• 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... (1 Viewer)

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

I found this graph awhile back and Have quoted Kimmo's explanation. See top of post.

I found this graph representing improved IS in the 12x36 model so presumably there is a similar improvement in the 10x30 model.

Thanks for this, Dipped. This kind of info has been sorely lacking thus far, or at least I've not managed to see it.

On the vertical axis seems to be residual shake in percentages of unstablized shake, and on the horizontal axis is tremor frequency in Hz (cycles per second). If this graph is correct, the improvement is quite significant.

Kimmo
 
Last edited:
Hello Chuck,

Back from my 3-day excursion on the Natches Trace. The 10x42L was the Only glass I brought and overall it performed admirably out in the field. Dawn\dusk temps ranged from 16 to 26 degrees and the optics and electronics didn't miss a lick (or should I say, a great view)!

I also agree with everything that Bruce highlighted in his wonderful report. His Pros and Cons hit the nail on the head very well as the 10x42 L's have some serious optical prowess. But alas, there are 3 possible issues I've not read or heard about that I discovered while birding and glassing wildlife for 20 hrs or so this weekend. The rainguard, eye cups and IPD adjustment lobes are soft natural rubber that are "Dust Magnets"! May not be a big deal as a dry clean brush removes the contaminants, but this I've not experienced (to that degree) with my Swaros, Zeiss or Leupolds in field travels. 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. Thirdly, while using sunglasses with eye cups all the way in, I was missing about 5-10% of the FOV. Now, these shades I used are big and have maybe too much eye clearance. If I had a normal pair with me, I'm sure they would not have caused restrictions.

Otherwise like Bruce, these are the first binos that I don't extend the eye cups all the way out. The 3rd click setting gives my unaided sight a wonderful and immersive FOV that with the very nice 3D Porro II effect, gives Me a view that seems even more as-if-you're-there image over my 10x50 SV (Especially with IS on)! My IPD is 62mm and the objectives are 70mm. Compare to any of my 4 Habicht porros (6x-10x, porro I, much greater offset), the depth and 3d effect is more natural and pleasing to my eyes. Now, this could be related to the slow "close focus to infinity" of 2.75 turns, but when you get the subject locked in, the 10x42L displays typical Canon "L Glass" foreground\background bokeh that is extremely "photo" like, allowing excellent attention and depth to your subject. The slow focus could be a negative for birding, as it takes more time and effort to go from 2 to 300m+. For me, it helped to lock in a sharp focus quicker and cleaner without any misses of ID's.

Overall, the ergonomic facts (weight, bulkiness, etc.) and other quirks do not deter me from being excited about their use. Actually, loaded (all accessories attached) they are just 3oz heavier than my 10x50 SV's, about the same length but easier to hand hold for a steadier image. After 3 days and 20 hrs using the supplied bino strap, I experienced no handling issues or discomfort. For my small frame (but big hands), they have a solid heft that balances and works well for me! I'm sure they are not for everyone, but glad I took the plunge. I now know the 10x50 SV is a tad sharper, has a wider AFOV and is brighter (Yes Dennis, Still a definite keeper). However, the Canon is a unique tool for glassing enjoyment. With the 10x42L IS engaged, think of Your "Best Glass with a Built-In Tripod View"!! :eek!: ;) :t:

If you're yearning to try them Chuck, hard to beat the current deal and return policy at B&H (by 1-31-2017)!:D

Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas,

Ted

Thanks Ted!
Between you and Bruce I'll soon be a Canon IS binocular specialist in short order!

Obviously, I'm not a one brand or even one type binocular person. I think I'm a pretty good candidate to try them. But in no way could I EVER imagine handing over my FL 7X42 OR SV 8.5X42, et al for some Canon IS binoculars. Can't imagine it.

Oh....I do have one final question and it has been touched on by a few but I don't think directly answered:

How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!
 
Thanks for that plot Dipped. I could see that the IS system was reducing the effect of my pulse at something around 1 hz, but not seemingly the other shakes which were interferring with the level of detail I could see. Very curious!

David
 
Thanks Ted!
Between you and Bruce I'll soon be a Canon IS binocular specialist in short order!

Obviously, I'm not a one brand or even one type binocular person. I think I'm a pretty good candidate to try them. But in no way could I EVER imagine handing over my FL 7X42 OR SV 8.5X42, et al for some Canon IS binoculars. Can't imagine it.

Oh....I do have one final question and it has been touched on by a few but I don't think directly answered:

How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!

