• 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.

10X42L IS Pros/cons... (2 Viewers)

I'm not doubting for a moment any of the IS benefits individuals are reporting here, but I just want to add a word of caution. It might not work for everyone.

With a well balanced 10x binocular, hand held costs me about 35% in detail compared tripod mounted. On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) and I'd agree it's optically a pretty good binocular. However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. I've not done chart tests to confirm it, but my judgement at the time was that I was still seeing less detail than with my usual 10x42 hand held. It was the same story with the rest of the range.

Obviously individuals differ in the frequency and amplitude of their hand shake and also the level of detail they can potentially see. I'm more than happy to accept the 10x42L IS works for the majority of users, but maybe the current design is not for everyone.

David
Typo. What year was your Canon 10x42 IS-L manufactured? I notice a difference in the performance of the Canon 10x42 IS-L I have now which is a newer model versus the older one I had a few years back. My newer model has virtually no optical artifacts but as Etudiant says the IS system will not totally stop all movement in all situations like a tripod but it greatly helps and in most situations it will perform like a tripod , as far as, increasing the resolution. Resolution testing has shown with the IS system engaged there is a 30 to 40% increase in resolution almost identical to a tripod.
 
Last edited:
......... On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) .......... However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. ...............
David

Hello David .... I believe I understand what you saying but it is just the opposite of what is expected. The IS system should have all but eliminated those small on going movements but would have much less of an impact on the less frequent but more noticeable jerks. That leads me to ask the question, are you sure the IS system was engaged? After seeing no improvement did you lower the Canon to see if the green light was on? The green light is on when the IS system is engaged and the light is off when the system is not engaged.

Turning the IS on and off may sound extremely basic but the button on the Canon happens to be very "tocuchy". If you hold it down to long (and believe me, to long is not long at all), the system will turn on and immediately turn off. When turning the system on, the user should hear a thunk sound and feel a slight clunk as the system engages. The same happens when turning it off although there is a very slight difference in the sound.

It is very easy for those unfamiliar with the Canon to hold the button down for a split second to long and get a double thunk and clunk! What they have done is immediately turned the IS on and off. However since they heard a sound and felt the clunk, they are under the impression that the system is on when it is not. The best advice for a new user who is not seeing a reduction in movement is to slightly lower the binocular and look to see if the green confirmation light is on. Once a user gets use to the operation of the Canon (which is not long), then this step is not necessary.

If someone checked out the Canon casually for just a minute or so, say at a stand at Birdfair, then I can see the possibility of the above scenario.

If you are sure the IS was engaged, then I am at a loss as to why you did not see the elimination of the small ongoing movements we all experience with binoculars. Even when I am sitting down with the elbows supported on the chair arms, I can still pick up movements from the heart beat and the act of breathing and also the very small ever ongoing muscle movements. The engagement of the IS all but eliminates those small movements for me.
 
Last edited:
WOW! Thanks Bruce for that GREAT write up! .....
I'm a binocular purist at heart...well, to an extent. Of course I enjoy any REAL improvement I can get my hands on. I just don't know if I'd be able to enjoy a battery operated binocular.

I probably SHOULD give it a try. ........

Chuck ... It is good to hear you found the write-up and pictures useful!

Don't fret over the use of batteries. You are still viewing directly though glass so you will still get a conventional "analog" view as always, just without the shake. I do not feel that I have crossed over to the electronics side when using the Canon. ;)

The batteries will have a vertical orientation when viewing with the Canon so just visualize the batteries as the legs of a bi-pod used to steady the view.:king:
 
........... Secondly, veiling glare reared it's ugly head one evening glassing the horizon to the West while following raptors riding the thermals about an hour before sunset. I really had to work with eye placement to minimize this, but otherwise, never saw it again. .........
Ted

Ted ..... Nice write up!

Reading your comments about the glare experience reminded me of a similar incident I experienced with a different binocular.

I happen to have a Monarch 7 8X30 which a few on this Forum have described as a glare monster. There was never a glare incident until one morning looking at a mountain slope directly in the direction of the rising sun, just before the sun was to rise above the ridge top. There was almost total wash out. I ended up putting my left hand over the top of the objectives acting as a shield and almost all the glare went away. The difference was quite incredible.

You may be able to get the same effect by adding the screw on lens shades as shown in the photos in my above posts. I have not experienced the glare situation you described and that may be because I have been using the lens shades most of the time. I had thought the shades were not necessary for reducing glare, but that may not be the case after reading about your experience. The objective lenses are quite close to the end of the objective housing so there is not much shielding direct from Canon.

You can get them cheap off Amazon or eBay from China. The size is 52mm. In additional to the possibility of resolving your glare issue, they do look cool on the Canon and give additional protection to the objectives since the objective lenses do not have a lot of setback. The Canon will still fit in the case, but it is tight. The length of the shield protruding on mine is approximately 3/4 of an inch or about 19mm.
 
