New Canon 12x36 is lll & 10x30 is ll (1 Viewer)

Today I got some Panasonic eneloop pro 2500 mAh batteries 01/2015 85% 1 year. Recharge up to 500 times.
Just put two in the Canon 10x30 IS II.

They fit.

They work well without charging.

Generally the stabilization is similar to a tripod mounted binocular. With normal 1900mAh eneloop white or black 2500 mAh.

Also got some white eneloops. 09/2015. 70% after 10 years. They may last longer than I. Recharge up to 2100 times. Not me, the batteries.


P.S.
The black eneloops work in my old Canon compact camera. They seem to be the same length as white eneloops.

Sunny warm day.

Vernier calipers.

Eneloop batteries.

Average 3 readings. Black 2500 mAh and white 1900 mAh single batteries.

Width

White 14.18mm.

Black 14.29mm.

Length.

Black.
Ooh er.
Sparks. And it got hot very quickly.
Not clever.


I am not the brightest light in the firmament.

Carbon fibre lightweight digital calipers 0.1mm readings.

Eneloops.

Black 14.2mm wide.
50.15mm long.

White 14.1mm.
50.15mm.

Metal more accurate digital caliper. 0.01mm readings.

Eneloops.

Black 14.22mm
White 14.13mm.

But not well repeatable.

Length, measured quickly.
Black, white both 50.32mm.

I saw 50.34mm for black eneloop, I think, with metal vernier caliper but not verified.

Panasonic, Philips alkaline and Energizer AA lithium all give similar readings with metal digital caliper.
Widths. 13.95mm +/- 0.05mm with 13.97mm seen most often.

Wikip. gives AA size as 14.5 x 50.5mm.
Introduced 1907 , but added to ANSI standard sizes in 1947.
It may be the holding container has this size, or the actual battery. There has to be clear space between the two.
The standard size would not fit some Canon IS.

I measured numerous 1.25 inch eyepieces and talked with Al Nagler. He said he had tried to get a standard size but it never happened.
They are 31.7mm, 31.8mm, 31.75 mm with variation.
Many don't fit or are too loose.
They vary in roundness and taper.
Some have plating added to a nominal size.

It surprised me how close the two alkalines and the lithium AA are.

Put 2 batteries 01/2015 Black eneloop 2500 mAh in c.1999 10x30 IS.

Firstly. The battery chamber appears to be considerably wider, i.e. larger, in this sample old binocular compared to the 2016 10x30 IS II sample. The batteries are a loose fit.

Secondly. The stabilizer performance seems to be better with these black eneloops even partly charged, compared to 2 new Panasonic alkalines in this old binocular.
So I'll leave the black eneloops in.

With the 10x30 IS II the performance with partly charged black eneloops was possibly slightly less good than new Panasonic alkalines.

So I will charge these four black eneloops.

It may be that the Canon IS battery chambers vary in size. So one should try your favoured batteries if you want to buy a Canon IS binocular.

Battery chamber size.

There was too much scatter measuring one open chamber, so I measured the width of the two chambers. The batteries can touch.
Vernier calipers.
These internal measurements are not quite as accurate as external battery measurements.

c.1999 10x30.
Width 29.18mm. So 14.59mm per chamber.

2016 10x30 II.
Width 28.69mm. So 14.34mm per chamber.

The ANSI standard for 2AAs seems to be 29.00 or greater for two chambers batteries touching.

I got 14.29mm for a black 2500 mAh eneloop using the vernier calipers.
Two of these fit well in the 10x30 IS II. They are not too tight.

But I can understand that if a black eneloop is slightly larger or a Canon 12x36 III or 10x30 II has a slightly smaller chamber, batteries may not fit.
I suppose the original mold wore out and new ones are different.

I finally got a brief try out of the 10x30 IS II's at Wex Photographic warehouse.

The IS did seem somewhat improved from memory of the Mk 1 we had in the household. Very stable once engaged. It did seem as though the IS button had more resistance than the Mk 1 though. Any one else noticed this? Possibly could be a bit tiring after a while.

