a second field trial with the same users but now with rechargeables inserted.

Joe, related to this, have you used the 10x42 with NiMh cells yet? I have used nothing but on my 15x50 after the first pair of batteries run out, but since the rechargeables have a nominal voltage of 1.2, I cannot be sure they work on each and every IS model. If they do, they pretty much obliterate the objections people have about environmentally unfriendly mountains of used batteries, and as a bonus they work extremely well in cold temperatures. I had thought that just about everyone would use rechargeables by now, but just the other day I met an extremely experienced birder who uses his 15x50 IS a lot and swears by it whenever he is abroad birding in rainforests (which he does a lot, as he also works as a bird guide among other things), but had never even thought of using anything but batteries.

Thanks, Joe, for sharing your experiences. I must admit a slight bit of envy. Spring migration is at its peak here, and it would be nice to combine binocular testing with watching real action in the avian world.

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo,

Does ALULA plan to test another Zeiss 10x42 FL, one that is not defective? It would be good if the new Canon could be compared to a non-defective FL.

Thanks,
Rich

[jogiba]

Kimmo, I just used the 2 AA's that was included in the box from Canon. I am still on my original AA's in my Canon 12x36 IS II's that I purchased July 1 2004 . The new 10x42's and 12x36 IS II's are rated for four hours but the 10x42's have a 5 minute mode that works better for me than holding the IS button down. I have a four pack of lithium AA's that I carry in my backpack when I travel that I plan on using in the IS binoculars.

I think the new 10x42L's will set the standard for fine detail that could be seen in a handheld binocular.

Joe

[AlanFrench]

[SNIP]
I think the new 10x42L's will set the standard for fine detail that could be seen in a handheld binocular.
Joe

There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.

Clear skies, Alan

[Rich N]

There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.

Clear skies, Alan

It would be interesting to compare the new Canon 10x42 L IS on a tripod (IS turned off) to good Zeiss 10x42FL and Nikon 10x42SE.

Rich

[jogiba]

There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.

Clear skies, Alan
Ok, you are right but the 10x42L's have better optics, lighter weight , much longer battery life and a close focus of 8.2 ft vs 19.7 ft for the 15x50 and 18x50's. I can pan birds or planes in flight much better with the 10x42L's than my 12x36 IS II's and I think 15x or 18x is pushing the limits of the Canon IS system IMHO.

Joe

[kabsetz]

A superb 10x could conceivably show as much or more detail to the eye than a mediocre 12x, especially where brightness and contrast count. The 15x Canon, on the other hand, is good enough that it will show significantly more detail with IS than the best of 10x do tripod-mounted. The point, however, is more that thus far the IS binoculars have not quite been able to match the subjective "This is so sharp, bright and contrasty that I could not tell if it were better" impression given by the best non-IS 7-10x binoculars. In addition, for daylight use and when viewing subjects such as birds which sometimes come singly, sometimes in flocks, flitter around and disappear, fly hither and tither etc., smaller magnification with a greater field and depth of field is often very desirable. Another desirable factor thus far missing from IS binoculars but present in the 10x42 is a sufficiently large exit pupil for a comfortable view. I know there are those who maintain that you need at least 5mm to be truly comfortable, but for the most of us the point where diminishing returns really start to figure is around 4mm. There is a big difference in comfort between 3.3 and 4.2 millimeters.

When the specs for the 10x42 came out, I thought that finally Canon has got the package together - if only they don't blow it. Now that the binocular has made Joe O. regress into an infantile state of uncritical adoration (this is a joke, no insult intended) I am very hopefull that finally there might be an IS binocular good enough as a binocular to fulfill the promise of the technology.

I have done enough testing of the 15x50 not to be surprised if it turns out that the 10x42 IS is as good as or better optically than the Nikon SE or Zeiss FL.

And finally, Joe, are those lithiums you mention recharcheable or not, and if they are, how many milliamp-hours is their capacity?

Kimmo

[Leif]

A superb 10x could conceivably show as much or more detail to the eye than a mediocre 12x, especially where brightness and contrast count.

That is my experience too. Simply comparing magnification and/or objective size does not tell you how much more/less an instrument will show when compared with another instrument unless the differences are large. Optical quality is far too important to ignore. I recall a 20x50 scope on a tripod that showed almost no more detail than my 8x42 binocular hand held, such was the poor image quality of the former. The binocular hinted at bands on a Sparrowhawks chest, whereas the scope just about resolved them.

I have noticed that the eye pieces on these Canon IS instruments look very long. Curious. Also does the 10x42 IS use mirrors or prisms?

Leif

[jogiba]

And finally, Joe, are those lithiums you mention recharcheable or not, and if they are, how many milliamp-hours is their capacity?

Kimmo

Kimmo, they are Energizer e2 non-rechargable lithiums by Eveready Battery Co.

Joe

[jogiba]

That is my experience too. Simply comparing magnification and/or objective size does not tell you how much more/less an instrument will show when compared with another instrument unless the differences are large. Optical quality is far too important to ignore. I recall a 20x50 scope on a tripod that showed almost no more detail than my 8x42 binocular hand held, such was the poor image quality of the former. The binocular hinted at bands on a Sparrowhawks chest, whereas the scope just about resolved them.

I have noticed that the eye pieces on these Canon IS instruments look very long. Curious. Also does the 10x42 IS use mirrors or prisms?

Leif
Canon says they use Vari-Angle prisms in the 10x,12x,15x and 18x. The eyepieces have 7 elements in 5 groups and look like a compact version of Pentax XL eyepieces with the same 65° AFOV.
Anyone who has a Canon SLR system know that the L series of lenses with the red ring are the state of the art in optics and the 10x42L's are the first L series binoculars.

Joe

[hinnark]

There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.

Clear skies, Alan

Alan,

I like the 12x36 and 15x50 Canon IS bins but have to say that the optics of the new 10x42 are superior. It has a noticable greater fov (65 ° vs. 60° afov) which is still sharp over almost the whole fov than the 12x36 and it doesn´t suffer that much from reflections and stray light (flare and backlight properties) than e.g. the 15x50. Also brightness and contrast are better than with the older models IMO. I assume that Canon has improved the transmission with the 10x42. Also the eye relief has been improved (16 mm against 14,5 with e.g. the 12x36).

Kimmo: AFAIK all Canon IS bins (possible exceptions might be the older 12x36 I and 15x45) can be used very well with recharchable NiMH cells. I use them with my 15x50 without any problems.

Leif: since the 10x42 has porro II prisms I assume that there are no mirror surfaces in the light path.

Steve

[AlanFrench]

I am sure the optics in the 10x42 IS are great, and likely improved in some ways over the original line (hence the L designation) but my question is "which IS binocular shows more detail and allows for identifications from farther away?" When comparing a high quality binoculars with a mediocre one, I am sure that magnification might not be the deciding factor in answering this question. I don't think any of the Canon IS binoculars would be considered mediocre.