I've been using the 10x42 IS for the past year or so with glasses. I find they work very well for me. Unlike quite a lot of other binoculars I use them with the eyecups all the way down and that gives a comfortable view with no obvious loss of field of view. I've read quite often (and have tried for myself when raising my glasses) that the eyecups are a bit uncomfortable for non-spectacle wearers as they're quite hard and dig into the eyebrows a bit. That's not a problem for those wearing glasses though, as they just press against the spectacles. In that respect, the Canons might be even better for those with glasses than those without.

Other users may have a different experience but my own experience of using these with glasses is very positive, and indeed they work better for me than many other binoculars before you even get to the massive benefits of IS.
 
Oh....I do have one final question and it has been touched on by a few but I don't think directly answered:

How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!

The Canons are actually a little easier to use for glasses wearers, because one can just hold the enormous (45mm diameter) eye cups against the glasses, rather than trying to jam them into the eye sockets.
Eye relief is decent, maybe 15-16 mm, enough for me to see the full field with glasses on.
Note that there was an earlier posting on BF stating that glasses for nearsightedness increase the effective eye relief. I'm near sighted, so maybe my glasses are helping.
 
Thanks Ted!
Between you and Bruce I'll soon be a Canon IS binocular specialist in short order!

...How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!

Your welcome Chuck! They'll be plenty of positives and negatives to deal with. Hopefully they are a good "fit" for you and their virtues are what you expect from this unique binocular to be a keeper! :D

You'll have to judge with Your specs to see if their FOV is to your liking (like Andrew and Etudiant). I feel the weight may be a challenge, as you seem to travel "light", but you might be willing to set these up for short term special occasions. HERE is another aspect that makes these very interesting...curious if you find similar benefits. :eek!:

If you want\need to return these, I know they aren't for everyone but at least in a way, your "trying before buying". Besides, I bake a mean crow pie!! :eat: :-O

Wishing You and Your Family a Very Merry Christmas! o:D

Ted
 
Chuck .... One of the beauties of being a binocular enthusiast is that you can have a favorite (such as a Swaro EL SV for you) yet still enjoy using other models. As you would never give up you Swaro for the Canon, I would not give up the Zeiss SF, but I still am glad to own the Canon and get a kick out of using it.

One of the best ways I know of to demonstrate the shake reduction is to take it out on a dark clear night and look at the stars. The stars will show bounce or jitter with either a conventional binocular or the Canon with the IS turned off. Turning the IS on settles the view and the jitters go away with the stars becoming near rock solid for me. The same shake is there looking at detail in the daytime but it just is not as obvious with all the visual clutter.

As a side note, viewing the stars is also a good way to see how much shake one really has. I have done this with people who thought they had almost no shake with say a 10X and were surprised to see so much movement of the stars. It is also an excellent way to judge the difference in shake between say a 6X and a 10X.

Do not rush to judgment. Give yourself several days to get used to the Canon since it is quite different in feel and mechanics. The bottom is thick and flat so that gives it a different feel in the hands. As mentioned previously, the body does not bend so that may seem strange at first. Also adjusting the IPD is quite different since just the eye pieces move rather than the whole body. That may at first appear awkward but it becomes natural after doing it a few times.

The relationship of the alignment of the eye piece to the objective lens varies because the eye piece moves separately as compared to a conventional binocular. The end result is that a person with a more narrow IPD setting should get more of a Porro effect compared to someone like me with a wide IPD (70mm) which is the same as the objective lens spacing.

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=599539&d=1474735139

Batteries: Use of AA alkaline batteries is fine for your evaluation but I would not recommend them long term for the Canon or any other valuable electronic gear. The reason is they have a greater tendency to leak as compared to other types. Two popular types are the Energizer non-rechargeable lithium AA (L91) which I am currently using and the Eneloop NiMH rechargeable AA batteries.

The advantage of the non-rechargeable Energizer is a large capacity, long shelf life due to a very low self-discharge rate, less likely to leak, and excellent cold weather performance. The disadvantage is cost. It also has a higher beginning voltage of just above 1.7 volts even though the specs show a nominal voltage of 1.5 volts. I asked Canon what was the max allowable voltage and was told they did not have that information available but any AA should be fine. I like the idea of the low-self discharge and high capacity since I do not use the Canon on a regular basis, yet want it to be ready to go when I grab it.

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/l91.pdf

I am looking forward to reading how the Canon works out for you.
 
Last edited:
Like Bruce, I also replaced the included alkalines with new "20yr. shelf life" Energizer AA lithium's. Had No trouble this past weekend with 16 deg F cold weather. Their "new" 1.8 beginning voltage dropped to just 1.73V after 20hrs in the field (about 20% of IS usage). Cost of the lithium can be 5X more, but pay $1 or $5 for use in a $2K instrument...a no brainer for me. I too didn't trust alkalines...had too many ruined electronics in the past due to leakages.