Optics seemed fine with a bit of the "sharpness" reduced with IS on. I really needed to try them outside but the shop was nearly closed.

Maybe it was it was all a bit of a rush but I did feel there was something not quite right with the view though I couldn't put my finger on it. Possibly the dioptre setting was a bit off for me.

I was able to id the Sedge Warbler at the other end of the warehouse with ease however. (It was a picture).

Hi dipped.

Just tried a well worn c.1999 10x30 against 10x30 II.
Noticeable is the clunk when I press the old version button. The travel is very short before it engages.

The new one has a much longer travel before engaging silently.

I don't know if the pressure required is different. Both are pretty light.
But the longer travel could be tiring I suppose.

There used to be a device for holding down the button on the 15x45. I don't know if this would work on 10x30s old or new, or if a similar device is available.

The reduction in sharpness is because the stabilizer moves it off centre, so this may reduce sharpness and is noticeable in slight reduction in star image roundness. But the superb stability of the image more than compensates. It is almost as good as a tripod.

I would like to see a 22x Canon IS, as I think the stabilization is now good enough.

Regarding the pressure button on the Canon 10x30 IS II.
I would think that anyone who has no trouble typing text or playing the piano, would have no problems with it.
If someone has arthritis of the hands or other condition affecting the hands, then they would have to consider this point. It depends how severe it is.

I prefer the button on the 18x50 that is locked for 5 minutes or so.
But the binocular is heavy.
I had no trouble with the 10x30 II, but I have not used it for long periods.

When out at 1pm, I spotted a small looking bird flying around in circles. It was 5 arcminutes wingspan at about 65 deg elevation.
Measuring the photos it seems to have been circling at 1,800 ft above the ground. A bit more slant distance. I think it was a buzzard. Wingspan 1.20m?
I have previously seen them at 1600ft to 2500 ft. I have never seen one swoop down.

The bird was below the cloud base.

Wind 280deg 3kn visibility 40km cloud base scattered 3,600ft scattered 20,000ft 15C TDP 6C 1021 hPa.

Hi all :hi:

I had occasion today to view the new Canon 12x36 IS III very very briefly. It had only been received and placed in the local camera shop window today in amongst all their usual lesser bins.

First impression upon putting them up to the eyeballs was wow these are nice! They have a really nice quality of 'clarity' to them - the kind that to my mind, you can only get with Porro prisms (I or II), or A-K prisms...... :cat:

The field has a quite satisfying flatness to it, with only very slight amounts of pincushion distortion increasing gradually toward the edges. This was by no means a rigorous test, just a little look see. They seemed quite bright and with a neutral colour rendition in the shopping mall environment. The new multicoatings seem to be working a treat.

For me there was just a slight amount of vignetting on the periphery due to marginal ER with my eyeglasses on and pressed up against the ocular rims after folding the rubber eye cups right down. I tried it without my glasses on and the rubber eye cups up and the brightness covered the whole field - I think any darker bits I saw then was my eyelashes, being unfamiliar with usage in this way .... One of the benefits of wearing eyeglasses I suppose.

The 60 degree AFov is well under what I usually prefer but didn't seem too confining, but certainly not luxurious. I didn't do any panning so can't comment on any FX. Conditions also weren't conducive to checking rigorously for CA so I won't comment there other than to say I didn't notice any in the unchallenging conditions.

They were relatively light, but for me the ergonomics just didn't work. I was overlapping fingers all over the place on opposite barrels like a drunken praying mantis! This put the top centrally located IS button a long way from any convenient spot for me. Comparing these to the 15x50 IS model that I spent more time with 2 years ago, I found that I couldn't hold the little 12's anywhere near as steady. Handshake was noticeable quite soon.

In contrast though the IS system seemed to work artefact free compared to its big brother (for which I had a distinct preference for using sans IS operation). It did steady the view up nicely, although a p**fteenth of resolution softness was noticeabe compared to the shaky but clear unstabilised view.

These were priced under 1200AUD which is much closer to parity pricing than the usual 5 and 600 dollar Bushnell Legends they sell.

All in all a great little binocular well worth considering.


Chosun :gh: