• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon 10x42 L IS - will it live up to expectations? (1 Viewer)

T

The Kingfisher

Well-known member
Thinking of ordering a Canon 10x42 L IS, but the question is whether the optically stand up againts the Nikon EDG and the Swarovski SLC HD wich I am used to using!? Will I be disappointed when comparing them against each other?

Another issue is battery life..how long can they be used in the field before they become dead? Let say I am birding for about two hours a day..lifting the binoculars to the eyes now and then..does the batteries lasts for a week or so?
 
Optically you won't be disappointed. I had the opportunity to compare my Nikon 10 x 32 EDG with a Canon 10 x 42 IS from the deck at Cape May, NJ a couple of months ago for a short time. Views at a distance were impressive. One could get used to the IS factor very quickly. It is rather ungainly compared to the EDG and harder to hold steady when the IS is not engaged but it has excellent optics.

Bob
 
The Kingfisher said:
Thinking of ordering a Canon 10x42 L IS, but the question is whether the optically stand up againts the Nikon EDG and the Swarovski SLC HD wich I am used to using!? Will I be disappointed when comparing them against each other?

Another issue is battery life..how long can they be used in the field before they become dead? Let say I am birding for about two hours a day..lifting the binoculars to the eyes now and then..does the batteries lasts for a week or so?
Click to expand...
The Canon 10x42 L IS does have very good optics but IMO is not the equal of the EDG, SV or any of the top alphas. I decided this after having one for along time. At first I thought it did but the IS system leaves optical artifacts which bothered me after awhile. They are awful heavy and cumbersome also. I got tired of that too.
 
Thanks for the replies!

I will not be buying any Canon 10x42L IS. This, I decided a few days ago. The binoculars have simply too many compromises, such as it is heavy and bulky, slow focusing, lousy warranty, less good eye relief and that it actually is not exactly new on the market. I will now wait with a potential purchase until a new model is released. Hopefully it will be a model that is more suited for us birdwatchers and where optics, focusing and IS got even better!
 
The Kingfisher said:
Thanks for the replies!

I will not be buying any Canon 10x42L IS. This, I decided a few days ago. The binoculars have simply too many compromises, such as it is heavy and bulky, slow focusing, lousy warranty, less good eye relief and that it actually is not exactly new on the market. I will now wait with a potential purchase until a new model is released. Hopefully it will be a model that is more suited for us birdwatchers and where optics, focusing and IS got even better!
Click to expand...
Good idea.
 
The Kingfisher said:
Thanks for the replies!

I will not be buying any Canon 10x42L IS. This, I decided a few days ago. The binoculars have simply too many compromises, such as it is heavy and bulky, slow focusing, lousy warranty, less good eye relief and that it actually is not exactly new on the market. I will now wait with a potential purchase until a new model is released. Hopefully it will be a model that is more suited for us birdwatchers and where optics, focusing and IS got even better!
Click to expand...

There may be a long wait.
It is not clear that Canon has had acceptable marketing results from the IS line, at least judging by the minimal advertising support that product receives.
Presumably Canon has to earn enough on the current models to fund the next generation, else there will not be a new model.
Maybe a similar situation as with the Nikon Superior E, a splendid product that has a few fanatic supporters but too low market acceptance to justify a follow on.
 
I don't think anyone should buy a pair without trying them first. If this is not possible, buy from a dealer with a generous return policy. Obviously, a lot of folks like these, but I found them disappointing (heavy, poor button placement for my hands, glacial focusing, and poor adjustable eye cups).

Clear skies, Alan
 
Kingfisher,

Yes, the 10x42 IS L has too many compromises, including the ones you list. The eye-relief however, is not bad, and if you need to view with glasses, you can get a bit more relief by removing the rubbers from the eyecups and putting a bit of thin adhesive felt in their place to protect your glasses.

But, like Etudiant said above, you might have to wait for who knows how long for an improved model to replace them. Thus far, the only IS model Canon has upgraded is the 12x36, where the original model came out in the mid-1990s and the upgraded model is nearly 10 years old now.

In the meantime, the 10x42 IS L, as it currently is, will show you more and will show it better than any other binocular on the market as long as you don't mount your other binoculars on a tripod or always lay them on a sandbag or a railing or a car-roof or some such support. This being the case, I decided already several years ago that for my own use, mostly birding but some sailing, sports and general viewing, I will have nothing less, and none of the new non-stabilized binoculars have been able to challenge the Canon for me, as good as they are. I'm a little bit tempted by the new Swarovski 8x32 SV's, but even though they are truly superb, I know that if I had them I would only take them out when seeing birds as well as possible was going to play second fiddle to comfort, style and bragging rights.

Kimmo
 
A friend of mine has the 10x42 L IS for birding, and I get to use them quite often (and compare them to my Swaro 10x32 SV's.)

Optically, you wouldn't be disappointed comparing them to the best of the alphas - I find them to have slightly less contrast than my SV's, a bit more field distortion, FOV isn't the greatest, and the color rendition is a bit warm for my taste.

Oh, and of course they are heavy, awkward, and the eyecups (as others have pointed out) are not the best design.

The IS quit working after 4 years (warranty is 3 years I think) and he paid Canon $600 for the repair.

Now, all that being said, they are fantastic to use sitting in a chair while out camping - the IS (if not broken) makes viewing a real pleasure. I've never seen the artifacts that others have mentioned, and if you can live with the quirks mentioned they are a real pleasure to look through. Whenever I use them I think to myself that I could see myself owning them some day.

John F
LV NV
 
barshnik said:
A friend of mine has the 10x42 L IS for birding, and I get to use them quite often (and compare them to my Swaro 10x32 SV's.)

Optically, you wouldn't be disappointed comparing them to the best of the alphas - I find them to have slightly less contrast than my SV's, a bit more field distortion, FOV isn't the greatest, and the color rendition is a bit warm for my taste.

Oh, and of course they are heavy, awkward, and the eyecups (as others have pointed out) are not the best design.

The IS quit working after 4 years (warranty is 3 years I think) and he paid Canon $600 for the repair.

Now, all that being said, they are fantastic to use sitting in a chair while out camping - the IS (if not broken) makes viewing a real pleasure. I've never seen the artifacts that others have mentioned, and if you can live with the quirks mentioned they are a real pleasure to look through. Whenever I use them I think to myself that I could see myself owning them some day.

John F
LV NV
Click to expand...

Interesting input, that a frizzed 10x42 costs about $600 to fix.
That is what one might have expected from a camera producer, make the design such that repairs are economically unattractive, because you 'should' be buying the newer model instead of fixing the old.
Too bad that the product renewal cycle for binoculars is so much slower than for cameras. A well known digital camara website, 1001 Noisy Cameras, recently noted that some 181 new cameras have been launched thus far this year, even before the big Photokina trade show. The new Swaro, the Nikon Monarch 7, the Zen Ray HD and the evanescent Zeiss HT represent the big news in the binocular space during the same interval. Clearly, binoculars are not marching to the same drummer.
The implication is that the Alphas have it right, make a premium product at a premium price, factoring in a generous service policy and plan for a decade long product renewal cycle. Canon, a wanna be alpha, did not get the memo.
Maybe that is why the ISL line failed in the market place.The economic benefit their pricey repair policy brings comes at the expense of their credibility in the market place. No one wants to buy a premium binocular that may fail after 1 year or even 3.
So if Canon wishes to be seen as an alpha brand, they have to act that way, with a 10+ (ideally lifetime) year warranty on their alpha products. Technically superior IS and excellent optics by themselves clearly do not cut it in this market. Customers demand reassurance that support will be unquestioning and sustained over the long term.
 
etudiant said:
Too bad that the product renewal cycle for binoculars is so much slower than for cameras. A well known digital camara website, 1001 Noisy Cameras, recently noted that some 181 new cameras have been launched thus far this year, even before the big Photokina trade show. The new Swaro, the Nikon Monarch 7, the Zen Ray HD and the evanescent Zeiss HT represent the big news in the binocular space during the same interval. Clearly, binoculars are not marching to the same drummer.
Click to expand...

If you take a look of what Bushnell, Leupold, Minox, Opticron and some other offer there are a couple of more new binoculars but of course, generally spoken you're right. But what I think is more remarkable is that the life cycles of IS bins are even longer than those of conventional ones. The 15 and 18x50 Canon IS came out in 1999, if memory serves me right. The Fujinon Technostabi 14x40, which is also still in offer on the bins-market, was released even earlier. IMO the 12x36 II Canon wasn't really an upgrade. It was just that Canon gave their already existing 10x30 IS another pair of objectives. So, at first look it seems to be a bit paradoxical that modern hightech-binoculars with built in electronics do have a longer life circle that normal ones. I think, there could exist a specific reason for that. The Sony DEV-5(3) digital binoculars show the direction the development could take in the future. I'm pretty sure that right now at Canon's R&D department something like this is what they are dealing with.

Steve
 
Last edited:
hinnark said:
If you take a look of what Bushnell, Leupold, Minox, Opticron and some other offer there are a couple of more new binoculars but of course, generally spoken you're right. But what I think is more remarkable is that the life cycles of IS bins are even longer than those of conventional ones. The 15 and 18x50 Canon IS came out in 1999, if memory serves me right. The Fujinon Technostabi 14x40, which is also still in offer on the bins-market, was released even earlier. IMO the 12x36 II Canon wasn't really an upgrade. It was just that Canon gave their already existing 10x30 IS another pair of objectives. So, at first look it seems to be a bit paradoxical that modern hightech-binoculars with built in electronics do have a longer life circle that normal ones. I think, there could exist a specific reason for that. The Sony DEV-5(3) digital binoculars show the direction the development could take in the future. I'm pretty sure that right now at Canon's R&D department something like this is what they are dealing with.

Steve
Click to expand...

Thank you for emphasizing the larger view of the new binocular product scene. One forgets that there is a revolution under way in the binocular market, with much lower cost Chinese producers energing as the supplier of 90% of the binoculars sold. There should be some producer that gets the marketing/technology mix right and who emerges as a real player, somewhat like Swift did in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Possible candidates include Zen Ray, maybe Theron or Sightron, or someone similar. A successful supplier will need to embrace the 'Made in China' aspect as a point of pride, rather than trying to disguise it by local assembly, if only because eventually, China will be the largest market opportunity.
The point you make about the slower renewal cycle of the various IS binoculars is well taken and further underscores the mismatch between the warranty period (3 years for the Canon 10x42L, 1 year for the Fujinon 14x40) and the 10-20 year product cycle. Imho, it is silly to claim alpha quality status for a product that cannot be warrantied for more than a small fraction of its actual replacement cycle.
 
Last edited:
etudiant said:
Interesting input, that a frizzed 10x42 costs about $600 to fix.
That is what one might have expected from a camera producer, make the design such that repairs are economically unattractive, because you 'should' be buying the newer model instead of fixing the old.
Too bad that the product renewal cycle for binoculars is so much slower than for cameras. A well known digital camara website, 1001 Noisy Cameras, recently noted that some 181 new cameras have been launched thus far this year, even before the big Photokina trade show. The new Swaro, the Nikon Monarch 7, the Zen Ray HD and the evanescent Zeiss HT represent the big news in the binocular space during the same interval. Clearly, binoculars are not marching to the same drummer.
The implication is that the Alphas have it right, make a premium product at a premium price, factoring in a generous service policy and plan for a decade long product renewal cycle. Canon, a wanna be alpha, did not get the memo.
Maybe that is why the ISL line failed in the market place.The economic benefit their pricey repair policy brings comes at the expense of their credibility in the market place. No one wants to buy a premium binocular that may fail after 1 year or even 3.
So if Canon wishes to be seen as an alpha brand, they have to act that way, with a 10+ (ideally lifetime) year warranty on their alpha products. Technically superior IS and excellent optics by themselves clearly do not cut it in this market. Customers demand reassurance that support will be unquestioning and sustained over the long term.
Click to expand...

Interesting comments regarding how Canon's core optical business (cameras) influences the way their binocular division works. I've got many Canon DSLR lenses. 4 or so years ago I dropped a 24x105 L lens, resulting in the autofocus breaking. Sent it in, was quoted $575 for repair - a bit less than half of the 'street' price for a new lens.

6 months ago, banged a 70x300 while rock climbing, resulting in the IS and autofocus not working. Was quoted $260 for the repair, close to half the 'street' price for a new one. Again, had it repaired.

My friends binocs, again, came with the repair quote ($600) being a bit less than half the 'street' price for a new pair of binocs.

Kind of gives me the impression that their repair estimates, rather than being an actual 'time + materials' estimate, is really based on a formula to maximize their profits. Why does this not surprise me?

I've really got to stop dropping optical equipment.

John F
LV NV
 
barshnik said:
Interesting comments regarding how Canon's core optical business (cameras) influences the way their binocular division works. I've got many Canon DSLR lenses. 4 or so years ago I dropped a 24x105 L lens, resulting in the autofocus breaking. Sent it in, was quoted $575 for repair - a bit less than half of the 'street' price for a new lens.

