Canon IS - Value vs. Warranty (1 Viewer)

NDhunter · Mar 8, 2011

[email protected] said:
Here is a "Kind-of" comparison review on the Swarovision 10x42 and the Canon 10x42 L IS. They are seperate reviews but they do compare the two. The Canon came out Highly-Recommended and the Swarovision just Recommended. They thought the Swarovision had very slightly better optics but because of the IS stabilization on the Canon it was a clear winner. Here's the "links"(that's for you Henry).

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=105407196166823

http://www.neutralday.com/canon-10x42-l-is-wp-binoculars-in-depth-review/

Dennis:
I looked at the reviews you have presented. Not really any review of the
optics, the Swarovision only had one significant negative, and that it was
because it had " No image stabilization". Huh, what, these don't have
IS, and the reviewer must think all binoculars should possess this trait !

Your links, are just full of some pics, and it seems they are from the same
guy pushing the Canon. Clear winner, give me a break.

I am just waiting to find out come April, when you will give us your new
"Flavor of the month".

Jerry

james holdsworth · Mar 8, 2011

[email protected] said:
Mr.Optics!
I am honored you are auditing my posts! That way if I make a technical error I know I will be corrected. But instead of just critizing my format why don't you add your considerable technical expertise to the discussion. I am sure you have an opinion on the Canon IS series but on the other hand you strike me as an optic purists and perhaps could not be seduced by a stabile image created by a mechanical contraption that could be only called a gadget. I am sure this thread would get more interest if you rendered your highly regarded opinion. Maybe Canon would cease production of the IS series if you gave them the thumbs down.

Big thumbs down to this post.... just brimming with sarcasm and condescension.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

NDhunter said:
Dennis:
I looked at the reviews you have presented. Not really any review of the
optics, the Swarovision only had one significant negative, and that it was
because it had " No image stabilization". Huh, what, these don't have
IS, and the reviewer must think all binoculars should possess this trait !

Your links, are just full of some pics, and it seems they are from the same
guy pushing the Canon. Clear winner, give me a break.

I am just waiting to find out come April, when you will give us your new
"Flavor of the month".

Jerry

I know the reviews aren't very scientific or technical but the none the less I agree with his train of thought on comparing the two different binoculars. I don't think the guy is pushing the Canon. I think he just prefers them like I do. He is kind of opinionated. If he was employed by B&H or something he would probably push the Swarovision's because they probably make more profit on them.

Kevin Purcell · Mar 8, 2011

[email protected] said:
Do you have the link for that review?

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1

But see all the other criticisms in the thread. I can only think that bin was broken.

And recall that his evaluation is for astro use. Terrestrial use is very different.

see this other CN review

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1625

But Rick clearly doesn't like the Canon IS for his own reasons.

As with all bins take no ones word for it. Try them and make up your own mind.

BTW, another CN thread mentions a Holger Merlitz review of the Canon IS bins but I can't find that one. Apparently he liked them. See this thread:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarch...ber/858194/page/132/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all

The fun thing about opinions is that ther are so many of them to choose to quote from!

kabsetz · Mar 8, 2011

Dennis & all,

For your reading pleasure, attached is my review of the 10x42 IS L that was done for the late Alula magazine in 2006. As it has not yet made it to the Lintuvaruste webpages, I thought I might present it here. While reading, keep in mind that this was done some years back, and that the Swarovisions were still far in the future back then. Also, the whole storm of under-spec exit pupils was still unknown. Later, I bought myself a pair of these Canons, and on my pair have measured the ep-diameter as 3.9mm average. I still dislike the eyecups almost as much as when I wrote the review, but either I have grown callouses over my nose or have gotten somewhat used to the pressure, as I no longer experience pain using them. My current power source is a pair of Sanyo Eneloops, which have worked like a charm.

Kimmo

mooreorless · Mar 8, 2011

Kevin Purcell said:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1

But see all the other criticisms in the thread. I can only think that bin was broken.

And recall that his evaluation is for astro use. Terrestrial use is very different.

see this other CN review

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1625

But Rick clearly doesn't like the Canon IS for his own reasons.

As with all bins take no ones word for it. Try them and make up your own mind.