Bruce,

Although I'd tried the 10x30 previously, I first worked through the whole IS range in 2011 with a Canon rep in attendance. He checked I was using it properly, changed all the batteries and checked for himself the mechanisms were working as they should. In 2013 and 2015 I checked most of them again but was left to my own devices but I did ask for the batteries to be changed on a couple to be sure.

David
 
David ... Well, there goes that theory! I am glad you brought up the batteries, because I thought of that as another possibility after posting. It sounds like the Canon rep had nothing to offer as to why you were not picking up any improvement in shake reduction. I have run out of ideas to explain it. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Ted ..... Nice write up!

Reading your comments about the glare experience reminded me of a similar incident I experienced with a different binocular.

I happen to have a Monarch 7 8X30 which a few on this Forum have described as a glare monster. There was never a glare incident until one morning looking at a mountain slope directly in the direction of the rising sun, just before the sun was to rise above the ridge top. There was almost total wash out. I ended up putting my left hand over the top of the objectives acting as a shield and almost all the glare went away. The difference was quite incredible.

You may be able to get the same effect by adding the screw on lens shades as shown in the photos in my above posts. I have not experienced the glare situation you described and that may be because I have been using the lens shades most of the time. I had thought the shades were not necessary for reducing glare, but that may not be the case after reading about your experience. The objective lenses are quite close to the end of the objective housing so there is not much shielding direct from Canon.

You can get them cheap off Amazon or eBay from China. The size is 52mm. In additional to the possibility of resolving your glare issue, they do look cool on the Canon and give additional protection to the objectives since the objective lenses do not have a lot of setback. The Canon will still fit in the case, but it is tight. The length of the shield protruding on mine is approximately 3/4 of an inch or about 19mm.
"I happen to have a Monarch 7 8X30 which a few on this Forum have described as a glare monster. There was never a glare incident until one morning looking at a mountain slope directly in the direction of the rising sun, just before the sun was to rise above the ridge top. There was almost total wash out. I ended up putting my left hand over the top of the objectives acting as a shield and almost all the glare went away. The difference was quite incredible."

I had the same problem with the "Glare Monster" Nikon Monarch 7. By the way I coined that phrase. HaHa!:-O I also had the exact same problem with the Habicht 8x30W in almost the same identical conditions you describe. Those glare shields you describe would work quite well to help control glare although I have not had too many problems with the Canon.
 
Chuck ... It is good to hear you found the write-up and pictures useful!

Don't fret over the use of batteries. You are still viewing directly though glass so you will still get a conventional "analog" view as always, just without the shake. I do not feel that I have crossed over to the electronics side when using the Canon. ;)

The batteries will have a vertical orientation when viewing with the Canon so just visualize the batteries as the legs of a bi-pod used to steady the view.:king:
"Visualize the batteries as the legs of a bi-pod used to steady the view"

Interesting thought!
 
Bruce,

Although I'd tried the 10x30 previously, I first worked through the whole IS range in 2011 with a Canon rep in attendance. He checked I was using it properly, changed all the batteries and checked for himself the mechanisms were working as they should. In 2013 and 2015 I checked most of them again but was left to my own devices but I did ask for the batteries to be changed on a couple to be sure.

David

David:

You are a good resource and have much experience. This may be a
good post to counter all of the recent Canon love.......8-P

Jerry
 
David:

You are a good resource and have much experience. This may be a
good post to counter all of the recent Canon love.......8-P

Jerry

Alternatively, David is the rare exception, someone whose physical characteristics are far enough removed from the average that the stabilization does not benefit him.
My own experience with the Canons is so different from his that I'm baffled.

Hence my recommendation that people try them before buying them. In most cases, I believe they will be delighted.
 
Alternatively, David is the rare exception, someone whose physical characteristics are far enough removed from the average that the stabilization does not benefit him.
My own experience with the Canons is so different from his that I'm baffled.

Hence my recommendation that people try them before buying them. In most cases, I believe they will be delighted.

I don't think I'm that weird.... but others may disagree.:-O

So far in this thread only Catnip (#18) and myself have had disappointing results with the Canon IS, but there have been others in the past. A minority I'd accept, but maybe not that rare.

David
 
Just to clarify that I did not mean in my post #18 that I think the IS does not work, or that I somehow do not like the improvement which IS brings.
The only thing I am saying is: tripod mounted gives A LOT more stable views than IS. So for me, IS ist just not good enough (I have not tested the expensive Fujinons nor the Zeiss 20x60, so cannot include them in this starement). And since the optics of the Canons, of which the 10x42 is clearly the best, are very good but do not outperform in my modest opinion an SF, EL SV or HD+, I do not concur that the Canon is simply "the best".
 
Hi David and Canip,

Thanks for your helpful input. There are always 2 sides to a story, as we all "see" things differently! It's been said in many pages of BF, "try before you buy". A specialized tool like the Canons will not work with every pair of eyes and presents unique ergonomic differences that certainly turns-off many a birder.