6 months ago, banged a 70x300 while rock climbing, resulting in the IS and autofocus not working. Was quoted $260 for the repair, close to half the 'street' price for a new one. Again, had it repaired.

My friends binocs, again, came with the repair quote ($600) being a bit less than half the 'street' price for a new pair of binocs.

Kind of gives me the impression that their repair estimates, rather than being an actual 'time + materials' estimate, is really based on a formula to maximize their profits. Why does this not surprise me?
I've really got to stop dropping optical equipment.
John F
LV NV
Click to expand...




Very provocative insight and entirely plausible.
It is surely more practical to set such a 'half off' repair price than to pay for a non producing specialist to make estimates. At worst, Canon can ship another unit, which the repair cost would cover nicely.
Binoculars are a peripheral business for Canon, so it is unlikely that Canon would set up a different policy just for that product line.

Separately, it suggests we have the answer to this question:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=237481
 
etudiant said:
Very provocative insight and entirely plausible.
It is surely more practical to set such a 'half off' repair price than to pay for a non producing specialist to make estimates. At worst, Canon can ship another unit, which the repair cost would cover nicely.
Binoculars are a peripheral business for Canon, so it is unlikely that Canon would set up a different policy just for that product line.

Separately, it suggests we have the answer to this question:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=237481
Click to expand...

Scratch that theory.
The repair for the salt water damaged Canon lens mentioned in the above thread was only a third of what the 'half off' model would have suggested.
So repairs are apparently costed individually, contrary to the assumption.
 
What you're waiting for, what we're all waiting for, is a major breakthrough in IS technology from Canon or another IS bin maker, as Steve mentioned above.

If Canon merely adds another model, which it could do with a 12x50, for example, since it has ~4mm exit pupils like the 10x42, which is the exit pupil limit of Canon's Vari-Angle Prism Image Stabilizer, it's still going to have the same quirks ("artifacts," "swimming") and bulkiness as the other full sized models, because it will use the same technology, and it will have the same short warranty period.

I don't think anything digital will ever carry an unconditional lifetime warranty. If it did, you'd probably pay 5x the cost since who knows how many times it would "fizzle" over a lifetime. Perhaps, like insurance, the cost should be based on your age, health and lifestyle.

Either you accept the limitations/quirks of Canon's VAP-IS or the Fuji or Nikon IS bins, or you will have to wait for a breakthrough in IS technology, and even then, who knows if it would suit you?

Since it could be a long time before you find out, if you really need image stabilization because of shaky hands or for stargazing, I recommend the 10x30 IS model since it has better stability, and even if it fizzles, you will probably get your money's worth, but personally I have shunned the other models because of the price tag vs. repair costs after the warranty expires.

I might go for a low-priced "pre-owned" 12x36 IS if Alan ever gets tired of his and decides to buy a more manly man bin such as a Swaro 12x50 SV EL. ;)

<B>
 
My Canon 10x42L's have lived up to my expectations. After seeing this thread I used them to read this thread from about 8ft away and I could see the pixels on my 24" 1920x1200 monitor . Unless your a human tripod you will never see fine detail from a non IS 10x binocular handheld IMHO. I guess whatever floats your boat.
 
jogiba said:
My Canon 10x42L's have lived up to my expectations. After seeing this thread I used them to read this thread from about 8ft away and I could see the pixels on my 24" 1920x1200 monitor . Unless your a human tripod you will never see fine detail from a non IS 10x binocular handheld IMHO. I guess whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

So has mine. for five years of unfaltering service. It does take batteries, but it has a frugal appetite, 2 lithium AAs every two years.
No matter the weather, in hot, cold, dry and damp, it continues to give a bright, neutral color image with a stability and detail that no other glass offers.

Imho, it would be a bargain at twice the price, because it really allows one to see the bird more clearly. It is truly a better tool than conventional binoculars, so much so that I've lost interest in the newest and latest HT or SV, because they lack the key feature, stabilization.
While one would love to see further improvements, such as brock has outlined, the current product is good enough and durable enough to serve with distinction. Certainly my expectations have been exceeded.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

John A Roberts
Roger Vine's review of the Canon 10x42 L IS
Replies
16
Views
4K
BayBirder
B
yarrellii
Canon vs Kite stabilized binoculars
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
DRodrigues
D
P
The ideal IS bino design?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
5K
Paultricounty
P
A
Canon 10x42 L IS cover scraping away - advice?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
kabsetz
K
T
First Love Rekindled
Replies
8
Views
898
Tringa45
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top