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

. Hi Doug,
. From what I remember reading lately, the newly announced Canon 10×30 and 12×36 mention the life of AA alkaline batteries, but failed to mention AA lithium batteries. Lithium batteries usually last about five times longer than alkaline.
I've seen mention of increased battery life with the Canon image stabilised binoculars mentioned several times in the past years, so I really don't know how many times they have altered this, or indeed how many times they have changed the software over the years. Also whether there have been any changes to the actual image stabilising method.

You change the lithium batteries once a year whether they need changing not, the same as a friend says he has a bath once a year whether he needs it or not. I don't change the batteries until I notice that the stabilisation is getting less good. And as has been said, I don't think that the lithium batteries leak even if left in permanently, although I'm not sure what would happen after 20 years.

I'm still not convinced that the 10×30 and 12×36 have doublet field flatteners, although it may depend on how you define the elements in the eyepieces and any extra lenses in front.

I think that one of the reasons possibly that some of the Canon image stabilised binoculars don't have the ability to lock the stabilising button on, maybe because there are some limitations on the lifetime of the stabilisation and not having it locked on all the time may extend the lifetime, although I have not had any failures of newly bought Canon image stabilised binoculars that have been bought from official channels.

The 18×50 still amazes me. In the last few nights I could pick up the moons of Jupiter including the faintest of the four Galileans when Jupiter was only 8° above the horizon almost directly into the street light shining at me. This is in severe light pollution. This was handheld and completely unbraced.

I take anything that manufactures say about their binoculars, generally with a pinch of salt, although I didn't find any mistakes with Minolta binoculars information.
As to sellers of binoculars, in many cases the claims they make are pure fiction.

Binastro did you see the link to the canon european site I posted earlier? It clearly shows a photo of what Canon call a doublet field-flattener lens. As I don't know what one should look like maybe you can tell me if it is one?

Doug the changes to the new canon's are listed in the link also. There is no change in the FOV for the 10x30 and ditto for the 12x36.

The european link has the most detailed and complete info on the new improvements I've found so far.

Canon say "The new binoculars boast the latest improvements to its Image Stabilizer technology - improving stability in a wider range of conditions whilst also improving power efficiency and battery life."

. Hi dipped,
Thanks, I had a closer look and that is indeed I think a cemented doublet field flattener.
How long these have been in a 10×30 and 12×36 I don't know.
It would be nice to see the whole optical train if you can find that. I.e. a sideways section.

The edge performance and field of view of my 10×30 is definitely not as good as the 18×50. But maybe there have been changes in the last 10 years.

P. S.
With camera image stabilisation, there has been a considerable improvement over last few years. It has gone up from three stops improvement to 5 stops, and I can say from personal experience this is my finding also.
So it would be nice if the Canon image stabilising binoculars did improve over the years.

However, there has been reported variation in quality, particularly in the lower priced versions, and I'm not sure if the optical quality of the more expensive ones has actually improved or not. Some people report that it has improved and some say not.

Hi Binastro. Have a look at the video 37 seconds in and pause it to see the eyepiece construction in cross section.

Hi Binastro,

With the significant improvement in lithium batteries since that catalogue was printed in February 2005, I am sure that a set would last far longer longer than the stated 12 hours. I think that the 'vari prisms' have been used in the 10x30's and up to the 18x50's for some time now and it was the 8x25's that were changed. Also, the 12x36's had a big makeover when the 12x36 II's were brought out before 2005.

I was looking at Venus last night in a blue sky half an hour before sunset and in my 12x36's was able to see the half crescent shape with and without the IS switched on. Three quarters of an hour later I looked at Jupiter and all four moons were widely separated and easily visible. The IS certainly improved the view of the fainter moons.

Just prior to all of this there were two hummingbirds at my feeder that is about 25 feet from my deck so was able to focus on them. With the IS on, the view was spectacular.

Once the new 12x36's are available, it will be interesting to actually compare the differences if they are noticeable.

Hi Dipped. Where in Suffolk are you ? I was visiting my family in Lowestoft and Blundeston three weeks ago!!

Doug.......

doug el10x32 said:

Hi Dipped. Where in Suffolk are you ? I was visiting my family in Lowestoft and Blundeston three weeks ago!!

Doug.......

Click to expand...

Not very far away at all...

. Thanks dipped, it looks like the eyepieces are four element eyepieces. I presume that the doublet field flattener is somewhere near the prism, as it can't be seen.

It would need somebody to test the Canon 10×30 II to see how good the edge performance is. And also to see any improvements in the image stabilisation.

doug el10x32 said:

Hi Binastro,

With the significant improvement in lithium batteries since that catalogue was printed in February 2005, I am sure that a set would last far longer longer than the stated 12 hours.

Click to expand...

For Sure. Using my 12x36 11 IS in the Tatshenshini last fall, spotting for at least 2 hrs per day, over a 2 week period. The Energizer Ultimate lithium's in it, finally gave out on my next trip. Bonus is the lithiums really like the cold weather too.:t:

Hi to all, i am using the new Canon Binoculars by some days. As a first impression, honestly, I did not notice any particular difference, but, during this week, a friend of mine, bring me an old specimen of Canon 10x30 IS, so we are be able to verify the difference. The optical performance seems the usual.
If you want to lose a few seconds i've published a small video to see the performance of new 12x36 IS II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izSC4h6Z7II
Kind Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni

Hi Piergiovanni

Can you elaborate a little bit on the difference between the 10x30 IS I and Mk II? was the stabilisation a bit better and faster to engage? (Obviously in your reference to the new 12x36 video you meant Mk III).

Thank you.

dipped said:

Hi Piergiovanni

Can you elaborate a little bit on the difference between the 10x30 IS I and Mk II? was the stabilisation a bit better and faster to engage? (Obviously in your reference to the new 12x36 video you meant Mk III).

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Hi! On Thursday a friend of mine come and see me with his "old" specimen of Canon 10x30 IS, we will compare the two binoculars, then i will write my impressions. Thanks in advance for the attention!
Piergiovanni

Hi from Italy. I've published my impression and a small comparative with the old 10x30 IS, here:
http://www.binomania.it/canon-10x30-is-ii-e-canon-12x36-is-iii/
Kind Regards.
Piergiovanni

. Thanks Piergiovanni,
. Regarding previous posts here. It states that the eyepieces are five elements in four groups.
However, the side view diagram seems to indicate five elements in three groups, including the doublet field flattener. The basic eyepiece shown here has only three elements it seems.
As I recall, another diagram suggested that the eyepieces are four element plus the doublet field flattener, making six elements.

Assuming that there are five elements including the doublet field flattener, it may be that originally there was only a single element field flattener +4 elements in the actual eyepiece.

Whatever the true position is, it seems that different diagrams from Canon suggest different configurations.

I think that 10×42 L may have a total of seven elements. I cannot remember how many elements the eyepieces of the 15×50 and 18×50 have.

Whatever the position is I think that the higher end Canon image stabilised binoculars have better edge performance than the 10×30 and 12×36. Although, the original 12×36 Mark one had a wider field of view and better edge performance, but this was a heavy binocular in comparison with the later 12 x 36.

It would seem to me that the current and recent 10×30 and 12×36 don't have optical windows, whereas all the others including the 8×25 seem to have optical windows.

The nice Italian test does show benefits but maybe not overwhelmingly better, at least the basics of the binoculars remain the same.

Binastro said:

. Thanks Piergiovanni,
. Regarding previous posts here. It states that the eyepieces are five elements in four groups.
However, the side view diagram seems to indicate five elements in three groups, including the doublet field flattener. The basic eyepiece shown here has only three elements it seems.
As I recall, another diagram suggested that the eyepieces are four element plus the doublet field flattener, making six elements.

Assuming that there are five elements including the doublet field flattener, it may be that originally there was only a single element field flattener +4 elements in the actual eyepiece.

Whatever the true position is, it seems that different diagrams from Canon suggest different configurations.

I think that 10×42 L may have a total of seven elements. I cannot remember how many elements the eyepieces of the 15×50 and 18×50 have.

Whatever the position is I think that the higher end Canon image stabilised binoculars have better edge performance than the 10×30 and 12×36. Although, the original 12×36 Mark one had a wider field of view and better edge performance, but this was a heavy binocular in comparison with the later 12 x 36.

It would seem to me that the current and recent 10×30 and 12×36 don't have optical windows, whereas all the others including the 8×25 seem to have optical windows.

The nice Italian test does show benefits but maybe not overwhelmingly better, at least the basics of the binoculars remain the same.

Click to expand...

4
Hi Binastro, thanks a lot for your comments.
I've insert only how Canon Japan declared in his website:
http://cweb.canon.jp/binoculars/lineup/12x36is3/spec.html
I can find these characteristics also in Canon Italy website:
http://www.canon.it/for_home/product_finder/binoculars/optical_image_stabilisation/12x36_is_iii/
I've seen the Canon diagrams, probably we missing something or/and them consider a group in more.
Canon 18x50 and 15x50 have 7 elements in 5 groups
Yes, there are few changes. In summary, I would say, in my poor english, that an owner of the old model could keep it, while a new buyer would be satisfied with the small and new enhancements :I hope Canon will update also 10x42 and the two 50mm.
Piergiovanni

binomania said:

Hi from Italy. I've published my impression and a small comparative with the old 10x30 IS, here:
http://www.binomania.it/canon-10x30-is-ii-e-canon-12x36-is-iii/
Kind Regards.
Piergiovanni

Click to expand...

Great comparison Piergiovanni - thanks for your efforts.

One UK retailer has these due mid August.

Unfortunately they also show a hefty price increase. The 10x30 Mk I is £300 and the Mk II is gulp £480.

Hopefully the price will come down to close to the original Mk I version after a while.

. Dear Piergiovanni,
. Thank you for the two links.

From what I can make out, the larger more expensive binoculars have triplet objectives, and their doublet field flatteners have an air space and are not cemented, whereas the present and recent 10×30 and 12×36 seem to have doublet objectives and cemented doublet field flatteners.
However, as I said before different links show different eyepieces.

Unfortunately, my Japanese is nonexistant, but I would like to know what the spot diagrams mean and show regarding the image stabilisation. They have different shapes, but maybe they only show the limits of travel of the variable prisms and the tilting mechanism of the 8×25.

In your review I think that the new and old 10×30s in the photograph are labelled the wrong way round.

Unfortunately I haven't visited Italy in many years.

Thank you again for your reviews of these and many other binoculars.

Piergiovanni, many thanks for your report.

To me it seems as though the difference between the new and the old versions of the 12x36 and the 10x30 isn't really all that big. Slightly longer runtimes on a set of rechargeables, slightly better contrast, slightly better colour balance, maybe a slightly better stabiliser. Nice, but not really breathtaking. And it's a pity Canon didn't address the really important issues, like better weatherproofing. THAT would have made a real difference.

I think I'll be checking the prices of the "old" versions in the months to come, maybe it's time for me to get one when the prices come down even more.

BTW, IMO the optical quality of even the "lowly" 10x30 is pretty good, even with the stabiliser off. Just shows how good even a low-price binocular can be if you don't insist on having one with roof prisms.

Binastro,

Where are the spot diagrams you are referring to? With my even more nonexistent Japanese I did not find them on the page.

Would be interested to take a look, so could you perhaps post a direct link?

Piergiovanni,

Thanks for the comparison and photographs. The differences may be slight, but I think improvements in contrast and color balance can be very worthwhile. Also, improvements in the IS operating algorithms might have effects that appear pretty subtle at first, but also turn out to be worthwhile. At least, that is the experience I'm having now that I have been using a newer vintage 10x42L IS after many years of using an early sample. The newer one tracks flying birds much better, with the IS remaining centered on the object very well, with very little wedge artifacts. There were also obviously visible improvements in coatings between the two, even though there was no model change between them.

Kimmo

. Dear Kimmo,
. My computer skills are as poor as my Japanese. I don't know how to post a link.

These were not spot diagrams regarding optical quality or star testing, but the spiderweb like diagrams indicating how the image stabilisation reacts. There are different shapes to each binocular model shown, although I don't know if these are actually significant and relevant differences. The 8 x 25 shows the strangest pattern, which may reflect the different tilting mechanism compared with variable prisms.
When I tested a 2014 model 8×25 it displayed very rapid but very small amplitude corrections, which I initially didn't see, but which are visible if you look very carefully. The tilting mechanism in my opinion made the 8×25 new version much more capable than the older version, which I think used variable prisms.
That is why I wondered if they could actually use this tilting mechanism with the 10×30, but they have retained the variable prisms. There may be size or weight limitations on this tilting mechanism. I don't know if this tilting mechanism is used in photographic lenses.

Perhaps you could tell me what you think of those spiderweb like patterns and what they mean. Perhaps there is a translation from the Japanese available.

Binastro,

If not a link, can you give instructions on how to navigate the page to the diagrams? When I went to the Japanese site that Piergiovanni linked, I did not find such diagrams.

Kimmo