Enjoy the journey Chuck! :t:

Ted
 
Like Bruce, I also replaced the included alkalines with new "20yr. shelf life" Energizer AA lithium's. Had No trouble this past weekend with 16 deg F cold weather. Their "new" 1.8 beginning voltage dropped to just 1.73V after 20hrs in the field (about 20% of IS usage). Cost of the lithium can be 5X more, but pay $1 or $5 for use in a $2K instrument...a no brainer for me. I too didn't trust alkalines...had too many ruined electronics in the past due to leakages.

Enjoy the journey Chuck! :t:

Ted

You very well know I'll be needing an optic "fix" soon!! ;)
 
This morning I looked at Orion.
The star images are really good over nearly the whole quite flat field.
At the edge there is vignetting, but depending on position angle. At some positions quite a lot more than at others.
In addition some edge stars are elongated but this seems to depend on the offset of the variprisms. At some positions stars are very good at the edge.

I was pleased and surprised to see 4 Trapezium stars. Tiny points of light. This is fairly easy in 18x50, but it was just above 5 bulkhead light fittings each full moon brightness.
In addition a new building 22 metres away has had a Rottweiler light on all night for a week. This is 20 to 40 times full moon, i.e. magnitude minus 16.5.
I have stopped complaining as I consider planet Earth a lost cause. My friend thinks there will be no humans here in 150 years, and I don't disagree with him.
However, someone did complain as this morning the light was angled 45 degrees downwards.

The Canon 10x42 L is very good but heavy and bulky. The IS worked well.
 
Last edited:
Binastro,

I mean no disrespect, but separating all four Trapezeum stars at 10x seems quite exceptional, given that the four stars range in magnitude from 5 to 8ish and the AB separation is around 9". I've seen a rare report of elongation of the third component with a 15x70 binocular tripod mounted, but never a clean separation. More typical is a split at 20x-25x with good conditions. I have seen a clean split reported at just below 20x, so I guess an 18x50 IS is possible, but I would not expect it to be easy.

There has been much discussion of this over the years at cloudynights. See for instance this thread, especially post #34 by Ed Zarenski.

OTH there is much to see at 10x in and around Orion's belt and sword.

Good Observing,
Alan
 
Hi Alan,
I was surprised also, but I think that the extreme light pollution was stopping my eyes well down.
The stars were small points.

I have noted that some observers using ball bearings and the Sun for glitter artificial stars in the daytime see separations well below what I thought possible.
This is because I am thinking large nightime pupils, but the eyes were stopping down to 2.5mm or less, giving much closer results.

I have separated Mizar many times with 10x30 IS older version but they are 14.4 arcseconds apart, but quite bright and very different magnitudes.

One or more Trapezium stars are variable.

The 4 Trapezium stars are seen well routinely by some users of the 15x45 IS.

P.S.
The 15x70 gives much too bright Trapezium stars for easy separation. Also the common 15x70s have very large stars. The Canon 10x42 L stars are very small points.

P.P.S.
The 18x50 IS has an exit pupil of 2.75mm. That is the reason it separates doubles well. The stars in this are also small points.

A good Pentax 8x-20x24 UCF zoom binocular was great for double stars, but the best of 3 tested, which had great star images. This was particularly good at the higher magnifications. It also was excellent on the Moon at higher powers.
 
Last edited:
This morning I tried to repeat the Trapezium observation but it was cloudy.

The observation that I recorded in my observing book was 2016 Dec 22 02.14 UT.
There is a small sketch showing 4 Trapezium stars, which surprised me. The sketch was made at the time of the observation, i.e. immediately after the observation.

The circumstances were unusual.
I had rested for 2 hours in a dark room with faint illumination from the hall.
My eyes were very rested as was I generally.
The Canon 10x42 L was on the table and I saw that Orion looked good despite extreme light pollution..

The whole star test was done in about 3 minutes.
The belt stars were very fine.
The small cluster stars well above the trapezium were beautiful point like stars.
The Trapezium looked like a miniature version of the Trapezium I see with larger scopes.
I think my eyes were stopped to about 2.5mm and I was effectively using a top quality 10x25 f/7 binocular.
The binocular was tripod steady.
I don't wear glasses with binoculars.
I have little astigmatism.
I do see stars considerably fainter than many observers.
When completely rested my eyes are probably 20/15 or slightly better.

I do see the 7.6 mag star between Mizar and Alcor with old 10x25 non phase coated binocular in severe light pollution. Hand held, braced but not stabilised or tripod mounted.
I have seen Titan, mag 8.4 with bright Saturn in the field with a telescope stopped to less than 20mm, magnification about 30x.

To see the closest separation double stars it is essential to be able to vary the exit pupil to the optimum size.
In addition a variable density filter is needed for the optimum illumination level observation.
These conditions sometimes occur randomly.
I frequently use variable thin cloud as the variable density filter.

I think that the daytime double artificial star test was measured at something like 65 arcseconds with better eyes than I have. At least better resolution, but maybe not as light sensitive eyes as mine.
 
Last edited:
The only other possibility I can think of regarding the 4 Trapezium stars is that I picked up a flaring geosynchronous satellite in the Trapezium.
I have seen two of these near the Trapezium. Firstly with 18x50 IS then with Russian 12x45.
These satellites are normally around magnitude 13, maybe 14, well beyond binocular detection, but the flares I saw were bright enough to be certainly seen.
But these are rare and I think it more likely I saw the 4 stars, especially in view of the careful observations reported with artificial stars in daylight, where the separations were half of what I thought possible, I think because of the optimum pupil size and illumination.

During the Dec 22 observation the Orion nebula was rather faint in the extreme light pollution.

The smallest star images that I have seen in binoculars are those with the Canon 18x50 IS and the 10x42 L IS.
 
Binastro,

I appreciate the additional information, and you have inspired me to try the trapezium in my 15x45 IS as soon as the sky clears. I started astronomical observing only as an adult when one of my sons became interested in astronomy. Early on, hunting double stars with my 7x50 binoculars was one of my favorite activities when not under dark skies. In those days the limiting factor was holding the binocular steady and I was lucky to glimpse a 25"-30" split of stars with relatively similar magnitudes.

I doubt I have the necessary acuity as I normally think of around 2 arc minutes as the lower limit of apparent resolution, but perhaps I am selling myself short. I have certainly seen a great range in variation in the ability to detect faint stars in the same field of the same telescope by different observers. We had a very gifted comet observer in our club years ago, and he literally taught me to see things in my own telescope that I had no idea were there.

Alan

P.S. The smallest binocular star images I have seen are in Fujinon Meibo 7x50.
 
Hi Alan,
If you are in dark skies maybe try 2x neutral density filters, or maybe variable polarisers.
Some of the Canon IS binoculars have filter threads. Not sure about the 15x45.

Unfortunately sky conditions have not been good but I suspect the Trapezium stars may be easy in severe light pollution but good transparency with the 18x50 IS. It was awful this morning, poor transparency and Orion too low, but I glimpsed the 4th in the 18x50 even though my eyes were not rested. I only saw 3 with the 10x42 L.

There is no point using overkill, too large telescopes or binoculars, as the stars are too bright and too large and fill the small space separating them. It also is no use using binoculars with inherently large star images.
That is the reason I think for the lack of success in the link you posted.
Additionally, some of the observers do not have very good results with faint stars or close stars. Even though my eyes are old I still do better than some of them.

I recently pointed out to a S and T article writer that he was being too conservative re. the Pleiades and he confirmed that he had found observers after he wrote it who did much better, going much fainter.
There is a wide range of vision amongst people who are just considered to have normal good sight. Maybe 2 magnitudes and 3x resolution spread.

I have been amazed by some people I have met or know well who either have incredible eyesight or some who cannot see faint stars at all well.

P.S.
36mm masks might help with a 15x45 IS to stop ones eyes to 2.4mm, so they work near the optimum for best resolution maybe together with 2x neutral density filters. 1.5x neutral density filters may be better, but may not exist, although coloured 1.5x filters do exist, but this might look odd.
Although some see 4 stars in the trapezium with say a 15x45 or similar tripod mounted or IS binocular, many don't.

I realise that some observers with superb eyesight see fully 1 magnitude fainter than I did even when my eyes were young, and some halve my resolution ability, and some do both.

What I object to in the linked posted is the firm statements that because they did not see the 4 trapezium stars below 18x, nobody can.
George Alcock gave up on planetary observation, particularly on Mars, because his peers did not believe the observations that he made with the 4inch f/12 Ross triplet refractor, as they could hardly equal it with 16 inch Newtonians.
He proceeded to learn the positions of 30,000 stars and discovered 5 Novae and 5 comets near sea level from Peterborough with at least one through his window from indoors using a specially made 20x60 Soviet binocular. He normally used the Schneider? 25x105 triplet objective binocular for his discoveries. He saw 7.2 mag stars with unaided eyes, but I think maybe he saw fainter also.

His peers could not argue with new discoveries.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for a very interesting discussion, Binastro and Alan.

The 36mm mask will have the additional advantage of reducing aberrations, as in most binoculars the edges of the objective lens contribute to aberrations proportionately more than the central area.

Kimmo
 
NOW 50% off MSRP today @ B&H and Adorama! :t:

Suspicions of a Mark II version around the corner stronger than ever?!!

Happy New Year,

Ted
 
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