• 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.

impressions on the Canon 10x42L IS (1 Viewer)

The Canon 10x42 IS-L's kills the Zeiss HT, Leica HD or Swarovision when it comes to veiling glare. I bet the Canon's would perform ,as well as, even the Leica Noctivids when it comes to veiling glare. You can get near the sunset without any glare. Quite remarkable and a big advantage for the Canon's. I know I have changed my opinion on Swarovki's but I have had too many issues with their sticky focusers lately.:eek!:
 
Last edited:
In my opinion both the Zeiss 10x42 Conquest HD and old Leica 12x50 UV are better than the Canon 10x42 L when it comes to veiling glare.
The Canon is excellent but the other two samples here are better.
I would hazard a guess that the 10x42 Noctivid might be better still.
 
In my opinion both the Zeiss 10x42 Conquest HD and old Leica 12x50 UV are better than the Canon 10x42 L when it comes to veiling glare.
The Canon is excellent but the other two samples here are better.
I would hazard a guess that the 10x42 Noctivid might be better still.
Nah. I have tried both the Conquest and the Leica Ultravid and they are nowhere near the Canon 10x42 IS-L in glare control. Especially the Conquest HD. The Tract Toric 8x42 is a much better binocular optically than the Conquest and it controls glare better also.;)
 
Be careful what you say about Trump. He is hiring all generals with perhaps dreams of world domination. You little countries better watch out. He loves WAR. I hear he is going to build a wall between Canada, as well as, Mexico so watch out James.:-O


Wouldn't surprise me at all. And, I'll be defenseless and blind to the invasion as the veiling glare from my HT will be overwhelming.

PS - check an atlas and see who is a ''little country.''

Now, some of this reads like Breitbart......:-C
 
"PS - check an atlas and see who is a ''little country.''"

I am not referring to geographical size but military size. Canada is a "little country" compared to the US in military strength. Are Air Force alone is probably 30 times the size of the Canadian Air Force. If the US ever went to war with Canada you guys would be high tailing it up into the woods and fighting guerilla style. It would never happen though we need your oil too much to piss you guys off. Don't mess with Trump though he might put you on his "To Sue" list.;)
 
Wouldn't surprise me at all. And, I'll be defenseless and blind to the invasion as the veiling glare from my HT will be overwhelming.

PS - check an atlas and see who is a ''little country.''

Now, some of this reads like Breitbart......:-C

James: Don't feed Dennis the troll. I am now repeating myself.

Jerry
 

Attachments

  • Troll image.jpg
    Troll image.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 168
Jerry,

That may be so if you are looking for Canon cameras but for the special orders for Canon binoculars it is not immediately self evident when you go to the binocular site to look for Canon and find that Canon is not listed. The rest of the binocular companies are listed there.

Frankly, I think that Camera Land's new website is less than friendly to use.

Bob

Bob:

A seller like Cameraland will not stock a very slow moving product like
any Canon binoculars.

There is a reason why. No market for these but for a very few.

Jerry
 
"PS - check an atlas and see who is a ''little country.''"

I am not referring to geographical size but military size. Canada is a "little country" compared to the US in military strength. Are Air Force alone is probably 30 times the size of the Canadian Air Force. If the US ever went to war with Canada you guys would be high tailing it up into the woods and fighting guerilla style. It would never happen though we need your oil too much to piss you guys off. Don't mess with Trump though he might put you on his "To Sue" list.;)

War plan red is being reactivated.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
 
I have had both the Conquest HD and the Leica HD in 8x42 and 10x42's and neither even approached the glare resistance of the Canon 10x42 IS-L.


I take the above statement to mean that you have "owned" both a Leica 8X42 Ultravid HD and also a Leica 10X42 Ultravid HD. Please let me know if that incorrect.

What about the Conquest HD? I am not sure from the wording exactly what your experience is with that line. I do remember that you owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 for a while and gave it excellent reviews, saying it was very close to your prior Swaro 8X32 EL SV. I do not recall you ever mentioning any glare handling issue with it.

I do not recall you ever saying you owned a Conquest HD 8X42 or 10X42.

Could you provide more detail on your experience with the Conquest 10X42 HD so I can more easily put your comments in perspective? Have you ever owned one and if not, have you ever looked through one? I do recall (until the more recent comments on the Swaro 10X50 EL SV) that you mostly ignored 10X power binoculars. I do not recall you ever commenting on actual viewing experiences with a Conquest HD 10X42. Have you ever evaluated the Conquest 10X42 for glare handling and if so would you please describe the circumstances.

Thanks.
 
Bruce, what you are asking for is unreasonable - we need to deal in hyperbole and unfounded bluster - not all of the unnecessary ''factual'' aspects. The only thing that facts actually do is cloud the issue when post-truth is so much clearer and easier to digest.

*political metaphors entirely intentional*
 
I take the above statement to mean that you have "owned" both a Leica 8X42 Ultravid HD and also a Leica 10X42 Ultravid HD. Please let me know if that incorrect.

What about the Conquest HD? I am not sure from the wording exactly what your experience is with that line. I do remember that you owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 for a while and gave it excellent reviews, saying it was very close to your prior Swaro 8X32 EL SV. I do not recall you ever mentioning any glare handling issue with it.

I do not recall you ever saying you owned a Conquest HD 8X42 or 10X42.

Could you provide more detail on your experience with the Conquest 10X42 HD so I can more easily put your comments in perspective? Have you ever owned one and if not, have you ever looked through one? I do recall (until the more recent comments on the Swaro 10X50 EL SV) that you mostly ignored 10X power binoculars. I do not recall you ever commenting on actual viewing experiences with a Conquest HD 10X42. Have you ever evaluated the Conquest 10X42 for glare handling and if so would you please describe the circumstances.

Thanks.
I haven't mentioned every binocular I have owned on Bird Forum. In my experience most 8x and 10x's from the same brand and model perform pretty similar when it comes to glare control. I always test my binoculars for glare control but not always side by side but my memory is pretty good in most cases and the two best binoculars I have ever used for glare control are the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Nikon 8x32 SE. Have you ever tried a Canon 10x42 IS-L against a Zeiss Conquest HD? The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon. Try them sometime.
 
1). 8x and 10x binoculars from the same brand are not the same regarding glare control.
There are different models, importantly different eyepieces, different field stops and different field sizes and possibly different baffles.

2). Judging binoculars from memory does not work.

3). I have tested many binoculars side by side.

4). I have carefully tested the 10x42 Conquest HD side by side with the Canon 10x42 L as well as with other binoculars.

5). From memory I thought that the Canon 18x50 IS, the Canon 10x42 L IS, the Ultravid 12x50 and the 10x42
Conquest HD were all immaculate regarding glare control. They are within limits.

But the 2014 Canon 10x42 L is slightly better than the 15 year old 18x50.
The ten year old 12x50 Ultravid is a bit better than the Canon 10x42 L.
The 10x42 Conquest HD is better than the 12x50 Ultravid.

The 8x32 Conquest HD is worse than the above four binoculars.

These are my actual findings.

Now, testing methods vary and illumination is different at about latitude 53 degrees compared with say latitude 35 degrees. The lighting, weather and many other factors vary, so it is essential to test side by side and not from memory.

But to make categorical statements without actual testing and just using words instead of actual careful testing is just not on.
Also each binocular is individual and can vary from a seemingly identical binocular.
But at least actually test the binocular.

People reading the comments on various aspects of binocular performance are mislead when statements are made about a specific binocular without having actually tested the binocular.
 
1). 8x and 10x binoculars from the same brand are not the same regarding glare control.
There are different models, importantly different eyepieces, different field stops and different field sizes and possibly different baffles.

2). Judging binoculars from memory does not work.

3). I have tested many binoculars side by side.

4). I have carefully tested the 10x42 Conquest HD side by side with the Canon 10x42 L as well as with other binoculars.

5). From memory I thought that the Canon 18x50 IS, the Canon 10x42 L IS, the Ultravid 12x50 and the 10x42
Conquest HD were all immaculate regarding glare control. They are within limits.

But the 2014 Canon 10x42 L is slightly better than the 15 year old 18x50.
The ten year old 12x50 Ultravid is a bit better than the Canon 10x42 L.
The 10x42 Conquest HD is better than the 12x50 Ultravid.

The 8x32 Conquest HD is worse than the above four binoculars.

These are my actual findings.

Now, testing methods vary and illumination is different at about latitude 53 degrees compared with say latitude 35 degrees. The lighting, weather and many other factors vary, so it is essential to test side by side and not from memory.

But to make categorical statements without actual testing and just using words instead of actual careful testing is just not on.
Also each binocular is individual and can vary from a seemingly identical binocular.
But at least actually test the binocular.

People reading the comments on various aspects of binocular performance are mislead when statements are made about a specific binocular without having actually tested the binocular.
We pretty much agree although I have never tested the 12x50 Ultravid. I have found the newer Canon 10x42 IS-L I have now better than some of the older models I had. Better baffling?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top