RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Japan is a chain of islands afterall, so I suspect we have a few boats here.
No millionaire megayachts though.
Last edited:
-
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.
Is the Canon 10x42 L IS a worthy upgrade form the 10x30 IS? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Japan is a chain of islands afterall, so I suspect we have a few boats here.
No millionaire megayachts though.At 10x the Canon stabilisation works good enough under most conditions. I did try it by myself on a sailing boat. My companions on the boat came to the same result. We also had a Fujinon 7 x 50 FMTRC-SX on board. The Canon did show definetely more details at sea than the 7x binoculars even when the breeze was fresh.
Steve
Last edited:
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Steve I saw you already quantified the amount of stabilization between Canon and Fuji so edited my previous post. I looked at my Canon catalogs and you may be on to something. According the recommended activities list, the 10x42 is for marine, surveillance, astronomy, hunting, spectator sports activites. Strangely, birdwatching is NOT recommended. Birdwatching is recommended only for the 8x25, 10x30, and 12x36.
At the Canon Website Wildlife observation is a use recommended for the Canon's 10x42 L IS. Wouldn't a bird be wildlife? Or would wildlife be considered your abnormal neighbors? Also, if it is recommended for hunting why not birding? Hunting you have to carry them around to. Birding is a hunt for birds except you don't shoot them. At least I don't!
Dennis
Thanks for asking this question. I was think of doing the same.
I finally got my 10x30's out for some field use and came to the conclusion I loved the size/feel and IS. The optics .............. eh, just OK actually.
regards
JohnG
Yes, I think that's the way they see it. Of course no one at Canon would say 'no' if a birdwatcher wants to buy the 10x42 IS L. Of course there's some speculation here and Canon would never say something about it. But I'm sure this model was primarily intended to break the USP of Fujinon on the market for marine binoculars. Breaking an USP is something that in fact happens quite a lot in industry. There were, BTW, in the early 2000 years several test reports in yachting magazines about binoculars where Fujinon won and Canon lost with some of their first models because of the lacking waterproofness of the latter.
Steve
Last edited:
I have used the 10x42 IS L on a sailboat quite a bit, and the boat we sail has a Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-CSX as its main optics. The Canon with IS lets you see much more than the unstabilized Fuji, but I agree with Rick that the small angle of compensation really is not that suited for the sway of a rough sea. You have to wait for the right moment where there is little enough movement for a half-second or so to see the detail, but without stabilization you would not see it at all. I have not tried a Fuji/Nikon stabilized bin except on land, but would be willing to bet that in marine use they would work better than the Canon.
Kimmo
Kimmo
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
The Stabiscope models are uber-expensive, ~US$5k here. Don't recall if I have even seen it but at this price point I would never pick it up anyway. The cheaper Techno-Stabi I have played with. Made in China. Nothing about it encourages me to give up the Canon since my main purpose for buying an IS bino has been for astronomy (though I hardly ever use them for that these days!). AFoV is too narrow and they are just as heavy.
Last edited:
Hi to all:
I have both the -30 and -42 version of the Canon IS line, and enjoy them immensely. As has been outlined, the 30mm for it's compact size and handling, and the 42mm for it's better optical quality and stabilization. My version of the 30 takes a few seconds, maybe 4 or so, to come back into clear focus once the mechanism is engaged. I do not see this problem w/ the 42mm glass. There is perhaps just a shade more shimmer, or oscillation of the image w/ the 30 than w/ the 42. I don't think I would have noticed the waver if the bins had not had IS- my view is that hand shade would've drowned that part out. Basically for me, I had to decide which is more bothersome, hand tremor or the perculiar small scale judder the Canons show. Again just for me, I have seen several advantages of an IS system, however imperfect and however they might suffer optically in comparison to the traditional alpha bin, over a non-stabilized glass in a number of areas. They work great when glassing ducks, geese or shorebirds from a car w/ the engine running and are especially handy for birds at a distance, where the image scale is small enough that my hand tremor obliterates any detail. I have taken to using them exclusively in the tropics, for example, where sorting thru swirling mixed feeding flocks at a distance, in the tops of trees tossed by the wind is a frustration w/ non-IS models. On a recent trip to CR, I managed to put Blackburnian Warbler on the list, by conclusively spotting the white "tram lines" on the female's back. Don't think I could've managed that w/out a rock steady view. It's a pity, really, as I now have a drawer-full of bins laying dormant, including both 8X and 10X SE's and a couple of Zeiss 7-bys, FL's and NightOwls. Of course, YMMV as they say, but since I have become acclimated to IS even 7 power is just a little wobbly, unless I am well supported (like sitting in a chair, or propped against a tree). Guess I have lost my eye-brain coordination for regular bins.