BTW, another CN thread mentions a Holger Merlitz review of the Canon IS bins but I can't find that one. Apparently he liked them. See this thread:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarch...ber/858194/page/132/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all

The fun thing about opinions is that ther are so many of them to choose to quote from!

Kevin I think that Canon was a bad sample, Edz seemed to be searching for good focus all the time. I also think Dennis got an excellent sample and better keep it. I am quite surprised that Dennis sold both the Zeiss and Nikon. I believe Rick does have a Canon 15x50 IS binocular. It seems lately that a lot of threads on Birdforum turn into bashing of people and their toys. It has been a hard winter for sure.

Kevin Conville · Mar 8, 2011

I have tried the 10x30s and 12x36s. Both work well, but I don't own them.

They have a cheap and fragile feel, to me. They also have the ergonomics of a kitchen appliance. The deal breaker for me however, is the knowing that if the electronics give up for some reason, they would essentially be junk.

I just had repairs done to my Canon 7D and EF400 F5.6, by Canon, and I'm still bleeding out of my ears. They are NOT bashful about charging seriously brutal high prices for repairs. I'm not inclined to sign up for (potentially) more of that kind of fun.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

kabsetz said:
Dennis & all,

For your reading pleasure, attached is my review of the 10x42 IS L that was done for the late Alula magazine in 2006. As it has not yet made it to the Lintuvaruste webpages, I thought I might present it here. While reading, keep in mind that this was done some years back, and that the Swarovisions were still far in the future back then. Also, the whole storm of under-spec exit pupils was still unknown. Later, I bought myself a pair of these Canons, and on my pair have measured the ep-diameter as 3.9mm average. I still dislike the eyecups almost as much as when I wrote the review, but either I have grown callouses over my nose or have gotten somewhat used to the pressure, as I no longer experience pain using them. My current power source is a pair of Sanyo Eneloops, which have worked like a charm.

Kimmo

I looked through some of the Canon 10x42 L IS's when they first came out and I don't remember them being as good as this recent incarnation. I think they must have made some improvements in the coatings or baffling or ep-diameter. I don't dislike the eyecups even though they are kind of hard because luckily they fit my eye sockets pretty well. But I can understand that because they are hard and they don't seem to conform to your eyes that if they didn't fit they could be uncomfortable. Thanks for the review. I also like reading different opinions and views although like most people I don't always entirely agree with them!

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

Kevin Conville said:
I have tried the 10x30s and 12x36s. Both work well, but I don't own them.

They have a cheap and fragile feel, to me. They also have the ergonomics of a kitchen appliance. The deal breaker for me however, is the knowing that if the electronics give up for some reason, they would essentially be junk.

I just had repairs done to my Canon 7D and EF400 F5.6, by Canon, and I'm still bleeding out of my ears. They are NOT bashful about charging seriously brutal high prices for repairs. I'm not inclined to sign up for (potentially) more of that kind of fun.

I agree that compared to say a Swarovski the 10x30 and 12x36 are more fragile and cheap feeling. The Canon 10x42 L IS has a much higher build quality and really seems to be built like a tank. I think it will stay in collimation well. People that have had all the Canon models for along time even > 10 years report even with dropping them that they have held up well. They probably are not something that you are going to will to your son though like a Swarovski. I understand your fear of the electronics and that is the risk you have to take to get the superior in my opinion stabilized view. The 10x30's at around $350.00 new are not that huge of risk but I agree that the larger models at $1K + make you think about that risk! I don't feel the ergonomics are that bad but that is my opinion. I actually feel the 10x30 and 12x36 feel pretty good in my hands but you have to get used to them because they are different than normal binoculars. The deal breaker is the IS. If you like it you put up with the peculiarities of the IS line to get that non-shake view. Sorry to hear about the nose bleed with the Canon repair. Obviously they were out of warranty. Canon does make some of the best cameras though.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

mooreorless said:
Kevin I think that Canon was a bad sample, Edz seemed to be searching for good focus all the time. I also think Dennis got an excellent sample and better keep it. I am quite surprised that Dennis sold both the Zeiss and Nikon. I believe Rick does have a Canon 15x50 IS binocular. It seems lately that a lot of threads on Birdforum turn into bashing of people and their toys. It has been a hard winter for sure.

After comparing them I just decided I really preferred the stabilized view. I enjoy looking at a bird or wildlife or stars without the constant shake. The Zeiss and Nikon had good optics but they are no better than the Canon in my opinion. In fact the edge sharpness of the Canon is superior to both. Especially the Zeiss FL which although gradual does have softer edges. The center sharpness of the Zeiss is excellent though. Just preferred the view through the Canon so that's the one I will use.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

kabsetz said:
Dennis & all,

For your reading pleasure, attached is my review of the 10x42 IS L that was done for the late Alula magazine in 2006. As it has not yet made it to the Lintuvaruste webpages, I thought I might present it here. While reading, keep in mind that this was done some years back, and that the Swarovisions were still far in the future back then. Also, the whole storm of under-spec exit pupils was still unknown. Later, I bought myself a pair of these Canons, and on my pair have measured the ep-diameter as 3.9mm average. I still dislike the eyecups almost as much as when I wrote the review, but either I have grown callouses over my nose or have gotten somewhat used to the pressure, as I no longer experience pain using them. My current power source is a pair of Sanyo Eneloops, which have worked like a charm.

Kimmo

Thanks for the review.

henry link · Mar 8, 2011

Sorry to upset you, Dennis, but this is not the first time you have failed to use quotation marks, give proper credit or supply a link to someone else's writing.

I haven't had much to say about the Canons because the four or five pairs I've tried over the years have all had what I considered to be unacceptable stabilization artifacts. I believe there are better specimens, but I haven't seen one yet.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

henry link said:
Sorry to upset you, Dennis, but this is not the first time you have failed to use quotation marks, give proper credit or supply a link to someone else's writing.

I haven't had much to say about the Canons because the four or five pairs I've tried over the years have all had what I considered to be unacceptable stabilization artifacts. I believe there are better specimens, but I haven't seen one yet.

I understand the variability in the quality of the IS system. My Canon 10x42 L IS appear to have very little stabilization artifacts. Even with some artifacts I prefer the Canon stabilized view over regular binoculars. I can easily see more detail and I don't like to use a tripod or monopod. I guess you have to put up with some minor quirks if you like that steady view. What do you think about the optics on the Canon's without factoring in the IS system?

Steve C · Mar 8, 2011

My impression of the 10x42 L IS pretty much mirrors Kimmo's review. Keeping in mind the fact that I was able to directly compare them to the Swarovision EL, the SLC-HD and the Kowa Genesis pretty well let me know these are first rate, quality, top end images. The Canon has nothing to apologize for in that regard. I was pretty impressed with them. Enough to seriously consider buying them right on the spot.

Ultimately I did not and probably will not. There are several reasons. One, I am wary of batteries in optics. Two, while the IS is impressive, it showed me I am still steady enough without IS. Three, there will probably be other significant IS improvements before I get to the point I am shaky enough to require that. L IS versions in 10x36 and 12x36 would seriously get my attention. For now I remain content with a standard 7-8x binocular with an occasional dose of 10x. Four, the 10x42 L IS is big and heavy enough it would likely stay in the truck. For over $1,200+, I will buy something more versatile. Having said that, the size and bulk are not overly worrisome to me. I just have some reservations about going into the field with battery assisted binoculars.

I would likely have a completely different take IF I felt I was shaky enough to really benefit from the IS feature.

Kevin Purcell · Mar 8, 2011

Kevin Conville said:
They have a cheap and fragile feel, to me. They also have the ergonomics of a kitchen appliance. The deal breaker for me however, is the knowing that if the electronics give up for some reason, they would essentially be junk.

They may look like a kitchen appliance but they have excellent ergonomics.

I can hold my 10x30 more steady than any other 10x I own (roof or porro) WITHOUT the IS. That odd brick-like shape actually works well in the hands.

If the electronics gives up then they become ordinary. The prisms lock in place when the button (on a 10x30 at least) is pressed so dead electronics (or a dead battery) doesn't affect anything more than the IS. You're left with a compact flat field bin (that weighs less than a Nikon EDG 10x32

).

But each to their own. A lot of people don't like this mixing of electronics and optics: "It's unnatural, I tells ye!".

