LOL! Exactly, and that tension is coupled in my case with "guilty horrors" at the expense and waste of having binoculars unused in a cupboard....
-
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.
Canon IS 18x50 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter KorHaan
- Start date
Sancho,
I notice that when you complain about being a "binoholic" some one comes to your aid to commiserate with with you. I can only conclude that you are in a cult!
Let me help bring you back to reality!
I have no sympathy for you at all!! HAR DE HAR HAR!:-O
You can call the Irish Navy and have them impress your 2 kids into it to raise money for your new Canon 18 x 50's for all I care!:'D
You can sell ALL your binoculars to get them, and limit your self to 2 if you like. It will serve you right!
There!
Do you feel better now?
Bob
I notice that when you complain about being a "binoholic" some one comes to your aid to commiserate with with you. I can only conclude that you are in a cult!
Let me help bring you back to reality!
I have no sympathy for you at all!! HAR DE HAR HAR!:-O
You can call the Irish Navy and have them impress your 2 kids into it to raise money for your new Canon 18 x 50's for all I care!:'D
You can sell ALL your binoculars to get them, and limit your self to 2 if you like. It will serve you right!
There!
Do you feel better now?
Bob
Only solution is a periodic period of repentance.
Sell all but the two (or three) most treasured items. That gives both a free cash reserve as well as an increment of spousal tolerance.
After the sale, decide whether that heirloom Swift is really so critical to continued equanimity that a replacement must be acquired. Often just a happy memory of a good glass is sufficient, especially when contemplating new optics.
Sell all but the two (or three) most treasured items. That gives both a free cash reserve as well as an increment of spousal tolerance.
After the sale, decide whether that heirloom Swift is really so critical to continued equanimity that a replacement must be acquired. Often just a happy memory of a good glass is sufficient, especially when contemplating new optics.
LOL! Too right, Bob and etudiant. Repentance, abstention, spousal tolerance...I´ll have these engraved on my Swarovisi-ovskis and flog the rest. And I won´t buy the big IS either. I know I can do it!
Today I was at the beach with kids and binoculars (I know, never a good mix), and noticed a lot of CA in my IS 10x30. The stable view was still superior to other bins, but the CA was quite pronounced (a gun-metal grey day, grey sky, grey sea, and cormorants, gulls etc. on the water or in flight showed lots of fringing). This CA varied with how I used the binos...without the IS button pressed, it was only very slight, but when I pressed the button, the CA appeared. I had to re-focus a little, and press the button once or twice, to reduce the CA. The bigger IS binos are specified as having something called "UD lenses" to reduce CA; do any 18x50 users have CA issues?
Today I was at the beach with kids and binoculars (I know, never a good mix), and noticed a lot of CA in my IS 10x30. The stable view was still superior to other bins, but the CA was quite pronounced (a gun-metal grey day, grey sky, grey sea, and cormorants, gulls etc. on the water or in flight showed lots of fringing). This CA varied with how I used the binos...without the IS button pressed, it was only very slight, but when I pressed the button, the CA appeared. I had to re-focus a little, and press the button once or twice, to reduce the CA. The bigger IS binos are specified as having something called "UD lenses" to reduce CA; do any 18x50 users have CA issues?
Last edited:
Sancho,
The 10x42 IS is pretty good for CA to my eyes, but it is not an aspect that's been a major concern to me. It would be logical though that Canons UD (Ultra low Dispersion) glass would help minimize it, as that formulation was first used to address the same issue for photographers, who are a much more important market for Canon.
The 10x42 IS is pretty good for CA to my eyes, but it is not an aspect that's been a major concern to me. It would be logical though that Canons UD (Ultra low Dispersion) glass would help minimize it, as that formulation was first used to address the same issue for photographers, who are a much more important market for Canon.
kristoffer
Used Register
Why can´t Canon buy their glass from Zeiss or Swarovski and put it in their IS bins. Imagine FL or Swarovision glass in a 12x36 Canon IS modell. Mmm.
I'd defer to our experts on this, but imo Japan makes absolutely world class optical glass.
Take a look through the Canon 10x42ISL, the optical performance is quite competitive to the alphas.
Fortunately Canon does not produce just L series gear, but serves the broader market. Any performance gaps in the 12x36s reflect market realities, that the price achieved can only pay for so much design and materials.
Take a look through the Canon 10x42ISL, the optical performance is quite competitive to the alphas.