Yes, the 42's are heavy, and shaped like a mini-fridge tipped upwards, but the glass has a very sweet unity of focus across the FOV, ample AFOV (larger than the 30) and clearly less CA. Personally, I have compared this glass w/ the 10X SE, and don't see a lot of difference, but maybe these old eyes are not the best! Certainly the L glass is better optically than it's little brother.
So, for the OP, if you are really sold on IS bins, then yes, I would say spring for the 42's. Consider not only the optical and mechanical quality, but as others have mentioned there are other elements to IS that (for me) kick the zen factor of birding up a few notches.
regards,
UTC
I have both the -30 and -42 version of the Canon IS line, and enjoy them immensely. As has been outlined, the 30mm for it's compact size and handling, and the 42mm for it's better optical quality and stabilization. My version of the 30 takes a few seconds, maybe 4 or so, to come back into clear focus once the mechanism is engaged. I do not see this problem w/ the 42mm glass. There is perhaps just a shade more shimmer, or oscillation of the image w/ the 30 than w/ the 42. I don't think I would have noticed the waver if the bins had not had IS- my view is that hand shade would've drowned that part out. Basically for me, I had to decide which is more bothersome, hand tremor or the perculiar small scale judder the Canons show. Again just for me, I have seen several advantages of an IS system, however imperfect and however they might suffer optically in comparison to the traditional alpha bin, over a non-stabilized glass in a number of areas. They work great when glassing ducks, geese or shorebirds from a car w/ the engine running and are especially handy for birds at a distance, where the image scale is small enough that my hand tremor obliterates any detail. I have taken to using them exclusively in the tropics, for example, where sorting thru swirling mixed feeding flocks at a distance, in the tops of trees tossed by the wind is a frustration w/ non-IS models. On a recent trip to CR, I managed to put Blackburnian Warbler on the list, by conclusively spotting the white "tram lines" on the female's back. Don't think I could've managed that w/out a rock steady view. It's a pity, really, as I now have a drawer-full of bins laying dormant, including both 8X and 10X SE's and a couple of Zeiss 7-bys, FL's and NightOwls. Of course, YMMV as they say, but since I have become acclimated to IS even 7 power is just a little wobbly, unless I am well supported (like sitting in a chair, or propped against a tree). Guess I have lost my eye-brain coordination for regular bins.
Yes, the 42's are heavy, and shaped like a mini-fridge tipped upwards, but the glass has a very sweet unity of focus across the FOV, ample AFOV (larger than the 30) and clearly less CA. Personally, I have compared this glass w/ the 10X SE, and don't see a lot of difference, but maybe these old eyes are not the best! Certainly the L glass is better optically than it's little brother.
So, for the OP, if you are really sold on IS bins, then yes, I would say spring for the 42's. Consider not only the optical and mechanical quality, but as others have mentioned there are other elements to IS that (for me) kick the zen factor of birding up a few notches.
regards,
UTC
Yes, I am really sold on the IS advantage. Since using it I am MORE aware of how much I am shaking even with 8x magnification. Shaking really bothers my concentration anymore. I thought I would try the Canon flagship to see if it steps the optics up a notch or two. I am picking them up at the UPS depot now. That darn Amazon shipped them signature required. I guess $1100.00 is too risky for them. I really feel the Canon 10x30 IS are better than OK. They are not EII's but they are very good for the money optically. I like the sharp edges and flat field.