It reminds me of an old interview (from the 1920s?) I heard on the BBC asking an older gentleman what he though of "the radio". "I don't hold with it" said a man, "I don't hold with furniture that talks!".

Hermann · Mar 8, 2011

henry link said:
I haven't had much to say about the Canons because the four or five pairs I've tried over the years have all had what I considered to be unacceptable stabilization artifacts. I believe there are better specimens, but I haven't seen one yet.

Having tried two different 10x30's (outside a shop) and a 10x42 (in the field) in the past few weeks, I have to agree. I really like the image, even of the 10x30, but I find the stabilization artifacts pretty hard to deal with. I know some people apparently don't see them or aren't bothered by them all that much; I find them pretty nauseating.

For the time being I think I'll stick to conventional binoculars.

Hermann

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2011

Steve C said:
My impression of the 10x42 L IS pretty much mirrors Kimmo's review. Keeping in mind the fact that I was able to directly compare them to the Swarovision EL, the SLC-HD and the Kowa Genesis pretty well let me know these are first rate, quality, top end images. The Canon has nothing to apologize for in that regard. I was pretty impressed with them. Enough to seriously consider buying them right on the spot.

Ultimately I did not and probably will not. There are several reasons. One, I am wary of batteries in optics. Two, while the IS is impressive, it showed me I am still steady enough without IS. Three, there will probably be other significant IS improvements before I get to the point I am shaky enough to require that. L IS versions in 10x36 and 12x36 would seriously get my attention. For now I remain content with a standard 7-8x binocular with an occasional dose of 10x. Four, the 10x42 L IS is big and heavy enough it would likely stay in the truck. For over $1,200+, I will buy something more versatile. Having said that, the size and bulk are not overly worrisome to me. I just have some reservations about going into the field with battery assisted binoculars.

I would likely have a completely different take IF I felt I was shaky enough to really benefit from the IS feature.

The Canon 10x42 L IS are definitely alpha quality optics. They are as good as anything out there optically but if you can hold your binoculars steady then there is no reason to have them. I think you are probably the exception if you can hold your binoculars steady at 10x because not many people can! I really notice myself shaking anymore especially at 10x. The thing is I enjoy 10x when it is steady as through the Canon's. Why worry about the batteries! If they go dead the binoculars are still alpha quality optics just without IS. I don't think a 10x36 or 12x36 L IS would be that much smaller or lighter than the 10x42 L IS and they wouldn't be as bright or as comfortable to look through with the smaller exit pupil. But the thing is if you are an optical purist and I can understand that then you are not going to like the Canons. For myself I kind of like gimmicky stuff and the Canon's suit me to a tea.

David Swain · Mar 9, 2011

[email protected] said:
But the thing is if you are an optical purist and I can understand that then you are not going to like the Canons. For myself I kind of like gimmicky stuff and the Canon's suit me to a tea.

:eek!:

This coming from a former evangelist for Nikon EIIs, the least "gimmicky" bins ever!

james holdsworth · Mar 9, 2011

David Swain said:
:eek!:

This coming from a former evangelist for Nikon EIIs, the least "gimmicky" bins ever!

Wait a few months........

denco@comcast.n · Mar 9, 2011

Kevin Purcell said:
They may look like a kitchen appliance but they have excellent ergonomics.

I can hold my 10x30 more steady than any other 10x I own (roof or porro) WITHOUT the IS. That odd brick-like shape actually works well in the hands.

If the electronics gives up then they become ordinary. The prisms lock in place when the button (on a 10x30 at least) is pressed so dead electronics (or a dead battery) doesn't affect anything more than the IS. You're left with a compact flat field bin (that weighs less than a Nikon EDG 10x32 ).

But each to their own. A lot of people don't like this mixing of electronics and optics: "It's unnatural, I tells ye!".

It reminds me of an old interview (from the 1920s?) I heard on the BBC asking an older gentleman what he though of "the radio". "I don't hold with it" said a man, "I don't hold with furniture that talks!".

Cameras have had IS for a long time. Wouldn't that be mixing optics and electronics?

Canon IS - Value vs. Warranty (1 Viewer)

Experienced observer

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

yardbirder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread