Question on the 10x30 IS (1 Viewer)

Hermann · Jan 2, 2015

I've got a question on the 10x30 IS that arose from the current thread on the 8x25 IS. I decided to open a new thread because I didn't want to derail that thread which I think focuses on some very interesting aspects on the "influence of human factors on our seeing experience", as etudiant put it.

The background is that I'm seriously thinking about getting a stabilized Canon myself, and it'll have to be the 10x30 IS rather than the 10x42 IS, despite the much poorer build quality of the 10x30 IS. The reasons are that I won't be able to use any of the Canons on days when I can't use my contacts as the dioptre correction range is too small (only +/- 3 diopters), and in addition the 10x42 is just too heavy; I wouldn't be able to carry (and use) it all day because of my back problems. In addition it seems to me the Canons are best regarded as expendable bins - when they break you might as well throw them away, and the 10x30 is relatively cheap compared to the 10x42.

Anyhow, Binastro wrote:

Binastro said:
The optical quality and stabilisation of these Canon image stabilised binoculars does seem to vary, and I think that the 10×30 has had several changes in stabilisation method.

Can you please elaborate a bit on this? I know Kimmo found Canon had improved the 10x42 IS in some way, but what (if any) changes are there in the 10x30 IS?

Also, is there anyone here with some experience of the latest versions of the 10x30 IS in the field? I know Tobias Mennle was very critical of the build quality of the 10x30 in his review (cf. http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/canon/Canon IS 10x/CanonIS.html), and some older versions I've seen were, well, pretty awful in that respect. What are the latest versions like?

BTW, the reason for my new interest in the Canon IS is that I met an old birder on my local patch a couple of weeks ago who used the 10x30, so I had a chance to use his pair for a quick trial. And even though his pair wasn't in a very good condition (with soiled lenses and so on) I definitely got more detail on the birds than with the Nikon 10x42 SE I was carrying. A lot more detail.

Hermann

etudiant · Jan 3, 2015

Canon unfortunately has not been very forthcoming about any product design changes or modifications. Afaik the only publicly disclosed change was from the 12x36 to the 12x36II.
There were interior changes to the 10x42 to adjust a field stop that limited the early versions to 10x37. That was accompanied by some improvements in baffling as well as coatings perhaps, but there was no public comment.
As a very satisfied 10x42 owner, I believe you underestimate the reliability of the IS function. Mine has given flawless service since 2008, from the tropics to the Arctic. It purrs if fed a couple of lithium AAs every six months. To further alleviate your concern, the glass is optically excellent even without the IS function, as would be expected from a modern porro design, as well as solidly waterproof.
On the downside, as you say it is heavy and bulky. A good harness is really an essential component. I use a Y shaped harness that clips to the belt and suspends the glass from two broad shoulder straps, which I find more comfortable than the Swarovski style arm hole design. If you can find a way around the diopter issue, I think you would be well pleased with this glass.

kabsetz · Jan 3, 2015

Hermann,

I don't know much about the 10x30 IS either, since I've never tested it, only tried it a few times in shops and sometimes in the field when some other birder has had one. They are more common in the field than the 10x42, obviously because they are so much more affordable. Image quality has usually been quite good, and as you found out, with the stabilizer they outperform all normal alpha binoculars when judged by detail perceived and processed. This is just speculation, but my guess is that the basic design has remained unchanged but there may well have been software tweaks in the stabilizer. Because the system is complex, it is highly advisable to test the performance of the unit you would buy, and if that is not possible, buy only from a place that has a good enough return policy.

I would not be overly concerned about the durability issue. If they break, it is most likely because the user has broken them, and in that case not many warranties help. If you handle it like you would a reasonably robust camera, you should be ok. But it is not a hammer like a Leica Trinovid.

Kimmo

Binastro · Jan 3, 2015

. On a recent documentary covering I think the USS Ronald Reagan super carrier I noticed that the captain was using a Canon 10×30 IS binocular on the bridge. I thought that was strange as usually you see the Zeiss 7×50 or something similar. But obviously the captain values the view given by the Canon 10×30.

I have also seen them sometimes used by people at sporting events.

I used the Canon 10×30 IS for about a year extensively and I thought it to be a very good binocular.
Nowadays, I tend to use the 18×50 more.