I think one of the only - perhaps the only - place that carries binoculars in Schenectady may have the 10x42s. I'll have to pay them a visit and check them out in person.

Clear skies, Alan

[kabsetz]

Alan,

The two or so 18x50 IS binoculars I have ever tried had such bad image quality that even if they did show more detail than the 15x50, I could not bring myself to use them. Judging from reviews and user reports by others, much better ones must be out there as well, but I feel pretty confident in predicting that your likelihood of getting a good 15x50 is considerably higher than of getting a good 18x50.

With respect to the 15x50 vs the 10x42, even without having yet seen the 10, I am absolutely certain that unless you get a real lemon, the 15x50 will show you more detail in daytime viewing and more stars (within a given square degree of sky) in the night sky. I base this on my original measurements for the resolution of the 15x50, published in my ALULA review and posted on the web, where the hand-held and stabilized Canon 15x50 resolved a standard target from a distance over 1.4 times greater than a tripod-mounted Nikon 10x42 SE and 1.8 times greater than the Nikon hand-held.

However, relative to the eye's ability to discern detail, the 10x42 is in all likelihood significantly sharper, and hopefully (and Joe's account supports this) shows much less of the "stabilizer artefacts" many of us have reported upon and which many users find objectionable to the degree that they are unwilling to use the 15/18x50s.

For those who must see the maximum amount of detail and do not carry a scope with them, the 15x or 18x50 will remain the binocular that delivers. For most of the rest, I predict the 10x42 will become the hands-down favorite.

Kimmo

[Rico]

... Anyone who has a Canon SLR system know that the L series of lenses with the red ring are the state of the art in optics and the 10x42L's are the first L series binoculars.
ln particular, L (for luxury) specifies the lens has one or elements of the following type: low-dispersion glass, anomalous-dispersion glass, fluorite crystal (a Canon specialty), or ground-glass aspheric. L lenses perform at the level of the best from Zeiss and Leica. Should be interesting to see how Canon addresses CA.

[Sonny]

Hello,
I'm new at bird watching but my wife has been feeding and watching her birds for years and has me very interested. We have a cheap pair of 10x50 bins and I've been in the market for Canon IS. I'm having a rough time in deciding what to buy. I found this forum very informative but still lack a decision on my part. Our use is for watching the birds in our yard, looking at airplanes, looking at the night sky, and taking them with us on our cruises twice a year. I narrowed my choice to the 12x36 IS II and the 15x50 IS but now the new 10x46 have entered my mind. It seems to me the difference between 10 power and 12 power isn't that much but from 10x to 15x should make a big difference. Also, the IS would probably work better with 12x than 15x . I would appreciate some advice. If you had to choose, which binocular would you buy?

Thanks,
Sonny

[jogiba]

Sonny, the only advantage I see with my Canon 12x36 IS II's over my Canon 10x42L IS WP's is weight. With an ultrasharp,chromatic aberration free 65° AFOV view they have the best looking 6.5° FOV in binoculars IMHO. I panned planes and birds with them that makes me feel like I have a NASA tracking system.
I have about 15 pairs of binoculars with several large binoculars from 15x70 to Apogee RA-88-SA's and 25x100's that I use on a Unimount,Unistar or Helix Hercules 12" fork mount that I use in my backyard along with a Bogen 475 tripod with 501 fluid head. That is why I never purchased the 15x50 or 18x50 Canons.

But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.

Joe

[jogiba]

ln particular, L (for luxury) specifies the lens has one or elements of the following type: low-dispersion glass, anomalous-dispersion glass, fluorite crystal (a Canon specialty), or ground-glass aspheric. L lenses perform at the level of the best from Zeiss and Leica. Should be interesting to see how Canon addresses CA.
Canon says this: "The high quality L series optics, featuring 2 Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) lens elements (on each side), deliver excellent correction for chromatic aberration."
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=128&modelid=11092

[Sonny]

[QUOTE=jogiba]Sonny, the only advantage I see with my Canon 12x36 IS II's over my Canon 10x42L IS WP's is weight. With an ultrasharp,chromatic aberration free 65° AFOV view they have the best looking 6.5° FOV in binoculars IMHO. I panned planes and birds with them that makes me feel like I have a NASA tracking system.

But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.

Thanks Joe. I'll give the 10x42L IS WP's more consideration. They cost more than canon 18x50 and are 3x the price of the Canon 12x36 IS II.

Sonny

[Leif]

This bin. is now listed at Anacortes at $1195 roughly equivalent to £660 (UK pounds).

I've seen it even cheaper in the US whereas Warehouse Express want £1100 a pop, i.e. almost twice as much. I'm tempted to write to Canon UK to ask for an explanation of the price differential.

Leif

[jogiba]

[QUOTE=jogiba]Sonny, the only advantage I see with my Canon 12x36 IS II's over my Canon 10x42L IS WP's is weight. With an ultrasharp,chromatic aberration free 65° AFOV view they have the best looking 6.5° FOV in binoculars IMHO. I panned planes and birds with them that makes me feel like I have a NASA tracking system.

But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.

Thanks Joe. I'll give the 10x42L IS WP's more consideration. They cost more than canon 18x50 and are 3x the price of the Canon 12x36 IS II.

Sonny
Sonny, my 80mm f6 Fluorite Triplet APO OTA cost about twice as much as my CR150 150mm f8 achromatic refractor with CG5 mount and I bet the 10x42L's objectives cost alot more than the 50mm objectives in the 18x50's.

Joe

[jimscarff]

Hi,
I just bought one of the first 10x42L IS binos from Eagle Optics in Wisconsin (www.eagleoptics.com) for $1,199 before the Canon $100 rebate - a much lower price than I have seen elsewhere. I have had a pair of the 10x30 IS binos for 4? years and before that a pair of Swarovski 8x42 and way back when some Trinovid 10x40s.
The 10x42Ls are built like a tank - very heavily armored, in contrast to the 10x30s which I felt were a bit fragile, having mine go out of alignment twice already. The eye relief is much better, allowing me to wear glasses without any apparent loss of the field of view, a striking contrast to the 10x30s. The 10x42s are HEAVY and LARGE. I would not particularly consider them ergonomic, and they will be a handful for a smaller person. The IS takes longer to settle down than with the 10x30s, but is rock solid when it does settle (2 seconds?), and remains on for 5 minutes or until you lower your binoculars to a vertical position!
What really sold me on the binoculars was a view of a male Wilson's warbler. The color of the bird was so bright, and rich and contrasty in the 10x42Ls, that it was like I had never seen the bird before at all. Did I mention they were heavy.
The binos have real ocular lens caps that won't get lost, caps at the other end as well for good protection. Did I mention they are HEAVY? They come with a nice, padded nylon case with a compartment for extra batteries, and the binos (not the case) comes with a very good neoprene+strap neck strap. The weight has not been a problem around my neck so far, but try holding them up for 15 minutes looking at warblers and your arms get a dramatic workout.
I wish they were smaller and lighter (and I will use my Bushnell 7x24 Customs for travel), but the view these 10x42Ls offer is everything I could hope for.

[Steve Napier]

Jim,is the image quality of the binoculars when the IS is OFF identical to when its ON? as people in the past have noticed a difference with other IS models.
Also how does image quality compare to the top names like Zeiss,Leica etc?
Thankyou,
Steve.

[kabsetz]

Jim,

Since you subtly implied (I think I spotted it somewhere in your post) that you find the 10x42 slightly heavier than optimum, you should try a short finnstick with it. With my 15x50 I use a two-part extendable monopod, which I usually keep at its shortest length, about 14 inches. It threads right into the threaded hole under the binocular, with no heads or hinges, and is light enough so that it can remain on when I walk or bike with the binocular around my neck. If you have a little knob or cross-handle at the bottom of the stick, you can support the weight of the binocular without having to keep your arms and hands up, and this way I can keep the binoculars up at my eyes almost indefinitely without undue fatigue. The knob or handle is needed so that you don't have to squeeze the stick, but can let it rest on the palm of one hand while the other either holds the stick higher up or manipulates the focus or holds the binocular/rests on it.

Try it - you will like it!

Kimmo

[dipped]

... Warehouse Express want £1100 a pop, ...
Leif

Aha, the price in the UK is starting to drop. It's listed at a rather more tempting price of £899 at Ace Optics, (June Birdwatch mag.)

Still looks as if I'll have to wait for the Birdfair to try them out though.

[Leif]

Aha, the price in the UK is starting to drop. It's listed at a rather more tempting price of £899 at Ace Optics, (June Birdwatch mag.)

Still looks as if I'll have to wait for the Birdfair to try them out though.

I think I'd rather the price stayed really high ...

Leif

[Mickymouse]

I think I'd rather the price stayed really high ...

Leif
Know what you mean!! if the price comes down much more I shall get tempted and at the moment I am more than happy with my 12X36s. BTW I use rechargeable NiMH batteries with mine.

Mick

[jimscarff]

A belated response to Steve Napier's question about the image quality of the binoculars when the IS is OFF identical to when its ON? (as people in the past have noticed a difference with other IS models.)

- I am somewhat familiar with this problem on the older Canon IS binocs (10x30s). It does NOT seem to be a problem at all with the 10x42s. I paused in responding because the question seemed of academic interest only. The IS is such a joy on these (even compared with the 10x30 IS binocs), that the only reason I don't use it, is to switch it on for the thrill of watching the image quiet right down. I got some spectacular views of a Cassin's vireo yesterday through the 10x42s. The fact that the IS stays on without one having to continue to press it as long as you have the binocs up, makes it significantly easier to use the 10x42s vs. the 10x30s. Also, the initial alkaline batteries continue to hold up fine after 5? morning trips birding.

I am getting more used to the weight (though it is best not to compare so you can forget about how much heavier they are).

Other comments:
- the eye-caps are pretty loose and come off too easy for my tastes, but since they are attached to the strap, they don't wander away.
- The focusing takes a few turns more than some binocs, but this has not been a problem for me.
- the gyroscopes/IS motor are clearly audible when using the binocs. It is quiet faint, and not an interference (to me), but you hear the gyros whirring away if you listen carefully.

Steve also asked: "how does image quality compare to the top names like Zeiss,Leica etc?" I have not done a side by side comparison. The Canon's seem MUCH better than the 8x32? Swarovskis I had before and some 1975 Leica 10x40 Trinovids. They are bright, high contrast, and even if the Leicas or others might be slightly better, the IS MORE than compensates for the difference in optical quality, IF any.

Bottom line, these are the first binocs I think are worth $1,100; they are heavy enough I may not take them traveling when birding is only a sidelight; but if I am out looking at birds or dolphins or other wildlife, you will have to pry them out of my hands.

[kabsetz]

Jim,

Thanks for a good post. It is useful to hear from as many users as possible when the binocular in question is one which just might later be viewed as the product which "sold" IS to birders.

A couple of comments on particulars which are not that serious. Firstly, you complain of loose eyepiece rainguards (or caps, as you call them). There seems to be two distinct and antagonistic camps about whether rainguards should fit snugly so they don't "accidentally" come loose - a camp you seem to belong to - or whether they should be loose enough that flicking them off and slipping them on again does not slow you down in the heat of intense birding. I belong to the latter camp, and in my reviews have always complained about "excessively snug" rainguards. I feel that gravity does a fine job of keeping the guard on when the binocular is hanging on my chest, which I consider the only time when the rainguard needs to protect the eyecups from rain, which usually falls more or less vertically. So, I at least, was glad to hear that the rainguard of the Canon is loose-fitting.

Secondly, I repeat what I have said many times in different contexts about the Canons - recharcheable NiMH batteries are the way to go once the original alkalines have worn out. Current generation AA cells have reached a capacity of 2300-2500 milliamp-hours, which way exceeds what you can get with alkalines. In addition, they stand cold temperatures extremely well, and can be charged hundreds of times before they begin to loose their oomph. Two-three pairs should be all you ever need, since one pair in the binoculars, one spare pair in your pocket and perhaps one charging should suffice.

Kimmo

[Steve Napier]

Thanks for that reply Jim.
You might be interested to know that I was quoted a price of, wait for it...£1,499.00
at my local shop "Bonnsers" in Newcastle upon Tyne for the 10x42 IS.
Talk about a rip off.
Steve.

[jimscarff]

10x42L are still $1,199 = $100 rebate at Eagle Optics (http://www.eagleoptics.com/search.asp?q=canon+10x42&pid=4213). Since the death of the U.S. $, traveling to Europe (my sister lives in the UK) has become breathtakingly expensive for us Yanks since the numbers stay the same (or increase), its just that there is a Euro sign in front of it! (Of course, getting sick in the US could be breathtakingly expensive for anyone).

Re: the looseness of the eye-caps. They are really loose, and fall off all the time. I will eventually create some shim from tape to suit my tastes in stickiness. It is much better than not having rainguard eye-caps.

I think this may well be the binocular that lures the high end binocular users to an image-stabilized binoc. If I were Swarovski or Nikon, I would be sweating bullets trying to figure out how I match Canon's IS system at a price below $1,400. The Canon IS in these 10x42s seems much better than the IS system in the 10x30s and that was pretty effective. The only downside I see to these binocs is their size and weight. I am curious to see what some of the more formal review sites like www.betterviewdesired.com say when they get around to reviewing them.

[dipped]

I am curious to see what some of the more formal review sites like www.betterviewdesired.com say when they get around to reviewing them.