Fortunately Canon does not produce just L series gear, but serves the broader market. Any performance gaps in the 12x36s reflect market realities, that the price achieved can only pay for so much design and materials.
Agreed, Nikon SE and EII have superb glass from Japan, and the Canon IS 10x42 is stunning (I didn´t buy it because for that weight I´d prefer more mag-punch). The 10x30 is particularly good value, and although there is CA visible in at least my sample, if I can live with it I still get a more detailed view most of the time than I do with "alpha" glass hand-held. I think these are retailing at about 350 euro nowadays, and the 12x36 is on a good deal at the moment too from many retailers.
kristoffer
Used Register
Sure, Japan can make some fine glass. But how does Nikons SE line help Canons 12x36 version?
KorHaan
Well-known member
Sancho,
I don't see any CA in my 18x50's, but I don't see any in my 10x30's as well.
I'm certainly not going to look for it, before you know it, it is there and you notice it all the time. I can't say I'm immune to it, maybe blissfully ignorant is a better explanation.
etudiant,
I find the weight of the 18x50's not really pleasant, but I gladly put up with it. There's simply no alternative for this kind of steady magnification, only the 15x50's which are just as big and heavy.
The greater weight is even an advantage in the hands, particularly on windy days in the field, where I can keep them steady more easily than the 10x30's.
The 10x42 L IS with its bigger weight would be awesome, but I can't bring myself to buying these as long as I get a lot of pleasure out of the 10x30's.
Cheers,
Ronald
I don't see any CA in my 18x50's, but I don't see any in my 10x30's as well.
I'm certainly not going to look for it, before you know it, it is there and you notice it all the time. I can't say I'm immune to it, maybe blissfully ignorant is a better explanation.
etudiant,
I find the weight of the 18x50's not really pleasant, but I gladly put up with it. There's simply no alternative for this kind of steady magnification, only the 15x50's which are just as big and heavy.
The greater weight is even an advantage in the hands, particularly on windy days in the field, where I can keep them steady more easily than the 10x30's.
The 10x42 L IS with its bigger weight would be awesome, but I can't bring myself to buying these as long as I get a lot of pleasure out of the 10x30's.
Cheers,
Ronald
Kristoffer, as you point out, the Nikon SE is a spectacular value, so much so that Nikon is apparently ending production,
according to the Nikon thread on this forum. The price did not cover the costs and the prestige gained was not enough to offset the gap.
Canon could similarly use superior glass in their 12x36s, but they could not sell them for the correct price, which would kill the economics.
Imo, the limited market acceptance of the 10x42ISL (and of its Nikon counterparts) pretty much ends the possibility of a broader push by the alpha glass suppliers into the field of IS. Moreover, given that the camera market is shifting away from mechanical stabilization in the lens towards cheaper and easier electronic stabilization at the sensor, there will be declining resources available for improving the technology needed for image stabilized binoculars. That suggests that we should enjoy our current good fortune, but not expect much future improvement.
Instead, it is much more likely that the next big thing in optics technology is exemplified by Zen Ray, near alpha performance at a budget price. Given Chinese manufacturing capacity and access to modern measurement tools, there is no savings from building junk optics. The profit comes from selling stuff that costs pennies to make for at least dimes, in quantity, rather than for dollars one at a time.
according to the Nikon thread on this forum. The price did not cover the costs and the prestige gained was not enough to offset the gap.
Canon could similarly use superior glass in their 12x36s, but they could not sell them for the correct price, which would kill the economics.
Imo, the limited market acceptance of the 10x42ISL (and of its Nikon counterparts) pretty much ends the possibility of a broader push by the alpha glass suppliers into the field of IS. Moreover, given that the camera market is shifting away from mechanical stabilization in the lens towards cheaper and easier electronic stabilization at the sensor, there will be declining resources available for improving the technology needed for image stabilized binoculars. That suggests that we should enjoy our current good fortune, but not expect much future improvement.
Instead, it is much more likely that the next big thing in optics technology is exemplified by Zen Ray, near alpha performance at a budget price. Given Chinese manufacturing capacity and access to modern measurement tools, there is no savings from building junk optics. The profit comes from selling stuff that costs pennies to make for at least dimes, in quantity, rather than for dollars one at a time.
Ronald,
As a 10x42 convert, I'd urge you to try using them. They are wonderfully sharp and bright, much more so than the 10x30s. Also of course they are waterproof, so they can stand a few knocks without bronching..
To me, their virtues outweigh their bulk, weight, godzilla oculars, lousy eyecups and silly carrying case.