For those reasons and the fact I've never had an opportunity to try them in the past, I've waited a long time. Owning and using 4 different Canon EF L-Glass SLR lenses, I'm very familiar with their excellent "IS" products (all still going strong after 12 years). Figured I had nothing to loose with their current bino sales and the vendors generous return policy. For my eyes and style of glassing, happy I found a very -portable tripod like system- that is not as good as a tripod itself, but much easier to deploy while on the excursion trip.

They do not posses better optics to the SF, SV, UV+ or probably even the NV (so far, no experience). Their non-transferable warranty falls way short of most in the optics market with potential costly repairs in the future. But for Me they present another unique way to see, in an alpha hand-held stabilized view, all wildlife and the environment. IMHO, instituting an efficient\effective IS system in a comparative size\features\optics of the top alpha offerings would be the single best improvement they can make to today's top glass!

Ted
 
As far as I know the Zeiss 20x60 has the best resolution of any hand held binocular, but you must be strong to use it.
Only a Takahashi 22x60 with a stabilised gimbal mount might beat it, but much heavier.
The Yukon 30x50 folded refractor binocular with stabilised gimbal mount would equal the Zeiss resolution, but poor transmission and dullish image.

Helicopter professional observers generally use the Fujinons.

I have seen the old Canon 10x30 IS on the bridge of an enormous U.S. aircraft carrier. Used by the captain, which surprised me as he could choose anything he wanted without price limits.
 
As far as I know the Zeiss 20x60 has the best resolution of any hand held binocular, but you must be strong to use it...

Binastro,

The Zeiss 20x60 S possibly so, but at 50% more weight, 4x the cost and 20 power (way too much for birding), the Canons will be much more "user-friendly" for me. As far as all of these (including the Canons), I assume if IS could be implemented in an optic instrument package the size\weight\cost of say the SF, SV or NV, it would have been already done....sighhhh! :-C

Ted
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to find out some info on the frequency and amplitude of the shakes, and less successfully, trying to find out the response profile and time lag for the Canon IS correction.

It's not particularly easy to find articles on normal, healthy individuals but I did find a nice simplistic statement that said the hand shakes at 8-10hz, the fingers at 17-20 hz and the elbow at 3 to 5hz. Seems reasonable to expect that when using a binocular all three would be involved, but probably which predominates would depend on an individual's physical make up and glassing technique.. Then it gets complicated. There is a tendancy with old age for the 8-10hz hand shake to move to 3 to 5hz, and if weight and or tension is applied to the thumbs then a 3-5hz shake can develop, and something more complex happens to the fingers.

I only found one comment about Canon IS technology it and might have been directed at cameras not binoculars. It said IS was most effective at 10hz. Total speculation, but it seems an interesting possibility that perhaps those who find the Canon IS most effective have predominantly 8-10hz shakes? Others that find it less effective might be troubled by other frequencies? I doubt it's as simple as that.

David
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to find out some info on the frequency and amplitude of the shakes, and less successfully, trying to find out the response profile and time lag for the Canon IS correction.

It's not particularly easy to find articles on normal, healthy individuals but I did find a nice simplistic statement that said the hand shakes at 8-10hz, the fingers at 17-20 hz and the elbow at 3 to 5hz. Seems reasonable to expect that when using a binocular all three would be involved, but probably which predominates would depend on an individual's physical make up and glassing technique.. Then it gets complicated. There is a tendancy with old age for the 8-10hz hand shake to move to 3 to 5hz, and if weight and or tension is applied to the thumbs then a 3-5hz shake can develop, and something more complex happens to the fingers.

I only found one comment about Canon IS technology it and might have been directed at cameras not binoculars. It said IS was most effective at 10hz. Total speculation, but it seems an interesting possibility that perhaps those who find the Canon IS most effective have predominantly 8-10hz shakes? Others that find it less effective might be troubled by other frequencies? I doubt it's as simple as that.

David

Very interesting David! Not only do we "see" differently (eyes\brain\interpretation), but we also "shake" differently (fingers\hands\elbows\and can I add...bootie)!! ;) :t: B :)

Ted
 
Very interesting David! Not only do we "see" differently (eyes\brain\interpretation), but we also "shake" differently (fingers\hands\elbows\and can I add...bootie)!! ;) :t: B :)

Ted
The bottom line on the Canon 10x42 IS-L is it will give 30 to 40% better resolution than any other alpha binocular including the SV,SF or HD Plus. If optics are the most important thing to you it is your only choice.
 
The bottom line on the Canon 10x42 IS-L is it will give 30 to 40% better resolution than any other alpha binocular including the SV,SF or HD Plus. If optics are the most important thing to you it is your only choice.

Any "other" alpha ?
Since when is the Canon considered an alpha?
And I can assure you, it is definitely not my "only choice" ....
 
Any "other" alpha ?
Since when is the Canon considered an alpha?
And I can assure you, it is definitely not my "only choice" ....
The Canon 10x42 IS-L is right up there with any alpha optically without the IS system. It is your ONLY choice if you want the best resolution and want to see the most detail without a tipod.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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