Er, unfortunately this site is no longer being updated due to Steve Ingraham's departure to Zeiss so we shall have to wait for his heir apparent Kimmo Absetz to do a review in Allula, and then wait (for those of us who don't subscribe), for it to be posted on their website. Steve's musings can still be found on birdforum though with 3 articles so far. He was also at last years UK Birdfair, representing Zeiss.

I think one of BF's members was going to set up a formal review site but I don't think it's happened yet.

[Rich N]

Today I tried the Canon 10x42 L IS. The IS works well but given a choice to have the IS or take my non-IS Zeiss 10x42 FL on birding field trip, I would take my Zeiss FL.

The Canon 10x42 L IS is a little too bulky, too heavy, the eye relief is a little short, and the field doesn't seem as wide as the Zeiss FL.

Rich

[Pinewood]

Rich,

Do you use any mechnical support for the FL, like a tripod or monopod either for bird watching or for astronomy?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[kabsetz]

Rich,

I assume you use your glasses while viewing? According to Canon's specs, the field of view should actually be a tad wider than in the Zeiss, although for practical purposes 65 degrees is no better than 63. The eye-relief specs are also just about identical, but there I have no trouble believing that one manufacturer would state a more optimistic stat than the other, and the FL is quite good in providing adequate eye-relief for most.

Kimmo

[jogiba]

The bottom line for me is a premium 10x42 non IS binocular over $1,000 would be a waste of money for me because I can't hold a 10x binocular steady enough to see the same detail as the 10x42L's.

Joe

[kabsetz]

Joe,

Your bottom line is valid and sensible. However, my experience with IS binoculars has shown me that birders by and large do not understand or appreciate the benefits unless they have given themselves enough time with the binocular in the field. In quick trials, at least with the 15x50, they tend to be initially awed by the IS, then they very quickly shift their attention to weight, bulk, odd handling (and the the case of the 15x50, also the slightly softer, dimmer and lower-contrast image), the need for electricity etc., and then convince themselves that "this is fine, but not for me". They also manage to consider them hugely expensive, although they actually cost less than many non-IS premiums. We'll see if this conclusion will be significantly harder to reach with the 10x42, but I have decided that if and when I get myself a 10x42 IS, I'll try to respect other people's right to think that because it looks odd or weighs 200g more than binocular X or Y, it is not for them. The truth of the matter is that nobody can see the same amount of detail in a handheld non-IS binocular, even if the magnification is only 8x. Most people are accustomed to a shaky image and don't realize how much it takes away from the view, but once you get used to a stable image, shaky ones are pretty intolerable.

By the way, how does your Canon behave with points of light such as stars? The 15x50 IS tends to induce coma if you don't hold the binocular quite still - does the 10x42 suffer from this at all?

Kimmo

[jimscarff]

The bottom line for me is a premium 10x42 non IS binocular over $1,000 would be a waste of money for me because I can't hold a 10x binocular steady enough to see the same detail as the 10x42L's.

Joe

I agree wholeheartedly. I had a pair of 10x40 Leica Trinovids for decades (70s-mid 90s), so I am used to 10x binocs, and they were lovely for their time (and very light weight). I wore them out and got some 8x32 Swarovskis. When the Canon 10x30 IS binocs came out, I got a pair and carried both them and the Swarovskis around my neck for several days. I could simply see more detail, more steadily with the Canon IS than I could with the Swarovskis. Two years ago I tried the same thing with the 10x30 IS v. a pair of top-of-the-line Brunton 10X binocs, and preferred the Canon 10x30s again. Now with the 10x42 L, I get the benefit of both excellent glass and superb IS. Although I agree with one commentator - they are big and bulky.

[dipped]

I've just been looking at the snazzy 360 degree views at Canon USA and it looks as though the objective lenses have very little recess on them making them vulnerable to smears, dirt, damage etc.

Have any of the users noticed a problem in this area?

Also do they focus totally internally or do the lenses move in and out?

[kabsetz]

Jim and others,

I have now had first-hand experience with the 10x42 IS L, and will humbly apologize if I ever have ridiculed anyone for calling them big and heavy. They are big and heavy. They are especially heavy for having been specked at 1030g. With the supplied strap, eyepiece rainguard, strap-on objective cover and batteries, they tipped the scale at 1220g. The 15x50 IS, with its very much flimsier strap and only batteries, no guards (since none were supplied) weighed 1215g, and the Zeiss 10x42 FL I had weighed at 850g with supplied strap and guards (although for the Zeiss, I used a different scale which is not as accurate). So, the Canon is more than 1.4x heavier than the Zeiss.

To Dipped,

The pieces of glass you see very close to the front end are pieces of flat glass which protect the actual objective lens assemblies. Thus, the focussing is totally internal. As for waterproofing, the owner's manual tells us that to maintain waterproofness, it is necessary to inspect the O-ring seal of the battery compartment lid once a year, and to have it changed (at owners' expense) every two years. That is the bad news. The good news is that the manual also says that if you get salt-water spray on the binoculars, soak them in a bucket of water for one to two hours before rinsing under running water. To my mind, this means that they truly are waterproof.

As far as scratches go, having glass so close to the front end does make it more vulnerable, but since that glass is simple optical flat, having it replaced if necessary will be much less expensive than replacing lenses. In five years of using a 15x50, I have not managed to scratch the glass of it although the design is similar and equally exposed.

As far as comprehensive commentary by me on their optical merits, you all will have to wait for a while - at least until I have reviewed it for ALULA.

Kimmo

[dipped]

Kimmo, do I detect a note of disappointment at the actual weight of these?

Re your optical summary after an ALULA review what is the etiquette for (i) posting reviews from ALULA on the web after publication (time lapse) and (ii) posting comments on BF after testing?

I suppose it's not too long till the Birdfair when we will all get a chance to try them.AND PLEASE CANON GET A DECENT STAND FOR US TO TRY THEM ON THIS YEAR, NOT THAT AWFUL PEDESTAL THING. In the UK apart from Warehouse Express (mail order only), and Ace optics (miles away from me), none of the specialists optics dealers stock them. I asked Viking Optical in Norwich why not and they said they have to have an account worth (it was either £50,000 or £500,000 can't remember which), per annum with Canon to get them. Perhaps it was the latter as the former would only be about 50 bins to sell. Anyway it explains why the Photography dealers with optics divisions have them although Kay optical used to advertise them.

[kabsetz]

D,

Our webmaster has been posting reviews on the site after a roughly 2 issue lapse, so about six months after the magazine has come out.

As far as commentary in general about stuff I am going to write about, there is no policy in place. I use my own judgement, which of course is suspect just as anyone else's would be.

And yes, I am somewhat disappointed by the weight, since the published specks led me to believe (and to voice this out in public) that the weight would be significantly below that of the 15x50 IS and very close to that of the non-L series Nikon 42mm HG's.

