Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Experience the Great Outdoors. New Zeiss Terra ED Binoculars. Visit our online shop to find out more!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 16:58   #1
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 672
10X42L IS Pros/cons...

I'm a little curious....
What are some of the pros/cons you see with this binocular? I understand the image with IS on from what I'm reading is second to none. I believe you. Other things you really like about the binocular?

How's the weight, size, physical characteristics, focus adjustment, etc? Do you think it would hold up in the long run? Anyone have picture of it next to...say a Conquest HD, SV 42mm, HT 42mm, etc?
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 19:43   #2
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 1,936
Greetings Chuck,

The big plus of the Canon 10X42 L IS is the image stabilization. It really works! I have a couple of Canon IS models (the 15X50 for several years and more recently the 10X42) and I still get a big kick out them every time I press the IS button and the image becomes near rock solid. The technology is quite impressive but so is the improvement in the view with the noticeable reduction in shake.

Another notable plus is the optical quality. The 10X42L IS uses Canon's L series lenses and the optical quality is top notch. It also has a very generous center view (I think it may use lens flatteners), the FOV of approximately 340 ft is right up there with the alphas, and it has a small Porro effect.

It does have electronics and moving parts for the stabilization that makes it more susceptible to damage, but it looks to me to be well built.

Considering this binocular has alpha quality optics for hundreds of dollars less than the alphas, it seems like a real bargain to me, and this is before factoring in the image stabilization technology.

Now for the potential down sides.

It is heavy and it is bulky, although despite the weight, it is well balanced and holds well. As Ted has mentioned, it has a steady hold even without the image stabilization on. It will get heavy around the neck so a harness may be best for a long outing.

The body does not pivot for the IPD adjustment as in a conventional binocular. Instead the body is solid and square like. It does not have a natural hold to me and in some ways, it feels like holding a small fat book. Whether that is an issue will vary between individuals. I am aware of the difference but have no problem adapting.

What is interesting is that first few times using it, the immediate instinct is to try and bend/pivot the body to adjust the IPD. After a few days I got out of the habit of trying to do that. I guess I am a creature of habit.

The IPD is actually done by moving the eye pieces. It works but it is more awkward than a conventional binocular. Even so, it is not a big deal and does get the job done. I do not consider it an issue since the IPD is basically a set it once and forget it operation.

A good thing about the 10X42 is it has screw up eye cups compared to some of the other Canon models. Even so, they just are not that comfortable for me. I find eye placement and fit a little more difficult then my other conventional 10X42 models. It is just ever so slightly annoying but not anywhere near a show stopper.

One side note about the eye cups. They extend out more so than most in relationship to the eye relief. It is the only binocular I have where I am one click less than full extension. I look at this as a good thing since there are so many models where the eye cups are to short in relationship to the eye relief and there is no easy way to adjust for that. I have no experience using the Canon with eye glasses, so I will let other folks comment on that.

The Canon 10X42 has a diopter adjustment ring as part of the right eye piece. Adjusting it turns the whole eye piece which I find inferior since it rubs against the skin making the adjustment more difficult. However this is generally just a one time adjustment so it is no big deal.

What is a bigger deal is the ring has a lock by pushing the ring toward the eye piece end. What is unfortunate (at least in my unit) is the friction is almost non existent and the ring slides back to the unlocked position and I end up inadvertently resetting the diopter to a different setting. Again, it is not a big deal because I am now in the habit of checking the setting and can easily rotate it to the proper position, but it is an annoyance.

For reasons I do not understand, I do find myself doing slightly more searching when trying to lock on to the sharpest focus. There are some posts about a shimmer effect related to the IS system so that my be what is coming into play, but I do not fully understand what it is about. This is really minor and is not a problem for me, but it may be for some so I am mentioning it.

