New Canon 12x36 IS (1 Viewer)

albatrosviajero said:

...and for a not glasses user, can be cmfortable ?
Thanks

Click to expand...

When unfolded, the rubber eye cups are really long for me and because their edges are not very wide, they would be not comfortable for long periods of time; just short ones. But because I wear glasses, I rarely use them unfolded.

As others have said, this is going to be a personal issue. Your comfort may vary from mine and you might really like these as they are.

Hello,
Thanks for your opinions.
I tested the model 12X36 and 18x50 and eye cups have not seemed particularly uncomfortable for short periods of time, though.
The 10X42 model would be in the same level of "discomfort" of these two?
regards

albatrosviajero said:

Hello,
Thanks for your opinions.
I tested the model 12X36 and 18x50 and eye cups have not seemed particularly uncomfortable for short periods of time, though.
The 10X42 model would be in the same level of "discomfort" of these two?
regards

Click to expand...

The 10x42 eyecups are different from the ones you tested.
The 10x42s have hard rubber screw up/down eyecups, rather than soft rubber fold downs as on the 18x50s. So you may well find them less comfortable.
A simulation of the experience could be achieved using the cardboard roll at the core of a roll of paper towels. That gives a squared end of about the right 45mm diameter. Add a couple of turns of black electrical tape around the end and you get nearly the fit and feel of the 10x42 eye piece. If you can tolerate that, you get great views from the 10x42.

And ... the minimum separation between eye cups, which is?

At the 56mm minimum interpupillary distance of the 10x42 IS L, the distance between the eyecups is about 10.5mm. It increases, predictably, a millimeter for every millimeter of i-p distance increase over 56mm.

Kimmo

Binastro said:

.
The Canon 12×36 MK I was heavier but optically better than the current Canon 12×36 MK II.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of replacing my old Canon 12×36 MK I with the newer Canon 12×36 Mk II because the newer model is a handier size and I presumed generally better. But is the older Mk I really optically better?

Has anyone compared the two models?

Yes, the 12 x 36 Mk 1 is optically better and has a wider field than the Mk 11.
I have both.
But the Mk 11 is easier to use as it is lighter. The Mk 11 may be more fragile.

Binastro said:

Yes, the 12 x 36 Mk 1 is optically better and has a wider field than the Mk 11.
I have both.

Click to expand...

In what way do you find the Mk I optically better?

If the difference is significant I'd probably not upgrade to the Mk II. I had planned to do so as I find the Mk I clumsy and therefore I mostly use conventional binoculars, though I really appreciate the image stabilization.

If you have both Mk I and Mk II, which of them do you prefer to use in the field?

Thanks for your help.

. Dear Anthony,
the Canon 12×36 Mk 1 was my first image stabilised binocular probably bought perhaps 14 or 15 years ago. I have always wondered whether over a long time period the vari prisms lose some transmission perhaps becoming somewhat yellow but I have no indications that this is so.
the optical performance is better because the field is flatter, I think that it has a field flattener, and also the field is wider and the edge performance is better than the mark 2.
the star images are also probably smaller.
It is a lovely binocular but it is heavy and nowadays I'm not as fit as I was so I prefer the mark 2 although in actual fact for astronomy I use the 18×50 image stabilised which is even heavier but it immediately picks out Jupiters moons even when they are very near the limb of Jupiter. so I only have to hold it for less than a minute to complete the observation. In fact with daily use over several years I never had to change the focus as it was very stable.
The 18×50 handheld resolves about 1.7 times or 1.8 times better than an old 15×60 Zeiss. However the image in the Zeiss is much brighter.
So for handheld resolution I don't think that you can beat image stabilised binoculars although for birdwatching it may be that the brighter image of other standard binoculars means that they are preferred.
In addition, some people here say that they don't get on with image stabilised binoculars. Also they are generally not waterproof except for the 10×42.

The 12 x 36 Mark one is I think built to higher standards than the consumer 8×25, 10×30 and 12×36 Mark two. Also with the 10×30 I think that there have been many changes in the image stabilising system supposedly to increase battery life but I think mainly to cut costs. Also these consumer binoculars I think vary more than the semiprofessional models. In addition I find that the image stabilising varies with some being better than others. Also these consumer models are definitely not waterproof as second-hand ones sometimes have haze due to moisture inside them. so I would not buy a Canon image stabilised binocular second-hand as it is just not worth it. It is a rather complex electronic device which is also another reason not to buy second-hand

If you could afford it may be buy the 12 x 36 Mark two and keep the Mark one.