Steve C
Well-known member
I'm not a small guy and I have pretty large hands. Having said that, the only drawback to the 10-42 L is it's size. It is both large and heavy about the same sort of size of a 10-50 glass. But the image is superb. When I was looking at it the new Swarovision EL and the SLC ED were only five steps away on one side and the Kowa Genesis the same distance on the other side. Comparison was easy and ruffled no feathers. The Canon 10-42 L had nothing to apologize for.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
I think maybe we´re all morons, considering the amount of obsessing we do about binoculars
I´m a happy 15x50 user, and also understand why Canon IS users are loyal. I don´t see them as "all-round" bins, though, because of their limited (to me) usefulness at closer range. It´s not just the high mag, it´s also the fact that the image takes a second or two to "settle" when panning or shifting. When tracking a difficult-to-catch bird in trees or bushes, for example, that second or two lost can make a big difference. Oddly the worst offender of the Canon range in this regard is the little plasticky 8x25, which has very nice optics indeed, but a lousy "shudder" when panning and shifting. I look on my Canon IS 15x50 as basically a "travelscope", and carry it along with an 8x bino.
Sancho:
I do want to respond, and I think this is a good time to do so. I am quite
afraid of this newest Avatar, and am wondering if it is brought on by the
stress of managing these new fangled, Image Stabilizing binoculars, or
what? Where does that thing come from ?
You seemed very pleased when getting the new Swaro. SV. and I thought
you were at peace. I was very relaxed, when you had the Raleigh bikes,
as the avatar, and I liked that one.
Jerry
Sancho:
I do want to respond, and I think this is a good time to do so. I am quite
afraid of this newest Avatar, and am wondering if it is brought on by the
stress of managing these new fangled, Image Stabilizing binoculars, or
what? Where does that thing come from ?
You seemed very pleased when getting the new Swaro. SV. and I thought
you were at peace. I was very relaxed, when you had the Raleigh bikes,
as the avatar, and I liked that one.
Jerry
I got the Canon 10x42 L IS last night. First thing I said is "Wow, this thing is pretty big!" It is about the size and weight of a 10x50 in other words pretty big. The case is great with enough room to put the strap in the back or front and although the objective caps are a little tricky to install they work pretty good , as well as, the eyepiece rainguard. The strap on the case is only about 3/8" in width so I replaced it with a much wider camera strap I had so it is much more comfortable now. Really I feel the accessories are very nice overall. This things looks like the 10x30 IS's daddy! I popped some lithium batteries in it and had my first light.
WOW! This thing will pop your socks off. It has superb optics! BIG DIFFERENCE between this and the 10x30 IS. Let me tell you it was very hard to go back to the 10x30 after using this. The 10x30 felt like a toy after using this thing. Way bigger FOV, much sharper, better contrast, very sharp edges,brighter and excellent CA control. This thing is a whole different ballgame. The view is the equal of a Zeiss FL and when you hit the IS button it leap frogs above the Zeiss. It is amazing the view this thing gives you and the detail you can see. Compared it to my Nikon 8x30 EII, Canon 10x30 IS, and my Zeiss 8x32 FL and it easily beat all of them. It is great to just push the IS button and it stays on for 5 minutes. It's not for ever birder because of the size but it is a keeper for me and I am afraid the Canon 10x30 IS is going to be replaced. I would say this is one of the best views I have seen through any binoculars. This is a very worthy upgrade from the Canon 10x30 IS. Question answered.
Last edited:
Dennis,
Welcome to the club! Now you are beginning to see why some of us have been sticking with the 10x42 IS L despite having tried & tested most of the alphas out there.
But knowing your past history in binocular fidelity, I'll be curious to follow when and with what binocular you'll eventually replace the Canon. Will it be the Mk. II version of the Canon which in my dreams will hit the shelves within the next fifteen years, will look like a Swarovision and weigh ten ounces less than the current model, or will it be something else sooner?