Kimmo

[Steve]

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=36234

[jogiba]

Joe,

Your bottom line is valid and sensible. However, my experience with IS binoculars has shown me that birders by and large do not understand or appreciate the benefits unless they have given themselves enough time with the binocular in the field. In quick trials, at least with the 15x50, they tend to be initially awed by the IS, then they very quickly shift their attention to weight, bulk, odd handling (and the the case of the 15x50, also the slightly softer, dimmer and lower-contrast image), the need for electricity etc., and then convince themselves that "this is fine, but not for me". They also manage to consider them hugely expensive, although they actually cost less than many non-IS premiums. We'll see if this conclusion will be significantly harder to reach with the 10x42, but I have decided that if and when I get myself a 10x42 IS, I'll try to respect other people's right to think that because it looks odd or weighs 200g more than binocular X or Y, it is not for them. The truth of the matter is that nobody can see the same amount of detail in a handheld non-IS binocular, even if the magnification is only 8x. Most people are accustomed to a shaky image and don't realize how much it takes away from the view, but once you get used to a stable image, shaky ones are pretty intolerable.

By the way, how does your Canon behave with points of light such as stars? The 15x50 IS tends to induce coma if you don't hold the binocular quite still - does the 10x42 suffer from this at all?

Kimmo
Kimmo,

I use my Apogee RA-88-SA's most of the time for astro use since they have 90° right angle prisms but the 10x42L's didn't show any coma the last time I used them at night when I was looking at the moons of Jupiter.

Like I said before when I want a lightweight IS binocular I use my 23 oz Canon 12x36 IS II's. I believe Canon made the 10x42's mainly for general outdoor and marine use (http://ww2.canon.no/WPP/pressebilder/kikkerter/10x42L-IS-WP-ambient.jpg) and they weigh about the same as a typical 7x50 marine binocular .

Joe

[oddbodd]

I hope it's alright to post a link to an internet retailer? I noticed these bino's at a good price so thought I'd let you know http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk/p2626-canon-10x42l-is-wp-binoculars.htm
Cheers,
Oddbodd.

[dipped]

I hope it's alright to post a link to an internet retailer? I noticed these bino's at a good price so thought I'd let you know http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk/p2626-canon-10x42l-is-wp-binoculars.htm
Cheers,
Oddbodd.

Hi Oddbodd and thanks.

Wow these are looking more and more attractive.

What brilliant timing as the Birdfair is only a week away and I (and a few others?), will finally get a chance to look at these. I just hope that Canon have a better binocular stand this year. :t:

[kabsetz]

Jan Meijerink has now a test report (in dutch, but the table of test results should be pretty easy to understand) on the 10x42 L IS and 12x36 IS II Canons on the Twentse Vogelwerkgroep webpages at www.tvwg.nl

Look under "testrapporten" and "kijkers". His conclusions are very positive, except for the obvious complaints about the heavy weight.

Kimmo

[dipped]

I hope it's alright to post a link to an internet retailer? I noticed these bino's at a good price so thought I'd let you know http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk/p2626-canon-10x42l-is-wp-binoculars.htm
Cheers,
Oddbodd.

This was a good price when you posted (£670), but for some strange reason
they're now listed at £1050, so now more expensive than Ace and WH Express. A bit odd ???

[oddbodd]

:eek!: They have shot up! That is a lot of money for a pair of bino's, can't see how they will sell many at that price.
Cheers,
Oddbodd.

[Leif]

:eek!: They have shot up! That is a lot of money for a pair of bino's, can't see how they will sell many at that price.
Cheers,
Oddbodd.

I agree. I could see quite a few people paying £700, but at over £1000, no.

Leif

[jimscarff]

Bad news all around. :storm:

I bought my 10x42L IS binocs at Eagle Optics for $1,200 - $100 Canon rebate. The price there and at other discounters (BH Photo) is now back as MSRP $1,599! At that price, I think that Canon is asking a lot, given their weight.

Meanwhile, I sent my old 10x30 IS binocs back for repair since they seemed slightly out of alignment. Canon opened them up, found "water damage" and gave me a quote for $488 to get them repaired. Since B&H is selling them new for $309, I passed on that.

Then, 10 days ago, my girlfriend :girl: unceremoniously told me to get out of her apartment, which I did with most of my stuff, but accidentally leaving behind my 10x42Ls. Well, at least last night she talked to me for the first time since then, although complained that I seemed more interested in getting the binos back than seeing her. I haven't gotten either back yet.

[jimscarff]

I bought my 10x42L IS binocs at Eagle Optics for $1,200 - $100 Canon rebate. The price there and at other discounters (BH Photo) is now back as MSRP $1,599! At that price, I think that Canon is asking a lot, given their weight.


Seems like retailers are at various prices. Amazon.com has 5 of the 10x42L IS binocs listed at only $1,039!

[Mark Ansell]

Ok, you are right but the 10x42L's have better optics, lighter weight , much longer battery life and a close focus of 8.2 ft vs 19.7 ft for the 15x50 and 18x50's. I can pan birds or planes in flight much better with the 10x42L's than my 12x36 IS II's and I think 15x or 18x is pushing the limits of the Canon IS system IMHO.

Joe

Hello, it's been a few months since your posts on the Canon 10x42 IS binoculars and I was wondering if you're still happy with them and if the performance is what you were looking for. A friend of mine has the 10 x 30 IS binoculars that he uses for hawk watching and says that the 10 x 42'sIS bins would be perfect for this. Their weight issue doesn't concern me.
What do you think?

I use Zeiss Classic 7 x 42's bins right now and wouldn't trade them for anything, but there are times when the extra magnification and IS feature would come in handy ,especially for windy conditions.
Unfortunately since they are relatively new here, its hard to find a store that is willing to stock them because of the price . Even Pelee-Wings a dedicated binocular/scope store have to order them in if I want to try them out and thats a 4 hour drive for me one way.

Thanks
Mark

[werewolf]

I think they could be the best binoculars of them all, by far - but not yet. Wait until they get the bugs out, wait for the next generation.

[Mark Ansell]

I think they could be the best binoculars of them all, by far - but not yet. Wait until they get the bugs out, wait for the next generation.


Any specifics? What is it about them you don't like?

Mark

[hinnark]

Any specifics? What is it about them you don't like?

Mark


Nothing but the weight...

Steve

[Mickymouse]

I use Zeiss Classic 7 x 42's bins right now and wouldn't trade them for anything, but there are times when the extra magnification and IS feature would come in handy ,especially for windy conditions.
Thanks
MarkI use 12X36s and I love them but I have to be honest and say the IS is of very little use in high wind, you would be very disappointed if you bought them for that reason, close focus is none to clever either.

Mick

[werewolf]

Any specifics? What is it about them you don't like?

Mark

The eyepiece adjustors are too bulky and uncomfortable and poorly made - like a crude screw device - they do not lock in place properly. Also, the binocs were not perfectly collimated.

[werewolf]

Nothing but the weight...

Steve


Yes, it would be nice if they were a bit lighter.

[hinnark]

I use 12X36s and I love them but I have to be honest and say the IS is of very little use in high wind, you would be very disappointed if you bought them for that reason, close focus is none to clever either.

Mick

Mick,

but on the other hand: wouldn´t the Canon IS binocular work better in high wind than any non stabilized binocular? I made very good experiences with my 15x50 Canon IS for seawatching purposes. At the sea the wind is almost all the time pretty high and a real bulky and heavyweight tripod is needed for a scope to let the view get steady. The Canon mounted on a lighweight tripod or even a monopod beats every scope/tripod combo out there in high wind in respect of practicality. If the shaking of the mounted binocular is getting to high I turn the IS on at permanent state which only works with the 10x42, 15x50 and 18x50 IS. So maybe this is what´s missed by the 12x36 and 10x30. They cannot be used at permanent work of the IS and one has to press the buttom all the time. The small Canon IS binos don´t have a tripod thread either.

Steve

[Mickymouse]

Mick,

but on the other hand: wouldn´t the Canon IS binocular work better in high wind than any non stabilized binocular?

SteveThat is probable true, I have never compared I just didn't want to make any outrageous claims for what the Canons can do, wind buffeting is not their strong point. When and if I ever find myself with pots of money to upgrade my bins it will be for one of the aforementioned Canons, having got used to IS I wouldn't consider spending big money on bins that didn't have it.

Mick

[mcrtchly]

The eyepiece adjustors are too bulky and uncomfortable and poorly made - like a crude screw device - they do not lock in place properly. Also, the binocs were not perfectly collimated.


I too have a problem with the eyepiece adjustor lock not staying in place. It is all too easy to change adjust when screwing up/down the eyecups. I thought that I might check with Canon if it needs repairing. Do others have this problem?

Martin

[AlanFrench]

I had a chance to try a Canon 10x42 L IS recently. I have the 12x36 II IS and really like them, but wondered if I would appreciate the closer focus and wider field of the 10x42s. As expected, they were a bit on the heavy side for my liking. I also agree with the comments folks have made about the adjustable eye cups - a poor implementation.

I found they were a very poor fit in my hand. It was nice to have a button that would turn the IS on with a single push, but I found the button was poorly place for my hands, and pushing it was awkward. Holding down the button on my 12x36s is much easier.

The close focus was nice, but it took far too much turning of the focus wheel to get to the closest focus.

I did like the optics, but the other issues have removed these from my lust list.

Clear skies, Alan

[werewolf]

I'm just waiting for them to come out with the second generation of these, minus the bugs. I don't think that anything else will touch it.

[Fjellfalck]

Hi
I'm new here in this forum. I have a Steiner hunter 8x30 and it works fine (light & ok quality), but I'm fascinated about the IS in my 70-200mm 2,8L Canon, and I want a more powerful brighter binocular.

Some days ago I ordered the new Canon 10x42L IS. I know it is heavy compared to my Steiner, and I read some negative comments about the bino here in this tread. Should I cancel the order? Or…… perhaps buy a Scope e.g the Swarovski ATS 80HD? or?....Just receive the Canon and be happy?

[Mickymouse]

Hi
I'm new here in this forum. I have a Steiner hunter 8x30 and it works fine (light & ok quality), but I'm fascinated about the IS in my 70-200mm 2,8L Canon, and I want a more powerful brighter binocular.

Some days ago I ordered the new Canon 10x42L IS. I know it is heavy compared to my Steiner, and I read some negative comments about the bino here in this tread. Should I cancel the order? Or…… perhaps buy a Scope e.g the Swarovski ATS 80HD? or?....Just receive the Canon and be happy?Hi Fjellfalk
Has wherever you are buying them from got a returns policy, if so try them you may not agree with others comments, we are all fussy about different things and send them back if you don't like them.

Mick

[Fjellfalck]

Well to be honest, some people thought it was too bulky. It is heavy, but after reading some reviews I thought it would feel much more bulky. It does not!
It feels good in my large hands. The ergonomic is good in my opinion. It is very steady in use. The optics is on the level with the best of the best – Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski.. . Very, very bright – Who turned on the light??
Very good angle of view., very good contrast , very sharp – all through the edges.

A very light binocular is nice to handle and bring with you, but it is not the best for viewing in my opinion. This one is steady – very steady. You have the same effect using very small cameras. A larger and somewhat heavier camera is easier to keep steady!

So what happens when you turn on the IS?

Will it work as perfect as with my 70-200mm 2,8L IS lens? You see a lot of details without IS – But with IS – You cannot hear it – WOW!.
You see far more details than any other 10x42mm without IS – I’m quite sure. I have really steady arms and is able to hand held camera gears and binoculars really steady - but I’m not able to hold a 10x very steady for all details more than a second or two. I’m sure no one really is able to hold it steady at all for some seconds. I took some tests – trying to read some plates with text on a distance – with and without IS. The difference was large – I will say huge.

So what about other cons that have been written? Well you find binoculars which are easier to take with you on longer trips because of less weight.

Built quality is superb. Some are complaining of the front caps – falling off (not to the ground – they are linked to the neoprene strap). No problem if you get used to how to fasten them.

A few people complain about the eyepiece adjustor lock not staying in place. I have not had any problems with this so far. A little strange mechanism perhaps – but it works fine to me.

Some people do not like the ergonomic – I think it is good to hold and the IS knob is nice placed for my hands – perfect placed indeed – and you use it with comfort. On – and Off. You do not need to hold it down. Note that I have large hands – I do not know how the ergonomics feels with small hands.


I can return it – but I will not do that. They are what I looked for.

It is a pleasure to use, with a view in the very top class and with details you probably are not able to achieve with other top of the lines non IS 10x binoculars. I look forward to use and test them further.. ..

PS I forgot to mention that a set of 52mm B&W Polarizer works fine with them... no problems with the caps...

[Mickymouse]

Glad you like them, trouble with IS, is that when you get used to using it you will wonder how you ever managed without it.

Mick

[moman]

I just received my Canon 10x42L IS binoculars today. I initially tried them out in my back yard where the distance was limited by trees to about 60 feet. The binoculars were generally exceptionally sharp with excellent contrast and brightness, but I did notice 2 problems. 1) Although the sharpmess was excellent across most of the field, I could see 2 or 3 random areas within the field that were soft--suggesting some astigmatism. (I don't think the problem was with my eyes as I never noticed this with other binoculars). Has anyone else experienced this or could it be a problem with my particular pair?
2) The other issue is that although I could get a very beautiful and detailed central view of the smallest objects, when I took the binoculars from my eyes and then brought them back (without changing the focus), my eyes had to work harder than I would have liked to obtain the same sharpness--I don't know if I am explaining this well, but what seemed to be missing was what is often referred to as "ease of view"--my eyes had to strain somewhat.
Interestingly, when I went to the front of my house where I could look at objects at a much greater distance, the images now looked perfect across the entire field, and the ease of view was excellent. The 2 problems I mentioned above were no longer present.
I was going to return the binoculars prior to this last part of the testing. Now I think I'll keep them.
The stabilization works beautifully, and is quite amazing.

[werewolf]

"The other issue is that although I could get a very beautiful and detailed central view of the smallest objects, when I took the binoculars from my eyes and then brought them back (without changing the focus), my eyes had to work harder than I would have liked to obtain the same sharpness..."



Sound like they are not perfectly collimated - a problem I found with the ones I temporarily had. Well, I'm still waiting for them to come out with generation 2 minus the bugs. I'll be first on line when they do.

[moman]

"The other issue is that although I could get a very beautiful and detailed central view of the smallest objects, when I took the binoculars from my eyes and then brought them back (without changing the focus), my eyes had to work harder than I would have liked to obtain the same sharpness..."



Sound like they are not perfectly collimated - a problem I found with the ones I temporarily had. Well, I'm still waiting for them to come out with generation 2 minus the bugs. I'll be first on line when they do.

Many thanks. You are right of course. collimation being off even slightly would result in the eye strain I experienced. I guess I wanted to own these so badly that I forgot my basic binoculars 101. They are going back tomorrow.

[kabsetz]

Moman,

In case you have not sent them back yet, checking collimation (with enough accuracy for practical purposes) is easy with the Canons since the IS helps you a lot. 1) Find a distant object such as a treetop, lamppost, chimney etc, and center it within the view. 2) Turn on IS. 3) slowly begin to move the binocular away from your eyes, making sure that the target stays visible to both eyes, in both of the exit pupils. 4) In perfectly collimated binoculars, the target will be easily viewed with both eyes even when the binocular is about an arm's lenght away. In poorly collimated binoculars, there will be significant vertical and/or horizontal misplacement of the target already at a distance of some 4-5 inches. In most "normally collimated" binoculars, there will be some misplacement, but you should at least see the target in both exit pupils at a distance of some 10-15 inches. Horizontal misplacement is easier for the eye/brain system to tolerate, while vertical "step" should not be very obvious.

Hope this helps.

Kimmo

[moman]

Moman,

In case you have not sent them back yet, checking collimation (with enough accuracy for practical purposes) is easy with the Canons since the IS helps you a lot. 1) Find a distant object such as a treetop, lamppost, chimney etc, and center it within the view. 2) Turn on IS. 3) slowly begin to move the binocular away from your eyes, making sure that the target stays visible to both eyes, in both of the exit pupils. 4) In perfectly collimated binoculars, the target will be easily viewed with both eyes even when the binocular is about an arm's lenght away. In poorly collimated binoculars, there will be significant vertical and/or horizontal misplacement of the target already at a distance of some 4-5 inches. In most "normally collimated" binoculars, there will be some misplacement, but you should at least see the target in both exit pupils at a distance of some 10-15 inches. Horizontal misplacement is easier for the eye/brain system to tolerate, while vertical "step" should not be very obvious.

Hope this helps.

Kimmo
Thank you Kimmo,
I already sent the binoculars back. Even if this test showed good collimation, there was still a problem with the binoculars--not a very easy view, and areas of soft focus surrounded by sharp areas (astigmatism?).
Your test for collimation will be used in the future.
Incidently, this all underscores the importance of purchasing binoculars at a dealer where you can test the pair you plan to buy, even if it means spending more. However I couldn't resist the low mail order price of $1,064.95 with free shipping, no tax and a $100 rebate from Canon. I don't know if I am allowed to mention the site here as it may be advertising, however here is a hint: a member of a nation of women warriers.

[werewolf]

Kimmo -

I find the best way to test for vertical collimation is to focus the binoc's on a distant horizontal line - a flat horizon, like sea to sky, is ideal. Then I move the binocs away from me as you described. the Canons were significantly off in this test. And yes you're right, the IS made the test easier to perform.

My approximately 13-year old Leica Ultra 8X32's, by the way - knocked about though they've been - are still perfectly collimated. They are built like a tank - but I like IS! IS rules!

[werewolf]

"Incidently, this all underscores the importance of purchasing binoculars at a dealer where you can test the pair you plan to buy, even if it means spending more."

Yeah, but if they'll only let you try it out in the store, you can't properly perform the tests.

Expensive binocs like these new Canons need better quality control - and improved eyepiece adjustors and ergonomics. Then they'll blow everything else away!

[Mickymouse]

Does any one know how to adjust the collimation on Canon 12 X 36, mine are now well out of guarantee and could do with a tweak, only I don't know how.

Mick

[kabsetz]

Mick,

Recollimating the Canons is not a DIY project. One needs Canon's own computer gizmo for adjusting the default settings of the vari-angle prism, in addition to first having to collimate the optical train in a more ordinary fashion. I have had mine collimated by Optifocus (www.optifocus.fi) in Finland, with excellent precision.

Kimmo

[Mickymouse]

Thanks Kimmo, that is pretty much what I would have thought, shame because I like to do these things myself if possible. I shall contact Kayoptics sometime.

Mick

[KINGOFKNGS]

Hi everyone!

This is my first post in this forum. I currently have the Canon 8X25 IS binoculars and I would definitely say that the IS helps tremendously. I don't have a lot of experience with high end binoculars and am looking into buying a good pair. I've looked at the Leica Trinovids (8 and 10X42) in person and have looked extensively at reviews on the Internet of the various Zeiss, Nikon and Swarovski offerings.

I am very interested in the 10X42 L IS binoculars. I see that there is a review of them in Alula. Is there anyway to get that review here in the US? It appears as if it's not yet available on the Internet.

I've used Canon cameras quite extensively and have been quite impressed with both IS and L series lenses. I feel that a small degradation in image quality would be more than worth the trade off for the image stabilization. Has anyone compared the effectiveness of the IS of the 8X25's vs. the 10X42's?

I live in Indianapolis, Indiana. Does anyone have any suggestions of somewhere to go to try these binoculars and other high end binoculars in person?

Also, it's been quite a while since anyone has posted any information on these binoculars. How are they holding up after a year of use? Are you still impressed by them? Do you feel that the image stabilization is a good tradeoff for you?

By the way, I'm quite a big guy and have carried upwards of 4-5 pounds worth of camera gear on my neck, so I don't see the weight of the 10X42's as a hindrance.

Ryan

[hinnark]

Welcome Ryan!

Reviews of Alula you ususally find at the Alula.fi website several month after publishing in the magazine. From memory I would say within the IS series of Canon the effectiveness of the 8x25 works best among all. Somewhere I´ve read that the 8x25 stabilize movements until 1 ° while the 10x42 works like the 15x and 18x50 only at 0,7° . Also the 8x25 seems to use another kind of stabilization technique than the other Canon IS binos. However, the 10x42 works pretty good in that respect. There seem to be some improvements compared with older IS binos so I think if you like the 8x25 the 10x42 will do it for you as well. Take a look at the binoculuar forum of Cloudy Nights where you can find more informations about the Canon 10x42 also from people who own these.

Regards

Steve

[werewolf]

I'm waiting for Canon to come out with generation 2 IS 10X42 that will hopefully fix some of the problems in the current model, as mentioned in the earlier posts on this thread.

[KorHaan]

Hi all,

I've enjoyed reading all posts on Canon IS bins and I frequently encountered objections on the weight of these things, by multiple BF members.
I am no great expert in physics, but I know that one heavy object can be balanced with another - on the other side. Allow me to write here again what I wrote in my very first thread, so I can explain.
My Zeiss FL weighs 740 grams; not much for a full size bin, but for me still too much.
I have made a counterweight by putting a 350 gram object in the binocular case and hanging this on the neck end of the strap. So when I put the bins on, the case is hanging on my back and reduces the weight of the bins; they actually feel like midsized bins, I do not notice any neck strain anymore. Wish I had figured this out years ago, pity the many and too heavy bins I've used. It is a good method that should work for any bins; the downpart is the odd look, and the fact that you actually increase the weight by hanging on the counterweight, but there is a much better balance and you have the bins even faster up to your eyes when the counterweight goes down when you raise your bins.
I have tried out this method in the field and the more I get used to it the more I'm beginning to like it. A bino harness could help in the same manner but it keeps the weight on one side - on the front.
You can simply remove the counterweight bino case if you feel you don't need it at a particular moment, then it's just the bino's on a plain strap.
The Canon 10x42 IS weighs 1220 grams, batteries and so on included, so a counterweight on the strap on your back should make them less of a nuisance to lug around all day.

I will read the article Jan Meijerink wrote on the Canon 10x42 IS and will let you know if there is something worth mentioning that hasn't been mentioned already.

Greetings, Ronald

[KorHaan]

I've read the article Jan Meijerink wrote on the Canon 10x42 L IS WP; his findings correspond with the already mentioned notions that it's a very good quality bino, no surprise here.
The diopter adjustment ring on the right ocular is of a locking kind. It has to be pushed downward to set the diopter and be pushed up to lock, i.e. the other way around like for instance the Nikon LXL's whose diopter adjustment ring locks by pushing it down. It seems the DA ring on the Canon falls out of lock too easily when the bino is used in the field, and the diopter is bound to be misset unwillingly.
I'm telling this in my own words, I wouldn't know if someone else has different experiences.

Greetings, Ronald

[KorHaan]

To be quite clear on this: I don't own a Canon 10x42 L IS WP, so I wouldn't know.

[angelo225544]

I recently got my pair of Canon 10x42L IS binoculars. I have been very curious to see just how Canon's best "L" glass would compare to Europe's finest. IS aside, these are phenomenally good optics! If Canon decided to forego the IS, and simply re-package these optics in a sleek and lightweight housing - this might be THE finest binocular on the market. They are bright, sharp across the entire field, free of chromatic abberation and completely free of flare in even the most difficult lighting. But alas, Canon is synonymous with Image Stabilization in the binocular world - and this is their undoing. Thanks to IS, they are overly large and heavy, and worse yet, an ungainly shape that doesn't seem to have been made to be comfortably held by human hands. The price of image stabilization is an image that is constantly fluctuating into and out of perfect focus, due to the constant high-frequency movement of the prisms as they "Stabilize" the image. In fact, we have simply traded one annoying optical artifact (image shake) for another (a disquieting image instability). Since most of us have unintentionally trained our brains to compensate for a certain amount of image shake, this new and unaccustomed phenomenon is just bothersome. In order to keep the image critically sharp, it is still necessary to concentrate all ones efforts on holding them steady - but this is a bloated, overweight contraption - so doing so is even more tiresome than without IS (and all that comes with it) at all. It's a shame, really - this may be the finest set of optics I have ever sold.

[bralk]

I recently got my pair of Canon 10x42L IS binoculars.

The author of this post on a German forum has measured the EP to be only 3.7 mm. Can you confirm this ?

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?9,17044,17044#msg-17044

best regards

Tom

[Sancho]

I recently got my pair of Canon 10x42L IS binoculars. I have been very curious to see just how Canon's best "L" glass would compare to Europe's finest. IS aside, these are phenomenally good optics! If Canon decided to forego the IS, and simply re-package these optics in a sleek and lightweight housing - this might be THE finest binocular on the market. They are bright, sharp across the entire field, free of chromatic abberation and completely free of flare in even the most difficult lighting. But alas, Canon is synonymous with Image Stabilization in the binocular world - and this is their undoing. Thanks to IS, they are overly large and heavy, and worse yet, an ungainly shape that doesn't seem to have been made to be comfortably held by human hands. The price of image stabilization is an image that is constantly fluctuating into and out of perfect focus, due to the constant high-frequency movement of the prisms as they "Stabilize" the image. In fact, we have simply traded one annoying optical artifact (image shake) for another (a disquieting image instability). Since most of us have unintentionally trained our brains to compensate for a certain amount of image shake, this new and unaccustomed phenomenon is just bothersome. In order to keep the image critically sharp, it is still necessary to concentrate all ones efforts on holding them steady - but this is a bloated, overweight contraption - so doing so is even more tiresome than without IS (and all that comes with it) at all. It's a shame, really - this may be the finest set of optics I have ever sold.

I have the 12x36 Mk.II version, which isn´t L-series glass. It´s light (almost as light as Swaro EL 8x32, pleasant in the hands, nice rubber eyecups, and small. I really like them, and use them now in preference to my trusty EL 10x42. I wish Canon would produce exactly the same package with L-series glass, about which I´ve heard so many excellent reports. I´ve never seen the 10x42, but the photos of a rather brick-like apparatus, and the 1.2 kilo weight issue, put me off.

[werewolf]

"The price of image stabilization is an image that is constantly fluctuating into and out of perfect focus, due to the constant high-frequency movement of the prisms as they "Stabilize" the image. In fact, we have simply traded one annoying optical artifact (image shake) for another (a disquieting image instability)..."



Hi, Angelo - I have never had a problem like that with Canon IS, including the 10X42 that I tried out a while back. Sounds like your binoc was defective. My problem with the 10X42IS, brilliant optics notwithstanding, was the poor physical design, especially the junk eyepieces, and the lenses not being perfectly collimated.