• 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.

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

Impressions of the New 12X36 III

Received the new bins today. I have a long history with Canon IS bins. I tried one of the first 10x30s in a photo dealer and that was it. Then later I went for the 18X50s when they came out. Loved em. Then the 12X36 IIs. I still have them all and use them at various times. For compacts, I have used Leicas for 30 years and gave several of them. 8x20 and 10x25 ultravids and an old Leitz 10x25 Trinovid which I still have. I tend to just keep stuff. Keep in mind that I am not a technician and these are just my impressions as a user.

So I had a problem with my 12x36 IIs which some have reported on. The covering started to disintegrate. It would get sticky and bits would come off in my hands. I put some Gorilla tape all over the body and am still able to use them, but am unhappy with them, and they are well out of warranty, and essentially unfixable. I think that it was caused by someone using them who had insect repellent on their hands. These bins had been my favorite travel bins with their stabilization, magnification and light weight. So I decided to order the new IIIs. And today I got them. Here are my impressions.

1. Stabilization. I first looked through the series II 12X36's as even though they look bad cosmetically they still work well. The new ones are far superior. When you turn the switch on, there is a slight jigger and then they are rock solid. It is almost like they are on a tripod. I was always impressed with the Canon IS, but these are the best I have ever seen.

2. Brilliance. The new ones are definitely brighter than the old ones. I did clean the lenses on the old ones before I compared them, but it is still noticeable.I believe they must have improved the coatings on the lenses.

3. Clarity. They are about as good as any bins I have. At least as good as the little Leicas which are very good. If course the IS helps in that regard.

4. Eye relief. I wear glasses so I have to use the bins with the eye ups folded back. In this they are the same as the older ones. They can be a little difficult to adjust for my eyes, but once you get it, it is still acceptable. But I would much prefer twist caps, like are found on other bins.

5. I also compared them to my other bins. Against the 18x50s I felt that the IS was somewhat better in the 12X36 IIIs. I also felt that the view is clearer. Of course the 18x50s are much older and that may reflect this.

6. Comparing to the Leicas I prefer the view through the 12x36 for the IS and clarity. The Leicas are still great but the shake is a problem. But I still carry the 8x20s everywhere for very small size.

7. Cons of the 12X36 IIIs. The eye cups. They are either out or folded. No in between. I would much prefer the twist cups which are infinitely variable. Also, the battery door is still the same flimsy one they have used for years. On my 10X30s it broke and I had to send them back to Canon for an expensive repair.
No weatherproofing. It would be nice to have, as these are ideal for travel. And how about caps on both ends of the bins? I also hope that I don't have the problem with the covering again. I am going to be careful about how they are used.

Bottom line. Even with the above cons, I still think they are worth it. I have never seen anything like them, with the quality of the stabilization and the view, combined with low weight.
 
Thank you kellmark for your review.

I am a long time regular user, 15 plus years. The 18x50 still amazes me when seeking out Jupiter's moons.
 
Canon factory repair issues

My 5-yr-old Canon 12x36 IS needed re-alignment. The IS still worked perfectly and each side was crystal clear; but you had to cross your eyes to use both together. I sent them to the authorized factory in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. They charged me $464 US and returned them. The side-to-side misalignment was exactly the same and they'd added a bump discontinuity in the focus travel. I sent them back a 2nd time and they came back with good side-to-side alignment, no focus bump, and the IS no longer worked. Two repair efforts, two months, $464, and Canon factory ruined the most important feature (the IS). Great product, absolutely zero ability to maintain or repair them. Never mind about any warrantee, Canon cannot repair its products.
 
The 12x36 III's are wonderful. While the CA is much worse than in Leicas, and indeed any of the larger Canon IS models, the detail that you get with IS is amazing. It is also plenty large enough for useful stargazing. Even at 10x shake hand-held nearly ruins the view. And there is little or no degradation at the edges. These have field-flatteners in the eyepiece, although the objective lens is a simple achromatic doublet.

The big shortcoming, in my view, is the near focus of 20 feet, far too long. As I am near-sighted, I can probably focus to about 12-13 feet with my glasses off.
 
My 5-yr-old Canon 12x36 IS needed re-alignment. The IS still worked perfectly and each side was crystal clear; but you had to cross your eyes to use both together. I sent them to the authorized factory in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. They charged me $464 US and returned them. The side-to-side misalignment was exactly the same and they'd added a bump discontinuity in the focus travel. I sent them back a 2nd time and they came back with good side-to-side alignment, no focus bump, and the IS no longer worked. Two repair efforts, two months, $464, and Canon factory ruined the most important feature (the IS). Great product, absolutely zero ability to maintain or repair them. Never mind about any warrantee, Canon cannot repair its products.

That is a sorry performance indeed.
Presumably you can send them back again until Canon performs the service that they billed you for, but that level of hassle is just unacceptable in a top notch consumer product.
Sadly Canon is unlikely to really address this issue, given that they are fully preoccupied with the drastic slump in digital camera sales. Yet absent good service, they will never get full value for their superb IS technology. Rather their IS glasses will continue to sell for half or less the price of the alphas
 
Clearly the Virginia Canon facility is not very good.
I am sure Canon Japan and maybe Canon U.K. would have done a first class job.

Personally, I would have bought a Canon 12x36 MKIII and forgotten the older one having had 5 years use out of it.
Would you get a 5 year old computer repaired, if the repair bill was half the new cost?

I am very pragmatic as I get older.

Particularly with low price binoculars. If they don't work I forget them and don't waste my time on returning them etc.
Time is money.

You should certainly get your $464 returned immediately.
 
Last edited:
Wow Binastro, what a wonderfully helpful and supportive reply. I think I'll just respond, in a similar fashion:

"Personally, I wouldn't have told someone about the better judgment I would have used, in their situation, after they've already made their mistake and it's too late to do anything about it. As I get older, I've learned not to do that to other people."

I do thank you for your final advice, which is very good (to get a refund). You might be surprised to learn that I already thought of that, and am vigorously pursuing it.
 
Last edited:
Hi Steve,
I didn't mean anything personal really, just what I would do after perhaps 15 years or more of using Canon IS binoculars.
I understand that they are complex, but also that they are repairable by good Canon technicians so long as they have the spare parts.

The Canon 12x36 MkI is not repairable, because spare parts don't exist any more after 15 or so years.
I suppose the same applies to the 15x45.

They are all wonderful binoculars when they work, which for me has been nearly all the time.
But I treat them carefully.
I have used every one except the 15x45 and the very new ones.
 
My 5-yr-old Canon 12x36 IS needed re-alignment. The IS still worked perfectly and each side was crystal clear; but you had to cross your eyes to use both together. I sent them to the authorized factory in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. They charged me $464 US and returned them. The side-to-side misalignment was exactly the same and they'd added a bump discontinuity in the focus travel. I sent them back a 2nd time and they came back with good side-to-side alignment, no focus bump, and the IS no longer worked. Two repair efforts, two months, $464, and Canon factory ruined the most important feature (the IS). Great product, absolutely zero ability to maintain or repair them.

I can't really use the Canon binoculars anyway, since the dioptre adjustment range of +/- 3 dioptres doesn't work for me. But even if I could, it's reports like yours that would keep me from getting any of the Canons, especially since I've heard more than a couple of similar reports over the years. The Canons are great while they work, but as soon as the need a repair, you're out on your own.

Hermann
 
Thank you Binastro, accepted. I have to admit my irritated reply is probably equally composed of three parts 1) obvious that sending them for repair was a mistake, didn't need pointing out; 2) I'm mad at myself for trying it; and 3) I'm mad at Canon. For the 2nd and 3rd parts, I apologize too.

I don't get to choose which of their techs works on my equipment. By any practical measure, Canon is not able to repair their equipment. The side-to-side misalignment is a (relatively) trivial aspect to correct, given that the 2 sides are each working correctly. They couldn't even correct that on the first repair. I hope that the techs are better elsewhere. But I would never bet on it.

I take very good care of all my optics. My only exception to that, was packing them very carefully, and shipping them to Canon.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Steve.

Image stabilised binocular warranties (U.K.)

Canon 1 or 2 years.
Zeiss 5 years.
Bushnell 2 years

Fuji ?
Nikon?

Russian mechanical?
Russian Gyro?
Russian electronic?

Chinese monocular?

Perhaps someone can fill in the gaps.

However, it shows that they are complex.

I have had many disappointments with optics. I am harsh on myself nowadays, but I should not be harsh with other peoples woes.
 
Bushnell Stableview 10x35 or Canon 10x30 IS?

Bushnell c.2005
Warranty 2 years.
Made in China
Compensation angle 3 deg
Eye relief 12mm, yet I see full view with glasses?
Minimum focus 12ft. Actual maybe 11ft.
IPD 53 to 74mm
Actual weight 1223 g
Weight with case and strap. It feels like a ton and a half.
2AAs in hand strap. Vulnerable.
minus 10C to 50C.

It is complicated.
Normal O.K.
Fine. I genuinely feel seasick. Perhaps a teenager used to funfair rides might enjoy it.
FOV quoted 260ft at 1000 yds. Poor.

The view is good and fairly steady on Normal IS.

The binocular is claimed to be phase coated, but maybe Porroprism.

One of three IS binoculars bought used.
This was very attractively priced.
The serial number is low. I wonder if many sold?

Bushnell 10x35 NO for me. But it is claimed to be waterproof so might suit a sailor.

Canon 10x30 Yes.
 
Bushnell 10x35
Bright sunshine. Whites white. Colours seem good. Bright image.
Coatings good but probably not especially so.
Almost distortion free eyepieces. But rolling ball probably.

Slight CA centrally. Quite a lot of CA at edge.

The central resolution on normal IS seems less good than a c.2000 Canon 10x30 IS.

At ~610g the Canon is exactly half the weight of the Bushnell and to me is the better binocular.
 
Sky clear this evening, around 0C.

A few minutes ago.
Field of Bushnell 10x35 Stableview. 5.35 deg left eye, 5.3 deg right eye.
This is considerably more than the claimed 5.0 degrees.
The magnification changes quite a lot near the edge of the field, which is not pleasant for me.
Stars near edge not great.

A bit over half Moon not great. No Earthshine seen really. A top quality binocular should just show it.
Moon detail O.K. Not great.
Stabiliser in Normal wanders a bit more than Canons. I cannot use Fine without motion sickness feeling.

This binocular would be O.K. if it wasn't so d..n heavy and bulky.
 
Better IS with the new 12x?! Mine 12x are 12+yrs old, they live in a peli 1150 case to keep them well protected. If mine ever fail I will have no hesitation to get another pair... Immediately! Good to see canon are still developing them. I assume the improvements will include vastly improved mems accelerometer/gyros like we all have in our phones now.
I love using my bins one handed.... Fully knowing I can see better detail than the Leica owners.

Cheers

PeterW

PS Good to see Mr Packham on BBC Winterwatch with a pair of the 10x42IS, must admit you never seem to see many people using IS, most people don't know what they are missing!!
 
Last edited:
Did Canon fix the skin peeling issue many reported with the 12x36 II or Will it take some time for it to show up on version III?
 
Hi,

I received my 12x36 III's several days ago and have now had several opportunities to test them and more importantly, compare them to my 12x36 II's that I have had for the past six years.

Externally, the III's are pretty much identical to the IIs. A little darker colouring of the rubber coating and a different Canon logo on the body and the cap on the focuser are the only real differences. The rubber coating feels exactly the same in texture to my II's and I have had no problems at all with a tacky feel or peeling etc that others have reported upon.

I recently found an old advertisement for the Canon IS binoculars from early 1999. It describes Super Spectra Multi coatings and doublet field flatteners similar to what was promoted in 2005 and now again in 2015. Therefore, it is quite difficult to determine what has actually been changed other than the IS electronics. Although the coatings on the objectives 'look' identical in the II and III versions, a somewhat dark green as do the eyepieces on the new III's, on the older II version, the eyepieces are a purple/amber colour. Maybe the coating change to the III's is to match the eyepiece coatings to the objectives.

Now the comparison. The III's have the same 5* field and comparing the two, both show the same field of view when looking at a brick wall or fence etc. The III's appear marginally brighter and crisper and show a very small increase in the ability to focus on and view an object in near darkness. The edge definition is still excellent and comparing the III's to my Zeiss HT 8x42's and considering and comparing the same 5* field and physical view, the III's have a better edge definition than the Zeiss at the same 5* field ! The edge definition in the III's might be fractionally better than the II's.

In the day time, the III's are very easy on the eye and have a very sharp contrasty naturally coloured image that seems to compare with the best. Maybe my pair is one of those 'one in a thousand rifles' that show up from time to time. At night and on the moon, Jupiter and the stars, the view is marginally improved in the III's and there is less CA visible when looking at the moon. Jupiter shows as a disk with no flaring etc and the moons are distinct points of light.

Now to the image stabilization. This is where the major improvement with the III's shows up. My II's are very good and when the button is pushed, there is a distinct click and small jump of the image and immediate stabilization. I usually then push the button a second time to stop any shimmering that sometimes occurs with IS binoculars. Also, when focusing, it is sometimes necessary to reset the stabilization again. You can also hear the the vari angle prism microprocessors when they are operating. With the III's, after pressing the button, there is no click and after about a 1/4 second delay, the image moves a very small amount and then it becomes rock solid and requires no further button resetting. When panning, the image just follows the movement with no shimmering or jumping as my other IS binoculars do. This stability of the image seems to be the most significant upgrade and sets this new version III apart. I presume that Canon has advanced its IS capabilities in its camera lenses over the past few years and this is now being used in the new 10x30's and 12x36's. There is no need to reset the IS when focusing etc, it just remains steady. It is hard to explain but the image seems to be 'fixed' in place when observing a stationary bird or when panning. The field of view is also very smooth and all appears in focus from edge to edge.

Concerning the batteries, the only reference in the manual is to alkalines and re-chargeables. Alkalines are now rated to last up to nine hours instead of four hours as with the II's. Time will tell. There is a warning NOT to use lithium batteries !! The manual states that they can over heat and cause damage. I called Canon and was advised by the technical department that as per the manual, not to use lithium batteries. I was advised about the possible over heating danger as indicated in the manual. Although no one at Canon knew why, maybe there have been some incidences with its camera lenses concerning the new IS technology and lithium batteries. The manual is dated 2015. I explained that I had always used lithium batteries in my other Canon IS binoculars and was advised that this was in order, just do not use them in the new versions. This will apply to the 10x30 II's as well as they both have the same manual. I asked the technician to check a current manual for the 15x50's and was advised that is it still in order to use lithium batteries in those and in fact, in the 10x42's and the 18x50's as well.

All in all, I am very happy with the III's and the difference is certainly enough to consider an upgrade. I was following some geese flying in the typical V patterns and the image was so steady even when moving to follow the geese compared to the version II's. It should be noted that there is some minor CA visible at the edges when looking at the classic crow on a telephone wire. The eyecups are the same fold down rubber ones that I actually quite like and the IS button has to be held down which I also have no problem with. In fact, I prefer to use the same technique with my other IS binoculars even though they have on/off switch buttons. It should also be noted that the close focus with my older II's is 22 feet and is nearly 23 feet in my III's and not 19 +/- feet as per the manual. As they magnify 12x, I can still get to within '2 feet' of a subject so it has never really been an issue for me. These are a specialty item and I can live with this just as I live with close focusing binoculars that have no IS capabilities.

Kellmark in replies above seems to somewhat mirror my overall findings as well.

I hope this helps some members that might be sitting on the fence regarding a decision to move up to the III's.

Doug.......
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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