Enjoy,
Kimmo
Welcome to the club! Now you are beginning to see why some of us have been sticking with the 10x42 IS L despite having tried & tested most of the alphas out there.
But knowing your past history in binocular fidelity, I'll be curious to follow when and with what binocular you'll eventually replace the Canon. Will it be the Mk. II version of the Canon which in my dreams will hit the shelves within the next fifteen years, will look like a Swarovision and weigh ten ounces less than the current model, or will it be something else sooner?
Enjoy,
Kimmo
Sancho:
I do want to respond, and I think this is a good time to do so. I am quite
afraid of this newest Avatar, and am wondering if it is brought on by the
stress of managing these new fangled, Image Stabilizing binoculars, or
what? Where does that thing come from ?
You seemed very pleased when getting the new Swaro. SV. and I thought
you were at peace. I was very relaxed, when you had the Raleigh bikes,
as the avatar, and I liked that one.
Jerry
LOL! Jerry, the avatar is one of the more fearsome monsters from a Guillermo del Toro movie called "El laberinto del fauno", or "Pan´s Labyrinth". It´s a tale of a child in post civil-war Spain who invents a fantasy world in which to escape from the horrors unfolding around her, as her stepfather army officer attempts to take control of a mountainous area from rebels. The monster is a metaphor either for War or General Franco, and has no eyeballs until someone steals food from his banquet, at which point he pops eyeballs into his hands to see. A bit like us lot, when we find the Binoculars of our Dreams. It´s a superb movie, I strongly recommend it.
Reading these posts by Dennis and Kimmo, I envy them. I wish I could have managed the weight and bulk of the IS 10x42, as I agree with Dennis that they give the finest views I´ve seen.
If I do replace the Canon it will be with an improved version of the Canon IS if and when they come out with one. I really prefer the stabilized view now after using one for awhile. The shake on a regular binoculars drives me nuts now. It is either IS or monopod or tripod. By having my binoculars still I can spot moving birds and game much easier because I am not moving all over the place. It is much more enjoyable to have a STILL view to me. The 10x42 L IS without stabilization really has alpha optics. Not a bad price for what you get. I will be looking forward to a MKII version myself. 10x is nice when it is still! The focus on the 10x42 is very nice also. I just have to get used to the weight. The view is worth it though. I wouldn't go back to the 10x30. Noway.
Interesting! FWIW, the 10x30 I just received locks IS very quick. I'd almost say instantly but probably more realistically no more than 1/2 sec.
regards
JohnG
I know I said earlier that I want IS-binos, if heavy, to pack magnification punch above 10x, and this is largely true.
But...the current Canon IS 8x25 is, as I said, plasticky and very, very "jerky" on panning, and I think someone wrote here once on BF that it uses a different IS-system to its larger siblings'. I'd really like an 8x30 IS with a wider field of view, a little rubber-armouring, and the same mechanism as the 10x30, that could be used in woodland, etc. I wouldn't require any change to the actual glass of the current 8x25 IS, which I think is very nice as it is.
But...the current Canon IS 8x25 is, as I said, plasticky and very, very "jerky" on panning, and I think someone wrote here once on BF that it uses a different IS-system to its larger siblings'. I'd really like an 8x30 IS with a wider field of view, a little rubber-armouring, and the same mechanism as the 10x30, that could be used in woodland, etc. I wouldn't require any change to the actual glass of the current 8x25 IS, which I think is very nice as it is.
My Canon 10x30 IS locked almost instantly also. The Canon 10x42 L IS does seem like the stabilization system works better than the 10x30 though. It seems to be more stabile. Almost like your binoculars are on a tripod. With the 5 minute stay on IS on the 10x42 you can push the button before you put the binoculars up to your eyes. So it is locked by the time you look through them. Real nice! They shut off in 30 seconds when you put them in a vertical position such as when you hang them around your neck.