P.S. perhaps you could use the Canon 12×36 Mark one with a Finnstick to reduce the weight.
I have never used this method so perhaps others could advise. but some birdwatchers seem to favour this method.

Canon 12x36 IS. Buyers beware.

My 12x36 IS started to buzz when I pressed the IS button and if I did not press it, there was a double vision so I sent it back to Canon. They quoted £156 to repair it which I accepted but it came back today exactly the same with a note saying they did not have the spares to fix it. So I have a £650 binocular destined for the dump.
I'm not impressed.

. Is that the Mk I version from about 2001?
I would think that they would have spares for the current MK II.

I suppose that the first version is obsolete now as is the 15×45.

richard866945 said:

My 12x36 IS started to buzz when I pressed the IS button and if I did not press it, there was a double vision so I sent it back to Canon. They quoted £156 to repair it which I accepted but it came back today exactly the same with a note saying they did not have the spares to fix it. So I have a £650 binocular destined for the dump.
I'm not impressed.

Click to expand...

ask them to replace it with a new one

behavior like this on BirdForum will create a decrease in sales

edj

. Problems like this also affect digital cameras.
The Leica M 8 and M 8.2 are apparently not repairable even though the camera may only be five years old.
This camera cost about £4000 I think, and if a fault develops it may not be worth anything.

Binastro said:

. Problems like this also affect digital cameras.
The Leica M 8 and M 8.2 are apparently not repairable even though the camera may only be five years old.
This camera cost about £4000 I think, and if a fault develops it may not be worth anything.

Click to expand...

That's progress in the digital age.:smoke:

Bob

edwincjones said:

ask them to replace it with a new one

behavior like this on BirdForum will create a decrease in sales

edj

Click to expand...

this is the reason I have delayed so long to get an IS
(but did get the 12x36 and enjoy it)
it is also the reason I would be reluctant to get another

with care the nonIS binoculars can last a lifetime

edj

' With care the non-IS binoculars can last a lifetime'.

probably yes, but when it comes to resolution handheld they cannot match a good working image stabilised binocular.

I use both image stabilised and normal binoculars.
I've used image stabilised binoculars extensively for about 14 years without problems.
When I need top-quality resolution it is the image stabilised binocular that is used.

One could say the same about digital cameras, which certainly don't last a lifetime.
My Minolta film cameras still work perfectly after 40 years but I don't use them any more.

My attitude to image stabilised binoculars is that the initial purchase price can be written off in say three years and anything else is a bonus.
I don't see the wisdom of complaining if a complex digital device fails after five years when you're getting the benefit of these brilliant binoculars when they do work.

It was interesting to see that the British contribution of a Hercules aircraft operating out of Canada to try to find some missing sailors did not have the complex seeking systems really required but relied on people using their own eyes and according to a senior air force person they were using image stabilised binoculars to help them.
Also the police and military regularly use image stabilising binoculars, normally Fujinon which are waterproof and heavy duty and take the electricity supply from the aircraft or helicopter if necessary. there are also versions with nightvision eyepieces.
The professionals use the best and they don't resort normally to optical binoculars without image stabilisation.
even the Russians use their strange image stabilised binoculars for use in tanks. They work even though to me they seem primitive.

But each to his own I suppose.
And for birdwatching ordinary binoculars of high quality have many advantages.

P.S.
I would think that it would be possible to get comprehensive insurance on an image stabilised binocular covering mechanical breakdown, accidental breakage and theft.
this may be proportionally more expensive for the 10×30 and 12×36 but maybe less so for the more expensive Canon binoculars. Of course, you should also be able to get this insurance for any other image stabilised binocular.
Also some shops give two years guarantee on anything they sell which only has a one year guarantee. And then one could insure further subsequent years.
This might help those who may wish to buy an image stabilised binocular but are worried about the warranty period.
The insurance would probably also cover a non-repairable binocular and a brand-new similar binocular would be provided under the terms of insurance.
Personally, I haven't done this with image stabilised binoculars but have done this with household appliances and T.Vs.

P.P.S.
I notice that the 18×50 and 10×42 Canon image stabilised binoculars costing about £1000 have as an option on extended warranty for five years at about £200 extra.
I think that one can do better than this with a specialist insurer of optical products to include cover for accidental damage and theft.
I also think that one can probably get cover for up to 8 or 10 years from previous experience.
However, with the 10×30 and 12×36 I would probably just take the risk myself. although some shops may well offer reasonably priced insurance cover even for these.

Interestingly, the 18×50 and probably others have various filter kits offered, which screw into the front of the binocular, as did the earlier 12×36 MK I.