Kimmo's Review of 10x42L IS (1 Viewer)

Thanks for putting this previously unpubished review up Kimmo. http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_15_canon10x42L_IS_WP_GB.shtml

As always an interesting read. Will they ever bring out a MkII version or update their existing range I wonder?

Thank you for posting this very informative review.
Sadly, there has been no MkII version in the seven years since Kimmo spoke hopefully of it.
By contrast, Canon's cameras and lenses rarely go more than a couple of years before they are replaced by new models, even the pricey DSLR bodies and lenses.
Perhaps binocular buyers are too easily satisfied or just very slow to recognize and accept a major breakthrough, in contrast to the photographers.

Wonder how far that tiny warranty period might have put some potential binocular buyers off? Looks like it is three years now in the USA BTW.

normjackson said:

Wonder how far that tiny warranty period might have put some potential binocular buyers off? Looks like it is three years now in the USA BTW.

Click to expand...

You are surely putting your finger on a major flaw in Canon's marketing.
They handled this glass just like their digital cameras, even though even a glance at the competing alpha binos would have told them that they needed
a 10 year warranty at least to be competitive and to alleviate customer reliability concerns.
I took a chance on them, based on the excellent reputation of the Canon L lenses and have been delighted, with thus far 5 trouble free years of near daily use.They are wonderful, especially once their weight and bulk are brought under control by a good harness.

normjackson said:

Wonder how far that tiny warranty period might have put some potential binocular buyers off? Looks like it is three years now in the USA BTW.

Click to expand...

Me, for one, although relatively speaking, 3 years is fairly good for an electronics item, most computers only offer warranties between 90 days and 1 year , with the option to extend the warranty a year or two. It cost me $250 for a two-year extension on my $550 laptop. The hard part was getting the money out of my wallet when I had to keep my hands up in the air.

I'm also turned off by the 10x42 IS L's 36.7 oz. weight. Kimmo has it listed as 42.6 oz. Could be the weight with caps and strap. That's heavy for a 10x42, right up there with the 10x42 LX Venturer, which I wore like an Albatross around my neck. Until I had to sell it to pay the chiropractor bills for my neck therapy.

There is something to be said for IS, though, and ED glass. I was out birding today on an unusually mild day (50* F), but the wind was strong, with gusts up to 23 mph. I had the 8x SE and 10x EII with me, and at times, I had to switch to the 8x because of shakes from the wind. Not sure the IS would have helped since these weren't microvibrations, but swaying, which might have been better compensated by one of the marine IS bins from Nikon or Fuji. I used to have a 10x30 IS and it was affected by wind.

I was watching what appeared to be a swallow, though I thought they migrated south for the winter, same shape, pointy wings and long tail as the barn swallows near my house, but brighter colors under the wings and on the breast than a barn swallow. It was also unusual to see a swallow alone, they usually flock together and they fed mostly on insects, so I'm not sure what it was, but it looked very similar to a swallow. Wish I had brought my camera.

It flew towards me and then hovered over one spot, looking for berries, I would guess, though it looked more like the way a hawk hovers over a field looking for mice. Then it flew off and came back and did the same thing in another spot. Fortunately, the wind had momentarily died down and I got a good look at it with my 10x EII. I did have to center the bird to get rid of CA even though the sky was clear. I found myself wishing I hadn't sold my Celestron 10x50 ED, which had a very "clean" image in the centerfield.

But the contrast and resolution were very good in the 10x EII, and I am able to stabilize them better than the 10x50 ED and even the 10x42 SE. So with a 10x bin, ergos and weight are even more important than with an 8x. Next time I will take my monopod with me. Unlike looking for birds in the bush, holding the bins up to look for BOP in the sky gets tiring after awhile, with the 36 oz. 10x42 IS L, my arms would tire even more quickly. The other solution is to use a reclining lawn chair like I do for stargazing, which takes some of the weight off the neck and shoulders.

<B>

Brock, yes I suppose that weight Kimmo put at the beginning of the review would raise some eyebrows. Might be interesting to ask those BFers who bought top 56mm objective binoculars to try to get the "best quality view" whether they considered this model. As for the price, if one leaves aside concerns about warranty, resale value and such like, it does seem good value compared to the top European offerings. Maybe a bit too "apples and oranges" as products to compare?

Etudiant I bet you're all to familiar with the potential objection I made |:$| Thanks for the considered reply. Maybe you can offer Brock some insight how the 10x42L IS performs in windy weather. I believe its IS is reckoned to perform better than the other models in the range.

It would have been interesting to know what Kimmo found unsuitable about the TechnoStabi models for birding. Anyone remember or do we have to pay a subscription to find out

normjackson said:

Brock, yes I suppose that weight Kimmo put at the beginning of the review would raise some eyebrows. Might be interesting to ask those BFers who bought top 56mm objective binoculars to try to get the "best quality view" whether they considered this model. As for the price, if one leaves aside concerns about warranty, resale value and such like, it does seem good value compared to the top European offerings. Maybe a bit too "apples and oranges" as products to compare?

Etudiant I bet you're all to familiar with the potential objection I made |:$| Thanks for the considered reply. Maybe you can offer Brock some insight how the 10x42L IS performs in windy weather. I believe its IS is reckoned to perform better than the other models in the range.

It would have been interesting to know what Kimmo found unsuitable about the TechnoStabi models for birding. Anyone remember or do we have to pay a subscription to find out

Click to expand...

The Fuji technology for the TechnoStabil uses rigid prisms and is designed to smooth out much higher amplitude fluctuations than the Canon approach, aiming to offset wave motion for the Fuji, hand tremors for the Canon. I think the Canon corrects only a degree of motion or so, versus about 5 degrees or perhaps more for the Fuji. The Fuji is consequently most at home on the water, while most of the Canon models (apart from the 10x42, which is happy at sea, but not as much as a Fuji) are purely landlubbers.

I've not found the 10x42 stabilization to be materially less useful in windy weather, it was a real help in seawatches off Cape Clear in Ireland. In general, when stuff is moving, swaying is less the problem than the little jitters that unsettle the eye. The Canon does not help the former, but is great for the latter.

I can't stress the need for a decent harness for the Canon enough. It is a lump and no neck strap will change that. Get a suspender harness with wide shoulder straps that clips to the belt in the back, rather than some around the shoulders lashup such as Zeiss offers, because the straps otherwise will chafe you.

Overall, I remain delighted with the Canon 10x42, despite its ergonomic drawbacks, including neanderthal eye cups, really inadequate lens covers, a stabilization button that is poorly placed and hard to use with gloves and a case that is too small for the included strap. If Canon ever launches a 12x50 version, I'll be first in line.

Kimmo really did a nice test and review didn't he? What took this so long to surface?

"Might be interesting to ask those BFers who bought top 56mm objective binoculars to try to get the "best quality view" whether they considered this model." As a 10x56 FL owner, I'll respond.

I have admired IS ever since I tried a 10x30 and experienced the magic of the button. But I have several reservations about it that have kept me from indulging: Prolonged views give me the woozies, from lack of body orientation feedback in the view. The view artifacts that I experienced, and others frequently discussed by IS users, would interfere with the brief glimpses that are often such an important part of birding. The physical form is not only lumpy and unappealing to me personally, but becomes clumsy in the larger sizes, especially with the extra button to work. Overall, ergonomics, comfort and speed of use don't seem much thought out. The internal intricacy of the best alpha binocular is already a bit much for comfort, and the additional motors, gyros, flexible prisms and whatnot put IS out of my confidence zone. The battery issue, and other matters of usage requiring finesse, are concerning. The too often discussed unit to unit variability is off putting.

As to my choice of 10x "instead" of the 10x42 IS, if weight be an advantage to holding, the 56mm Zeiss is certainly magnificent, not even requiring the addition of of accessories to reach a supreme 44 ounces. (Eat your hearts out!) From 42mm to 56 is major, a big factor to me as I value twilight observing and stargazing.

I realize stabilization would improve the Zeiss's perception of detail, but 10x does not cry out loudly for it, and I am just not that detail crazed. I chose instead great aperture, quick and comfortable handling and focusing, proven quality control and reliablilty, and an optical quality hardly lower than Canon's. After this review, I also appreciate the excellent eyecups.

Still I find IS a fascinating concept, and always read the adventures of IS users here. They are paving the way to the next generation. Solve these problems, and I'll try one then.
Ron

brocknroller said:

Me, for one, although relatively speaking, 3 years is fairly good for an electronics item, most computers only offer warranties between 90 days and 1 year , with the option to extend the warranty a year or two. It cost me $250 for a two-year extension on my $550 laptop. The hard part was getting the money out of my wallet when I had to keep my hands up in the air.

I'm also turned off by the 10x42 IS L's 36.7 oz. weight. Kimmo has it listed as 42.6 oz. Could be the weight with caps and strap. That's heavy for a 10x42, right up there with the 10x42 LX Venturer, which I wore like an Albatross around my neck. Until I had to sell it to pay the chiropractor bills for my neck therapy.

There is something to be said for IS, though, and ED glass. I was out birding today on an unusually mild day (50* F), but the wind was strong, with gusts up to 23 mph. I had the 8x SE and 10x EII with me, and at times, I had to switch to the 8x because of shakes from the wind. Not sure the IS would have helped since these weren't microvibrations, but swaying, which might have been better compensated by one of the marine IS bins from Nikon or Fuji. I used to have a 10x30 IS and it was affected by wind.

I was watching what appeared to be a swallow, though I thought they migrated south for the winter, same shape, pointy wings and long tail as the barn swallows near my house, but brighter colors under the wings and on the breast than a barn swallow. It was also unusual to see a swallow alone, they usually flock together and they fed mostly on insects, so I'm not sure what it was, but it looked very similar to a swallow. Wish I had brought my camera.