The main problem I think is not to use them in the tropics as they are not waterproof, or at least take great care to keep moisture out of them.
A second hand 10 x 30 that I bought has quite a lot of haze internally and I should never have bought it.

ceasar · Jan 3, 2015

A couple of years ago I saw a photograph in the New York Post of the announcer who called the horse races at Belmont Park. He was being interviewed about his job. The photo showed him holding what looked like a Canon 15x50IS or 18x50IS; and on a shelf in the background a 2nd one ((Back up?) was visible.

Bob

PeterPS · Jan 3, 2015

Hi Hermann,

I had several recent samples of the 10x30 IS and found very little variation among them: the IS mechanism worked flawlessly on all, and the optics were not stellar but good anyway. I compared the 10x30 with the 12x36 too, and found no clear advantage for the latter despite claims that it is better built and has better optics. Unfortunately I had to either sell or return all the 10x30s: like you I need a diopter correction of more than -3, in fact more than -3.5, and Canon's range indeed is -/+3. That's my reason for trying several samples---I hoped there will be some variation and I will find one that runs past -3 diopters, but no they were pretty consistent: where is the sample variation when you need it?!

Peter.

kabsetz · Jan 3, 2015

Peter, Herman,

This might be a silly idea, but what about asking an optician to make you a customized single corrective lens out of an eyeglass lens, with antireflection coatings and all, that would be sized such that it could simply be inserted into the eyecup, against the eye lens, and perhaps secured with a couple of tiny drops of silicone so it doesn't fall off? Making it so that it corrects for your less dominant eye might be preferable.

In the 10x42 IS L, with its twistable eyecups, the eyecup rubber would be enough to keep the lens in place.

Kimmo

elkcub · Jan 3, 2015

kabsetz said:
Peter, Herman,

This might be a silly idea, but what about asking an optician to make you a customized single corrective lens out of an eyeglass lens, with antireflection coatings and all, that would be sized such that it could simply be inserted into the eyecup, against the eye lens, and perhaps secured with a couple of tiny drops of silicone so it doesn't fall off? Making it so that it corrects for your less dominant eye might be preferable.

In the 10x42 IS L, with its twistable eyecups, the eyecup rubber would be enough to keep the lens in place.

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo,

I don't think the idea is silly at all, ... particularly since I suggested it several times in the past. However, I do admit to thinking it silly for me to bring up again since no one commented on it the first two or three times. :eek!:

As a coincidence, I just posted Peter Abrahams this morning with regard to his Binocular List 597. 2015.01.02., where he mentions that the Zeiss binocular catalog of 1929, p52, had a listing for "'sight correcting lenses', to correct astigmatism or near/far sightedness." He is puzzling about where the lenses were inserted.

BTW, with regard to your comparison study of Canon IS against tripod and handheld, I would also suggest using something like a [Fismo] that you may recall from a decade ago. I doubt that IS can do better, particularly in monopod mode. Your comments on post #12 are still entirely relevant. I now use that same stick with my Swaro 8x42 SLC HD.

Regards,
Ed

kabsetz · Jan 3, 2015

Ed,

About the corrective lens, I should have said "suggestion" rather than "idea," since I didn't think it hadn't been done or thought about before. Just that I was writing quickly and spontaneously. Anyway, it would be interesting if people tried this and posted their experiences. Considering the prices of optician-made reading glasses with modest frames, this should not even cost that much. However, since my own eyes are within 0.5 dpt, I'm not going to be a guinea pig for this one.

Regarding the IS comparison, at least for me I know that IS does better than a Fismo, since I have used an IS binocular on a Finnstick extensively over the years, and often when in a birding tower with a railing, support the stick on the railing for essentially monopod mode effect. The addition of IS even in these situations is a significant improvement. With my new 10x42 IS L, I have essentially tripod-level binocular image quality as soon as the stabilizer has settled, which takes 5-10 seconds if it hasn't been used for a while and 1-2 seconds if it has.

But I'm happy to include hand-held finnstick viewing into the mix for you.

Kimmo

PeterPS · Jan 3, 2015

Kimmo and Ed:

Thanks for the "corrective lens idea"---I dare to say it's almost an obvious fix yet I never heard of anybody using it in practice so there might be some problems with implementing it (possible distortions in the light paths etc?), besides that of finding an optician willing to do it (non-standard lens etc).