As a 10x42 convert, I'd urge you to try using them. They are wonderfully sharp and bright, much more so than the 10x30s. Also of course they are waterproof, so they can stand a few knocks without bronching..
To me, their virtues outweigh their bulk, weight, godzilla oculars, lousy eyecups and silly carrying case.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
The one thing I'd like to see from Canon is a 10x32 that's "water resistant" (same idea as the 15x and 10x but keep the weight down) and uses ED (UD, L whatever the Canon trademark name is) objectives and a revised EP design (where a lot of the CA is in the 10x30 ... it's mostly lateral CA ... try viewing with pupils off axis) to correct CA (i.e. an LaK element) and 6.5 degrees FOV (just as they do in the "top bins"). They'd be a fine birding bin (and as we know the 10x37 isn't that much bigger exit pupil but costs 4x as much).
A sort of Canon version of the 10x32 FL sort of bin.
Most of the Canon price structure is driven not by cost of goods but by marketing structure: a steady bumping of prices as you move up the range (all the same exit pupil so the stabilization gear is the same with a couple of different constants in the software).
A sort of Canon version of the 10x32 FL sort of bin.
Most of the Canon price structure is driven not by cost of goods but by marketing structure: a steady bumping of prices as you move up the range (all the same exit pupil so the stabilization gear is the same with a couple of different constants in the software).
Paskman
Well-known member
Sancho, whatever you do , do not sell the 8X30 EII's. You will regret it within 5 minutes and I'll lay a wager that you will be buying your third pair within a couple of months!!......if, of course, there are any left to buy. I would sell the SV's, after all you had them to play with for a couple of weeks now:t:
Paul
There is a sound logic to that, Paul, and it´s one that crossed my mind over the weekend. (Would my SV´s be the first to go on the second-hand market?
). I got used to the EII 8x30 with extended use, after selling the EL´s and while waiting for the SV´s to arrive. One interesting thing I noted was that for me, the EII 8x30 were superior to the Canon IS 10x30 for tracking flying birds. This is all extremely subjective, though, and dependent on the sample of bino and observer combined. As for the 18x50, I´ll have to wait till my next visit to the UK to try a pair.
Last edited:
Paskman
Well-known member
There is a sound logic to that, Paul, and it´s one that crossed my mind over the weekend. (Would my SV´s be the first to go on the second-hand market?
Well I don't suppose the Canon's are cheap................you just need to let me know how you persuade the other half to give you permission to buy all the new toys or do you just hide them from her!
Paul
KorHaan
Well-known member
You make a strong case as a 10x42 IS L advocate! :t:
They are tempting for sure. If somebody could convince me that they are also the best owling bins on the planet, I'm off buying them first thing next morning. I wish I had the bucks for both but I need outstanding nightbins first.
The 10x42 IS L's are second on my shortlist, which isn't much of a list since there are only the 15x50 IS's that I'm interested in...
Good try, though, etudiant!
Best regards,
Ronald
KorHaan
Well-known member
Hi Kevin,
The same idea came to my mind, in fact I posted and deleted my thoughts of a waterresistant 10x30 about the same time when you posted!
I wouldn't go as far as you suggest, for me an optical window in front of the moving objective lens would suffice, to make them more waterresistant ( both the 10x30 and 12x36 versions). The added cost would be modest, as would the added weight.
I deleted my post because there would also have to be O rings put on the oculars, and the battery door would have to be sealed too, and maybe the whole housing would have to be reinforced, and... and... At this point I gave up and deleted my writings.
Your idea is very interesting, though; I'd like to see such an improved version and would consider buying one.
Best regards,
Ronald
Ronald,
The only owling feature(?) that I'd note for the 10x42 is that the depth of focus seems small. That can sometimes help when looking at a bird through branches, the bird is at focus and the intervening branches fuzz out It has been useful for me when focusing on birds in shrubbery. In my limited experience with owls, they usually duck behind some evergreen branch, which sometimes can be faded out of focus w/o losing the bird.
The only owling feature(?) that I'd note for the 10x42 is that the depth of focus seems small. That can sometimes help when looking at a bird through branches, the bird is at focus and the intervening branches fuzz out It has been useful for me when focusing on birds in shrubbery. In my limited experience with owls, they usually duck behind some evergreen branch, which sometimes can be faded out of focus w/o losing the bird.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I'd be happy with that at the same price.
Not sure why the removed the filter threads they had on the first version as that would suffice with a daylight/UV AR "filter" to keep the dust and rain out.