It flew towards me and then hovered over one spot, looking for berries, I would guess, though it looked more like the way a hawk hovers over a field looking for mice. Then it flew off and came back and did the same thing in another spot. Fortunately, the wind had momentarily died down and I got a good look at it with my 10x EII. I did have to center the bird to get rid of CA even though the sky was clear. I found myself wishing I hadn't sold my Celestron 10x50 ED, which had a very "clean" image in the centerfield.

But the contrast and resolution were very good in the 10x EII, and I am able to stabilize them better than the 10x50 ED and even the 10x42 SE. So with a 10x bin, ergos and weight are even more important than with an 8x. Next time I will take my monopod with me. Unlike looking for birds in the bush, holding the bins up to look for BOP in the sky gets tiring after awhile, with the 36 oz. 10x42 IS L, my arms would tire even more quickly. The other solution is to use a reclining lawn chair like I do for stargazing, which takes some of the weight off the neck and shoulders.

<B>

Click to expand...

Brock, check out ''American Kestrel'' in your birdbook.

Hi all,

I'll make a couple of comments now that the discussion has had some time to take its course.

Brock, if you would have read the piece, you would know and not have to guess that the weight I give is with the eyepiece cover, batteries and strap but without the rather useless objective covers. The weights given in product literature for just about all binoculars are net weights without straps and covers, though, and so most bins effectively weigh more than what they are specified at.

Ron,

The review took this long to surface because the folks who maintain the website had not gotten around to posting it there. I have prompted them periodically about it, and now it fortunately is there. I had thought about posting it in the review section of BF, but since it has been "in the works" I had not done it yet. Around Christmas, I finally translated some other stuff from the last few years, and it will trickle onto the site gradually. At the same time, I reminded them of the missing Canon piece.

About the stabilizer button. I still would like it to have better feel and to be better positioned, but since it has the "short click for permanent on" and five minute auto shut-off, this does not really matter much. I mostly use the 10x42 with a light two-part monopod of sorts, with no head, just screwed onto the Canon's 1/4" thread. This "finnstick" I have extended to a length of about 14-16 inches, and just hold it with my hands down at about waist level. This takes off all the strain of having to support my arms, and makes the weight of the binocular pretty much a non-issue.

About Canon not upgrading the models and improving on the obvious shortcomings, yes, that is a pity. The only thing I know they have fixed was the exit pupil size issue that was talked about a few years back. If you remember, it turned out that there was an undersized internal aperture that made the 10x42 into a roughly 10x39 in practice. And then the Germans noticed that newer stock 10x42's had a redesigned interior with a larger aperture there and better blackening as well. If I recall, the effective aperture went up to about 41mm at that point.

BUT, for myself, had I decided to wait until the product was more refined and the technology perfect, I would have missed out on many years and countless hours of joyous steady views that pure and simple are, for me, more beautiful to behold because there is no shake and I can just relax and concentrate on what I see rather than having to see through the motion.

On the Nikon and Fujinon stabilized models, those I have only tried briefly, but both the 14x40 Fuji and the Nikon had a visible jitter in the stabilized image and had an overall inferior image quality to the Canons. They were also so clumsy that they made the Canons seem elegant by comparison.

The case not fitting the strap inside, well, I think the intention is to leave the strap outside. The case is so designed that you can carry the binocular by its own strap while the case is wrapped around the bino. It is easy to put on and strip off, and protects the binocular just fine. Others may well prefer a different kind of a case, but I like the provided one just fine.

The need to use batteries is really a non-issue. Batteries last a long time, one spare pair is all you need as long as you are not on an Antarctic expedition, and if you are stranded without batteries, the binocular works just like any other binocular without them. When cameras first started using batteries (anybody still remember those times?) there were lots of complaints about that and people worried about what you can do when they run out. Nowadays, no camera works without batteries. Most watches don't work without batteries. Here we have a binocular that works perfectly fine without batteries, just that it works even better with them, and some people won't consider it because "it needs batteries." Oh well ...

That much for now, but if you are interested in hearing more, I will be glad to oblige.

Kimmo

For astronomy I have used Canon IS binoculars for ten years or so, and there is nothing in their respective weight classes to match them.
Completely hand held unbraced standing for me the resolution is twice as good as the best non stabilized binocular however good.
If one braces unstabilized binoculars they improve, but so do the Canon IS.
In fact braced well the Canon IS are as stable as a tripod mounted binocular, but no tripod needed.
I appreciate birdwatchers have different requirements.
The Canon IS vary, but I have been lucky.
With the 18 x 50 on occasion the resolution is 3 times better with stabilizer on compared to off.
They work fine with lithium AA disposable or Sanyo Eneloops.
And frankly the edge performance of the 50mm ones is better than any other binocular I have looked through and the star images are tiny and smaller than any other binocular I have used.
They are in a league of their own.

Cons. 1 year warranty in U.K.
Complicated electronics.
variable quality, but a good one is unbeatable in its weight class, at least for astronomy.