The view from the Canon is fantastic but I am more aware of the fact that I am using a binocular than I am when viewing with the Zeiss SF 10X42. The SF seems like a more natural view to me I think due to several factors. One is the balance and feel, another is the more comfortable eye cups, also I am able to more easily lock onto focus and then there is the exceptional wide FOV of the SF. Again, this is not to be considered a major criticism, but just something to be aware of. Also, this my be more of a personal preference conclusion then anything repeatable between individuals.

The last thing to keep in mind is it is an electronic instrument and is more subject to failure (meaning the IS function) than a conventional binocular. However, the reviews on reliability have been good overall and I feel it is worth the risk to get the benefits of image stabilization. If one takes good care of their equipment, then I think the risk of premature failure are minimal. However, it would not be the best choice for someone who is rough on equipment or who will be using it in a rough and tumble environment. I suspect there will eventually be a failure, but it will be after years of use and so the owner should have plenty of time to get their money's worth out of the Canon.

I look at the Canon 10X42 L IS as more of a specialty binocular rather than a primary use binocular. It is not my first choice for everyday use. I primarily use it for shorter outings where the weight will not become overbearing as the day goes on or the other quirks do not have time to build up over the day.

There are several members who successfully use their Canon as their primary binocular, so my comments of it being a specialty unit are most definitely a personal preference conclusion. Everyone will have to make their own judgment on the pros and cons and then decide if the Canon works for them.

One thing fun is to use it in a vehicle as a passenger when driving down the road. It is helpful in spotting cop cars at a distance! It is far from rock steady in a moving vehicle but it works much better than looking though a conventional 10X.

Even though it has it's list of quirks, I really like the Canon 10X42. All those little annoyances just go away when you press the IS button. I am happy that I have it and I have no intentions of selling it any time soon.

Chuck ... I read all of your posts and have a good idea of what you like. Actually, we have a good overlap of models. I believe you are an enthusiast and appreciate a binocular for being more than just a tool. If I am correct, I think you would really enjoy having the Canon. It is unique and a joy to use under the right conditions.

Here are some comparision photos that you requested. Please note that my Canon has after market lens shades attached to the objectives so that makes the binocular look longer than it is from Canon. The lens shades not only look cool, but they help protect the objective lenses from damage. I do not think they are needed for stray light control.. Since the objectives are threaded, you can also add UV or polarizer filters. (The Nikon EDG-II 10X42 is for all practical purposes comparable in size and appearance to your 8X42 EDG-II.)

Zeiss SF 10X42, Zeiss HT 8X42, Nikon EDG-II 10X42
Canon 10X42 L IS and a Bushell Elite ED 10X42 ......

Click image for larger version

Name:	1 Canon 1.jpg
Views:	182
Size:	298.5 KB
ID:	608192

Canon 10X42 L IS and a Zeiss SF 10X42 ......

Click image for larger version

Name:	1 Canon 2.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	235.8 KB
ID:	608193

Canon 10X42 L IS, Zeiss SF 10X42, Nikon EDG-II 10X42 ......

Click image for larger version

Name:	1 Canon 3.jpg
Views:	128
Size:	279.0 KB
ID:	608194
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

Last edited by BruceH : Sunday 11th December 2016 at 21:58. Reason: Spelling corrections and such.
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 20:03   #3
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,867
Bruce, thanks for that great and detailed assessment!

I think that 10x just isn't worth the extra weight, size and poor ergos - I find it rare that shake or instability prevents me from ID'ing a bird. Without a doubt the IS does yield greater detail but [for the huge majority of the time] I'm just trying to make the ID, not do a detailed analysis.

Now, the 15x Canon to me would be very useful, as a scope replacement.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 20:48   #4
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,624
Bruce,
Thank you for your excellently comprehensive yet sober review of this glass.

I find it a superb all round binocular, rather than a specialty use item, mostly because it so often gives the extra edge. For example, looking at small birds in the treetops in bad light is the norm at this time of the year. Here the IS helps nail the ID better than anything else I know of.

Also, not to be too worried about susceptibility to damage. A glass that is to be dumped into a bucket to rinse it from salt water has to be reasonably robust and so it has proved. Mine is about 10 years old, has served flawlessly in both tropical as well as arctic conditions and has now finally needed repair, earlier this year.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 22:51   #5
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 1,936
James .... Thanks. Some of the unique attributes of the Canon might be an acquired taste for some which may not be a good fit for everyone. Just out of curiosity, have you ever had an opportunity to look through one? If so, and even though it is not a good fit for you, what did you think the first time the image stabilization locked in? I thought it was one of the neatest things I had seen in a while, but then I am a gadget lover.

Etudiant ....... Again, thanks. I can see why the Canon is a good first choice for your type of birding and what you are trying to achieve. Actually, it was ongoing comments from you and Kimmo that encouraged me to get the Canon 10X42. I really enjoy using it.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 11th December 2016, 23:14   #6
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,867
Bruce,

Yes, I have tried them a few times. The 1st time, it was coming back from the Dry Tortugas in heavy seas and I felt the IS really didn't help much in that situation. The 2nd time it was in a backyard and the effect wasn't that striking because I find any shake [for me] is pretty minimal most of the time. I also noted some flicker / artifacts that were a bit distracting. In my everyday birding, shake and instability almost never present themselves sufficiently for me to want IS.

Ergo impressions were - bulky, poor hand-feel and very uncomfortable eye-cups and small focus wheel.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Sunday 11th December 2016 at 23:16.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th December 2016, 13:33   #7
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 672
WOW! Thanks Bruce for that GREAT write up! You covered about every detail. I can't even say how much of a help a picture is. Yes, a picture IS worth a thousand words!

I'm a binocular purist at heart...well, to an extent. Of course I enjoy any REAL improvement I can get my hands on. I just don't know if I'd be able to enjoy a battery operated binocular.

I probably SHOULD give it a try. It seems as if now would be the time to do it as long as available at the great price!

Thanks again for the great comments an pictures!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th December 2016, 18:05   #8
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 693
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
I'm a little curious....
What are some of the pros/cons you see with this binocular? I understand the image with IS on from what I'm reading is second to none. I believe you. Other things you really like about the binocular?

How's the weight, size, physical characteristics, focus adjustment, etc? Do you think it would hold up in the long run? Anyone have picture of it next to...say a Conquest HD, SV 42mm, HT 42mm, etc?
Hello Chuck,

Back from my 3-day excursion on the Natches Trace. The 10x42L was the Only glass I brought and overall it performed admirably out in the field. Dawn\dusk temps ranged from 16 to 26 degrees and the optics and electronics didn't miss a lick (or should I say, a great view)!

I also agree with everything that Bruce highlighted in his wonderful report. His Pros and Cons hit the nail on the head very well as the 10x42 L's have some serious optical prowess. But alas, there are 3 possible issues I've not read or heard about that I discovered while birding and glassing wildlife for 20 hrs or so this weekend. The rainguard, eye cups and IPD adjustment lobes are soft natural rubber that are "Dust Magnets"! May not be a big deal as a dry clean brush removes the contaminants, but this I've not experienced (to that degree) with my Swaros, Zeiss or Leupolds in field travels. Secondly, veiling glare reared it's ugly head one evening glassing the horizon to the West while following raptors riding the thermals about an hour before sunset. I really had to work with eye placement to minimize this, but otherwise, never saw it again. Thirdly, while using sunglasses with eye cups all the way in, I was missing about 5-10% of the FOV. Now, these shades I used are big and have maybe too much eye clearance. If I had a normal pair with me, I'm sure they would not have caused restrictions.

Otherwise like Bruce, these are the first binos that I don't extend the eye cups all the way out. The 3rd click setting gives my unaided sight a wonderful and immersive FOV that with the very nice 3D Porro II effect, gives Me a view that seems even more as-if-you're-there image over my 10x50 SV (Especially with IS on)! My IPD is 62mm and the objectives are 70mm. Compare to any of my 4 Habicht porros (6x-10x, porro I, much greater offset), the depth and 3d effect is more natural and pleasing to my eyes. Now, this could be related to the slow "close focus to infinity" of 2.75 turns, but when you get the subject locked in, the 10x42L displays typical Canon "L Glass" foreground\background bokeh that is extremely "photo" like, allowing excellent attention and depth to your subject. The slow focus could be a negative for birding, as it takes more time and effort to go from 2 to 300m+. For me, it helped to lock in a sharp focus quicker and cleaner without any misses of ID's.

Overall, the ergonomic facts (weight, bulkiness, etc.) and other quirks do not deter me from being excited about their use. Actually, loaded (all accessories attached) they are just 3oz heavier than my 10x50 SV's, about the same length but easier to hand hold for a steadier image. After 3 days and 20 hrs using the supplied bino strap, I experienced no handling issues or discomfort. For my small frame (but big hands), they have a solid heft that balances and works well for me! I'm sure they are not for everyone, but glad I took the plunge. I now know the 10x50 SV is a tad sharper, has a wider AFOV and is brighter (Yes Dennis, Still a definite keeper). However, the Canon is a unique tool for glassing enjoyment. With the 10x42L IS engaged, think of Your "Best Glass with a Built-In Tripod View"!!

If you're yearning to try them Chuck, hard to beat the current deal and return policy at B&H (by 1-31-2017)!

Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas,

Ted
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	09-IMG_4145.jpg
Views:	68
Size:	125.6 KB
ID:	608307  Click image for larger version

Name:	16-IMG_4164.jpg
Views:	110
Size:	277.8 KB
ID:	608308  
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th December 2016, 18:45   #9
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 2,959
Hi Theo,
Thanks for the appraisal.
The field of the 10x50 is marked as 6.6 degrees. Is it actually larger?
The 10x42 L is I think 6.5 degrees as specified.

The photo on the left looks like a piece of modern sculpture, maybe a wide angle view.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th December 2016, 19:20   #10
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Hi Theo,
Thanks for the appraisal.
The field of the 10x50 is marked as 6.6 degrees. Is it actually larger?
The 10x42 L is I think 6.5 degrees as specified.
I measured my 10x50 SV at 350' (specs say 345'). The SV is tack sharp and bright all the way to the edges. The 10x42L doublet FF seems to have minor pincushion around the last 5% of FOV, along with a 10% light drop off from the edges, yielding an AFOV that looks\feels smaller than the SV's.

Quote:
The photo on the left looks like a piece of modern sculpture, maybe a wide angle view.
Modern sculpture...maybe, created in 2005!?
Not a WA, but a close up overhead capture with a cheap P&S!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 00:08   #11
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 292
"I know now the 10x50 SV is a tad sharper, has a wider AFOV and is brighter (Yes Dennis, Still a definite keeper)."

An AFOV of 66 degrees versus 65 degrees does not make much difference. I don't see that much drop off on the edges of the Canon's like you do either. The Canon is like the Zeiss SF in that it strikes a better balance between edge sharpness and RB. The SV has a slight drop off in sharpness as you approach the edges also. I believe it is called the Absam Ring. I don't see much difference in the AFOV between the two. As far as sharpness I don't see that either. Did you do any doublers or resolution tests to verify that? Anyway once the IS is engaged the Canon leaves the SV in the dust as far as resolution or sharpness is concerned with at least a 30% advantage in seeing detail. The 10x50 SV could be a little brighter because of the bigger aperture but I think you are seeing differences in color with the Swarovski being more neutral. The SV has the disadvantage of producing a slight bit of RB ,whereas, I see none in the Canon 10x42 IS-L. The Canon's pans more naturally than the SV because of that. For most people depending on their IPD setting the Canon will also produce a better 3D image than the 10x50 SV. Also, the Canon has better glare control than the SV and a much smoother, less sticky focus than the SV. When I compared the two which was no too long ago the Canon controlled CA better than 10x50 SV with none in the center and very little at the edges. So if you don't like CA get the Canon. Optically, the Canon has most of the advantages with the IS being HUGE but the SV does have better ergonomics for most people. If you want the best steady, sharpest view with the most resolution and the ability to see detail nothing approaches the Canon 10x42 IS-L. Nothing!

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Tuesday 13th December 2016 at 01:08.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 01:15   #12
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,867
...until you sell it, and run it down endlessly against the newest shiny bauble.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Tuesday 13th December 2016 at 01:18.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 01:21   #13
ailevin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 135
An old timer with Canon IS

I've been using Canon IS technology, primarily for astronomy, since 1998. My 15x45 IS has been with me on essentially every telescopic observing session since then, and it has also been with me worldwide when I travel. My point is that with no special treatment, in fact knocking all over the place, that 15x45 is still working great. Over the past almost 20 years, many other astro-binoculars have come and gone. My older version is not water proof, though it has operated well over a fairly broad range of temperature and humidity. As it gets well below freezing (teens F or below) the batteries run down quickly, but I don't have that much cold weather macho, so that has not been an issue.

The things I don't like about the binocular is that it is heavy and I find it considerably harder to get on target compared to a traditional binocular. That is partly due to the boxy shape and partly due to the narrower field of view at 15x. It is comfortable to hold and well balanced. I don't wear glasses while observing and the eyecups work OK for me, but at least on my model I could use a slight narrower IPD, so that is something to consider. I need to get below 58mm and I would guess mine has a minimum of 58. I found the $900 cost shocking back in the day. And while I realize that it cannot be repaired should it fail, at this point it has already provided outstanding value.

For astronomy, the advantage of the 15x magnification is huge when trying to detect targets for the telescope, and it also makes a much larger set of targets interesting for binocular observing. I pretty much gave up air travel with small telescope and tripod once I got the 15x45 IS.

Alan
ailevin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 01:49   #14
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 693
Cool

Dennis,

We both agree on the exemplary merits of the 10x42L. I'm keeping mine, but stated that I'm Not getting rid of the 10x50 SV. To "my eyes" set on a tripod and compared to the non-stabilized Canon, the 10x50 is sharper, has a noticeable wider AFOV, presents an easier eye placement, is bright and sharp all the way to the edges, presents an instant easy-on-the-eyes very immersive view, doesn't tick my RB funny bone and will last through the next 5+ generations of family! I've not yet encountered glare issues that were bothersome, but maybe one day I will. My go-to resolution test are 1\2" letters\numbers on a licenses plate 100m away. BTW, mine has a smooth and even focuser to boot at a nice 1.5 turns, perfect speed without overshooting my subject!

You are right, as hand held 10X can't touch the Cannons IS for details of sharpness and resolution. However, I'm not normally glassing with a tri-pod, thus the Canon 10x42L IS's have a prominent place in my bino harem!

No use trying to convince me...I'm there! Possibly, can it be that we "see" a little differently...nah, we're both Homo Sapiens!!!

Merry Christmas to You & Yours,

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 02:17   #15
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by ailevin View Post
I've been using Canon IS technology, primarily for astronomy, since 1998. My 15x45 IS has been with me on essentially every telescopic observing session since then, and it has also been with me worldwide when I travel. My point is that with no special treatment, in fact knocking all over the place, that 15x45 is still working great. Over the past almost 20 years, many other astro-binoculars have come and gone. My older version is not water proof, though it has operated well over a fairly broad range of temperature and humidity. As it gets well below freezing (teens F or below) the batteries run down quickly, but I don't have that much cold weather macho, so that has not been an issue.

The things I don't like about the binocular is that it is heavy and I find it considerably harder to get on target compared to a traditional binocular. That is partly due to the boxy shape and partly due to the narrower field of view at 15x. It is comfortable to hold and well balanced. I don't wear glasses while observing and the eyecups work OK for me, but at least on my model I could use a slight narrower IPD, so that is something to consider. I need to get below 58mm and I would guess mine has a minimum of 58. I found the $900 cost shocking back in the day. And while I realize that it cannot be repaired should it fail, at this point it has already provided outstanding value.

For astronomy, the advantage of the 15x magnification is huge when trying to detect targets for the telescope, and it also makes a much larger set of targets interesting for binocular observing. I pretty much gave up air travel with small telescope and tripod once I got the 15x45 IS.

Alan
The difference between 10x and 15x magnification in astronomy is huge. A Canon 15x45 IS would probably almost serve as a small telescope. I get where you are coming from.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 02:39   #16
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo98 View Post
Dennis,

We both agree on the exemplary merits of the 10x42L. I'm keeping mine, but stated that I'm Not getting rid of the 10x50 SV. To "my eyes" set on a tripod and compared to the non-stabilized Canon, the 10x50 is sharper, has a noticeable wider AFOV, presents an easier eye placement, is bright and sharp all the way to the edges, presents an instant easy-on-the-eyes very immersive view, doesn't tick my RB funny bone and will last through the next 5+ generations of family! I've not yet encountered glare issues that were bothersome, but maybe one day I will. My go-to resolution test are 1\2" letters\numbers on a licenses plate 100m away. BTW, mine has a smooth and even focuser to boot at a nice 1.5 turns, perfect speed without overshooting my subject!

You are right, as hand held 10X can't touch the Cannons IS for details of sharpness and resolution. However, I'm not normally glassing with a tri-pod, thus the Canon 10x42L IS's have a prominent place in my bino harem!

No use trying to convince me...I'm there! Possibly, can it be that we "see" a little differently...nah, we're both Homo Sapiens!!!

Merry Christmas to You & Yours,

Ted
No doubt the Swarovski 10x50 SV is a great binocular. I think it is the best of the Swarovski's. I have had a lot of Swarovski's but it seems maybe I got unlucky and I got quite a few with sticky focusers. It kind of turned me off to them and I have actually replaced all my Swarovski's with a Maven B.2 9x45 and a Trac Toric 8x42 and I am happier overall because I don't have any issues with them and the optics are to me the equal of the alpha's. I am glad your focus is smooth on your 10x50 SV. Optically, they are a great binocular. I have really grown to appreciate the steady view of the Canon IS and some of it's other attributes. I notice the newer models don't have optical artifacts like the older models had so I am really liking my new pair.

Merry Christmas to and yours and everybody else on Bird Forum!

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Tuesday 13th December 2016 at 02:44.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 07:07   #17
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,260
I'm not doubting for a moment any of the IS benefits individuals are reporting here, but I just want to add a word of caution. It might not work for everyone.

With a well balanced 10x binocular, hand held costs me about 35% in detail compared tripod mounted. On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) and I'd agree it's optically a pretty good binocular. However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. I've not done chart tests to confirm it, but my judgement at the time was that I was still seeing less detail than with my usual 10x42 hand held. It was the same story with the rest of the range.

Obviously individuals differ in the frequency and amplitude of their hand shake and also the level of detail they can potentially see. I'm more than happy to accept the 10x42L IS works for the majority of users, but maybe the current design is not for everyone.

David

Last edited by typo : Tuesday 13th December 2016 at 07:20.
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 10:12   #18
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I'm not doubting for a moment any of the IS benefits individuals are reporting here, but I just want to add a word of caution. It might not work for everyone.

With a well balanced 10x binocular, hand held costs me about 35% in detail compared tripod mounted. On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) and I'd agree it's optically a pretty good binocular. However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. I've not done chart tests to confirm it, but my judgement at the time was that I was still seeing less detail than with my usual 10x42 hand held. It was the same story with the rest of the range.

Obviously individuals differ in the frequency and amplitude of their hand shake and also the level of detail they can potentially see. I'm more than happy to accept the 10x42L IS works for the majority of users, but maybe the current design is not for everyone.

David
I much agree with what you say. I am sure this is quite personal but I can't get a really steady view through my Canons. Steady means tripod for me, and the difference from tripod to IS is quite noticeable for me.
Canip
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 10:53   #19
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I'm not doubting for a moment any of the IS benefits individuals are reporting here, but I just want to add a word of caution. It might not work for everyone.

With a well balanced 10x binocular, hand held costs me about 35% in detail compared tripod mounted. On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) and I'd agree it's optically a pretty good binocular. However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. I've not done chart tests to confirm it, but my judgement at the time was that I was still seeing less detail than with my usual 10x42 hand held. It was the same story with the rest of the range.

Obviously individuals differ in the frequency and amplitude of their hand shake and also the level of detail they can potentially see. I'm more than happy to accept the 10x42L IS works for the majority of users, but maybe the current design is not for everyone.

David
Excellent point and well-made David.
I also wonder how IS bins cope with muscular shakes and jitters at the same time as a gusting wind on the coast which also seems to combine different frequencies from high freq vibes to low freq knocking you off target.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 11:32   #20
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Excellent point and well-made David.
I also wonder how IS bins cope with muscular shakes and jitters at the same time as a gusting wind on the coast which also seems to combine different frequencies from high freq vibes to low freq knocking you off target.

Lee
Afaik, the Canon IS mechanism is designed to smooth out the small high frequency tremors inherent in trying to hold something steady. The adjustment range is small, 0.7 degrees iirc, so it can't offset swaying from waves or gusty winds.
There is an improvement though even in those circumstances, because the small tremors at least are smoothed.
That said, try before buy is always essential, as typo documents, the variability of the human constitution and perception mechanisms reliably defeats one size solutions.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 13:41   #21
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I'm not doubting for a moment any of the IS benefits individuals are reporting here, but I just want to add a word of caution. It might not work for everyone.

With a well balanced 10x binocular, hand held costs me about 35% in detail compared tripod mounted. On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) and I'd agree it's optically a pretty good binocular. However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. I've not done chart tests to confirm it, but my judgement at the time was that I was still seeing less detail than with my usual 10x42 hand held. It was the same story with the rest of the range.

Obviously individuals differ in the frequency and amplitude of their hand shake and also the level of detail they can potentially see. I'm more than happy to accept the 10x42L IS works for the majority of users, but maybe the current design is not for everyone.

David
Typo. What year was your Canon 10x42 IS-L manufactured? I notice a difference in the performance of the Canon 10x42 IS-L I have now which is a newer model versus the older one I had a few years back. My newer model has virtually no optical artifacts but as Etudiant says the IS system will not totally stop all movement in all situations like a tripod but it greatly helps and in most situations it will perform like a tripod , as far as, increasing the resolution. Resolution testing has shown with the IS system engaged there is a 30 to 40% increase in resolution almost identical to a tripod.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Tuesday 13th December 2016 at 14:46.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 15:17   #22
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 1,936
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
......... On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) .......... However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. ...............
David
Hello David .... I believe I understand what you saying but it is just the opposite of what is expected. The IS system should have all but eliminated those small on going movements but would have much less of an impact on the less frequent but more noticeable jerks. That leads me to ask the question, are you sure the IS system was engaged? After seeing no improvement did you lower the Canon to see if the green light was on? The green light is on when the IS system is engaged and the light is off when the system is not engaged.

Turning the IS on and off may sound extremely basic but the button on the Canon happens to be very "tocuchy". If you hold it down to long (and believe me, to long is not long at all), the system will turn on and immediately turn off. When turning the system on, the user should hear a thunk sound and feel a slight clunk as the system engages. The same happens when turning it off although there is a very slight difference in the sound.

It is very easy for those unfamiliar with the Canon to hold the button down for a split second to long and get a double thunk and clunk! What they have done is immediately turned the IS on and off. However since they heard a sound and felt the clunk, they are under the impression that the system is on when it is not. The best advice for a new user who is not seeing a reduction in movement is to slightly lower the binocular and look to see if the green confirmation light is on. Once a user gets use to the operation of the Canon (which is not long), then this step is not necessary.

If someone checked out the Canon casually for just a minute or so, say at a stand at Birdfair, then I can see the possibility of the above scenario.

If you are sure the IS was engaged, then I am at a loss as to why you did not see the elimination of the small ongoing movements we all experience with binoculars. Even when I am sitting down with the elbows supported on the chair arms, I can still pick up movements from the heart beat and the act of breathing and also the very small ever ongoing muscle movements. The engagement of the IS all but eliminates those small movements for me.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

Last edited by BruceH : Tuesday 13th December 2016 at 15:25. Reason: Added missing word
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 16:08   #23
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
WOW! Thanks Bruce for that GREAT write up! .....
I'm a binocular purist at heart...well, to an extent. Of course I enjoy any REAL improvement I can get my hands on. I just don't know if I'd be able to enjoy a battery operated binocular.

I probably SHOULD give it a try. ........
Chuck ... It is good to hear you found the write-up and pictures useful!

Don't fret over the use of batteries. You are still viewing directly though glass so you will still get a conventional "analog" view as always, just without the shake. I do not feel that I have crossed over to the electronics side when using the Canon.

The batteries will have a vertical orientation when viewing with the Canon so just visualize the batteries as the legs of a bi-pod used to steady the view.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 17:03   #24
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo98 View Post
........... Secondly, veiling glare reared it's ugly head one evening glassing the horizon to the West while following raptors riding the thermals about an hour before sunset. I really had to work with eye placement to minimize this, but otherwise, never saw it again. .........
Ted
Ted ..... Nice write up!

Reading your comments about the glare experience reminded me of a similar incident I experienced with a different binocular.

I happen to have a Monarch 7 8X30 which a few on this Forum have described as a glare monster. There was never a glare incident until one morning looking at a mountain slope directly in the direction of the rising sun, just before the sun was to rise above the ridge top. There was almost total wash out. I ended up putting my left hand over the top of the objectives acting as a shield and almost all the glare went away. The difference was quite incredible.

You may be able to get the same effect by adding the screw on lens shades as shown in the photos in my above posts. I have not experienced the glare situation you described and that may be because I have been using the lens shades most of the time. I had thought the shades were not necessary for reducing glare, but that may not be the case after reading about your experience. The objective lenses are quite close to the end of the objective housing so there is not much shielding direct from Canon.

You can get them cheap off Amazon or eBay from China. The size is 52mm. In additional to the possibility of resolving your glare issue, they do look cool on the Canon and give additional protection to the objectives since the objective lenses do not have a lot of setback. The Canon will still fit in the case, but it is tight. The length of the shield protruding on mine is approximately 3/4 of an inch or about 19mm.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 19:20   #25
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,260
Bruce,

Although I'd tried the 10x30 previously, I first worked through the whole IS range in 2011 with a Canon rep in attendance. He checked I was using it properly, changed all the batteries and checked for himself the mechanisms were working as they should. In 2013 and 2015 I checked most of them again but was left to my own devices but I did ask for the batteries to be changed on a couple to be sure.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Autumn Olive...something I may consider planting...pros and cons cadillactaste Trees, Flowers, Plants and Shrubs 10 Wednesday 8th May 2013 23:59
8x32 pros and cons Matri-Juve Binoculars 36 Wednesday 25th April 2012 12:22
Pros and cons to Nyjer feeder styles Backyard Sanctuary Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 9 Sunday 6th March 2011 16:51
The pros and cons of Gin Traps! Peewit Other Wildlife 9 Wednesday 6th May 2009 07:22
Pros and cons for digital photography/new equipment? MBP Cameras And Photography 11 Sunday 14th November 2004 04:27

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.36996508 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11.