Fortunately most of the good binoculars have a diopter correction range of -/+4 or even 5. What's more, their manufacturers list the range---doing so might seem common sense but I can tell you that it is not common practice. This should be the subject of *another thread* but I've always wondered why the diopter correction range is not listed along with the other specs. In fact often it's not only not listed but also it's not known---that was my experience with the Monarch 7 8x30: it took weeks and many emails back and forth until Nikon USA was able to find out that the range for M7 was just -/+2.

Peter.

denco@comcast.n · Jan 4, 2015

Hermann said:
I've got a question on the 10x30 IS that arose from the current thread on the 8x25 IS. I decided to open a new thread because I didn't want to derail that thread which I think focuses on some very interesting aspects on the "influence of human factors on our seeing experience", as etudiant put it.

The background is that I'm seriously thinking about getting a stabilized Canon myself, and it'll have to be the 10x30 IS rather than the 10x42 IS, despite the much poorer build quality of the 10x30 IS. The reasons are that I won't be able to use any of the Canons on days when I can't use my contacts as the dioptre correction range is too small (only +/- 3 diopters), and in addition the 10x42 is just too heavy; I wouldn't be able to carry (and use) it all day because of my back problems. In addition it seems to me the Canons are best regarded as expendable bins - when they break you might as well throw them away, and the 10x30 is relatively cheap compared to the 10x42.

Anyhow, Binastro wrote:

Can you please elaborate a bit on this? I know Kimmo found Canon had improved the 10x42 IS in some way, but what (if any) changes are there in the 10x30 IS?

Also, is there anyone here with some experience of the latest versions of the 10x30 IS in the field? I know Tobias Mennle was very critical of the build quality of the 10x30 in his review (cf. http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/canon/Canon IS 10x/CanonIS.html), and some older versions I've seen were, well, pretty awful in that respect. What are the latest versions like?

BTW, the reason for my new interest in the Canon IS is that I met an old birder on my local patch a couple of weeks ago who used the 10x30, so I had a chance to use his pair for a quick trial. And even though his pair wasn't in a very good condition (with soiled lenses and so on) I definitely got more detail on the birds than with the Nikon 10x42 SE I was carrying. A lot more detail.

Hermann

I have had almost all of the Canon IS's over the years and I recently acquired a new 10x30 IS because I value them for their ability to see detail. Even though your 10x42 SE has no doubt better optics concerning CA and contrast and stuff like that the Canon has good optics and with the IS engaged the Canon will beat any alpha level binocular in seeing detail because it is STEADY. I have not noticed any changes over the years in the 10x30 IS and every one I have had has performed perfectly. They represent a unique value in binoculars and it is kind of nice to have that steady view when birding. They are remarkably bright for their aperture and with two field flatteners per objective they have excellent sharp edges. Fairly light and compact too. If you want detail you can't beat them.

elkcub · Jan 4, 2015

All,

I just received an email from Peter Abrahams with these three pages attached from Zeiss' 1923, 1928, and 1931 catalogs. During that period of at least 8 yrs., sight correcting accessory lenses could be obtained from Zeiss at additional cost and were primarily oriented to astigmatism correction.

It would blow me away if they would do it again today.

Ed

PS. I may repost this material on other threads.

PeterPS · Jan 4, 2015

Ed:

This indeed is interesting stuff (I have only looked briefly over the material but long enough to also see the Fismo idea described briefly). The Zeiss binocs in question had IF so there was no need for diopter correction, only astigmatism correction was required. You said you would love to see this idea used again, but aren't field flatteners taking care of that to a large extent?

Peter.

elkcub · Jan 4, 2015

Hi Peter,

No, this has nothing to do with field flatteners, which correct for curvature of field in binoculars. These "sight correction" lenses were strictly designed to correct for visual astigmatism, like eyeglasses do, and should also not be confused with correcting the binocular's optical astigmatism, which is an entirely different aberration within the instrument but having the same name.

To obtain this accessory you would need to give Zeiss your eyeglass prescription, and for all practical purposes the sight correction lens would only be suitable for your personal use. Whether the binoculars were IF or CF didn't matter, incidentally. Note that by 1931 they were advertising the accessory for use with CF binoculars.

Ed

henry link · Jan 4, 2015

elkcub said:
All,

I just received an email from Peter Abrahams with these three pages attached from Zeiss' 1923, 1928, and 1931 catalogs. During that period of at least 8 yrs., sight correcting accessory lenses could be obtained from Zeiss at additional cost and were primarily oriented to astigmatism correction.

It would blow me away if they would do it again today.

Ed

PS. I may repost this material on other threads.

Ed,

The idea is not completely dead, at least for telescope eyepieces. It might be possible to adapt the DIOPTRIX to some binoculars, perhaps quite a few if the lens is removed from the cell and fitted the way Kimmo described.

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=54#.VKlOsijR25Q

Henry

Binastro · Jan 4, 2015

. The 'sunglasses' mentioned in the literature shown here are dangerous and have always been so.
It took us about 40 years to get these awful things banned, although they still turn up sometimes.
And the nonsense about using a lighter shade for solar eclipses is something that Zeiss should not have advised.

I personally know someone who has permanent eye damage from a 25 mm aperture telescope, in this case using front-end home-made filters made up from four dark sunglasses.

The heat generated by even a 25 mm aperture could crack an eyepiece filter, a 50 mm aperture certainly would, and this has happened in several cases that I know of.

If anyone finds such 'sunglasses' or eyepiece filters purported to be used for solar observation, either for telescopes or binoculars, they should be thrown straight in the garbage.

etudiant · Jan 4, 2015

Binastro said:
. The 'sunglasses' mentioned in the literature shown here are dangerous and have always been so.
It took us about 40 years to get these awful things banned, although they still turn up sometimes.
And the nonsense about using a lighter shade for solar eclipses is something that Zeiss should not have advised.

I personally know someone who has permanent eye damage from a 25 mm aperture telescope, in this case using front-end home-made filters made up from four dark sunglasses.

The heat generated by even a 25 mm aperture could crack an eyepiece filter, a 50 mm aperture certainly would, and this has happened in several cases that I know of.

If anyone finds such 'sunglasses' or eyepiece filters purported to be used for solar observation, either for telescopes or binoculars, they should be thrown straight in the garbage.

Can only say 'Amen' to that.
I've seen one of these used, foolishly, on a 4" refractor and get cracked in very short order. Fortunately no one was blinded, because it happened between observations.

Hermann · Jan 4, 2015

Kimmo and Ed:

Thanks for that very interesting idea. I'll talk things through with my optician when I see her again sometime in spring. I've got a feeling it may very well work for me, but I want to have her advice first. Things are a bit complicated with my eyes as soon as I can't wear my contact lens ...

Everyone: I agree nobody should even think about using the "sunglasses" idea from that old Zeiss pamphlet nowadays. It would be a sure recipe for disaster. At the time, however, it may have worked quite well, with binoculars with something like 50% transmission (no coatings at all in 1929!) and simple eyepieces. I'm quite sure Zeiss was aware of the potential problems and conducted a few trials before putting this product on the market.

Hermann · Jan 4, 2015

elkcub said:
BTW, with regard to your comparison study of Canon IS against tripod and handheld, I would also suggest using something like a [Fismo] that you may recall from a decade ago. I doubt that IS can do better, particularly in monopod mode. Your comments on post #12 are still entirely relevant.

Thanks for mentioning your old thread. I had completely forgotten about it.

BTW, Orniwelt has an interesting adaption of the Finnstick: http://www.orniwelt.de/products/Fernglaeser/Fernglas-Zubehoer/Nackenstativ.html

Hermann

Hermann · Jan 4, 2015

[email protected] said:
I have not noticed any changes over the years in the 10x30 IS and every one I have had has performed perfectly. They represent a unique value in binoculars and it is kind of nice to have that steady view when birding. They are remarkably bright for their aperture and with two field flatteners per objective they have excellent sharp edges. Fairly light and compact too. If you want detail you can't beat them.

Thanks for your assessment. Now, if only Canon widened the dioptre correction range and made a 10x30L with slightly better optics and better weather resistance. That would make the 10x30 even more attractive, even if the weight (and the price ...

increased somewhat.

Hermann

Question on the 10x30 IS (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread