• 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.

impressions on the Canon 10x42L IS (1 Viewer)

I haven't mentioned every binocular I have owned on Bird Forum. In my experience most 8x and 10x's from the same brand and model perform pretty similar when it comes to glare control. I always test my binoculars for glare control but not always side by side but my memory is pretty good in most cases and the two best binoculars I have ever used for glare control are the Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Nikon 8x32 SE. Have you ever tried a Canon 10x42 IS-L against a Zeiss Conquest HD? The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon. Try them sometime.

Dennis ... Thanks for the response.

Your answer concerning your experience with the Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD is rather open ended so I take that to mean you have never owned one and most likely have not used one.

Yes, I have experience with both the Canon 10X42 L IS and the Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD, owning one of each. I find it difficult comparing glare control with just one side by side comparison. I have found that binocular A may show some glare characteristics in a certain situation whereas binocular B does not, then a few minutes later, in a different viewing situation, it is just the opposite. For me, I need to use the binocular over a period of time to gain a general idea of how it handles stray light. So far, both the Canon and the Zeiss do a very good job of this. I have not seen anything yet to determine that one is better than the other in this regard.

At the end of your comments you said "The Conquest HD is good and better than say the SV 8x32 but it was not as good as the Canon". Which specific Conquest HD is this?

We are discussing the 10X42 model of the Canon IS series. It appears you are doing an apples to oranges comparision of the 8X32 Conquest HD to the 10X42 Canon. You are basing this on memory from several years ago concerning a binocular that you gave a big thumbs up and did not mention any glare issues that I can recall.

It then seems you are making a leap in faith that the Conquest 10X42 and 8X42 handle glare the same as the 8X32, then conclude that the Canon handles glare better than any of the Conquests. (Again, we are discussing the 10X42.) This is just pure speculation on your part yet your statements come across as if they are based on actual observation and this can easily give a wrong impression.

So, getting back to the original question, what specific experience do you have with a Zeiss Conquest 10X42 HD, the power of this discussion?

If you have not owned a Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42, then I doubt that you have had any extensive field experience with it. Therefore, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion that the Canon handles glare better than the Zeiss. You do have extensive field experience with the Canon so I have no problem with your conclusion that it is not a "glare monster" (term from your old posts ;)). However your conclusion that the Canon handles glare better than the Zeiss Conquest (implying the 10X42 HD) makes no sense to me since it appears you have not done any kind of comparison. I take your conclusion as speculation. That is fine so long as it is represented as such.

I have to agree with David that one can not necessarily conclude one power in a model line will exhibit the same characteristics as another power in the same line. I have seen it go both ways. There is no way of knowing for sure until someone checks it out.

You mentioned that you "always test my binoculars for glare control ". How exactly do you do that?

David has had extensive field experience with both the Canon 10X42 and the Conquest HD 10X42. He has concluded that the Conquest handles glare just fine based on actual observation. His findings are consistent with what I have observed so far. I therefore put much more credence in David's actual obervastions than your speculations.

The fact that the Canon handles glare well stands on it's own. It is not necessary to post negative speculation on another product in order to promote your product du jour.
 
Bruce:

I agree with you on calling out someone on his dissing the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I dislike armchair, no experience comparisons.

This binocular has received very good marks from what I have seen on
This site, and I have been pleased with mine for over 3 years.

There is a good reason some rank it as a top choice in the mid-range.

It is just trolling for Dennis. He likes attention, that is why he has been
On my ignore list.

Jerry
 
my two cents (I'm not an expert) FWIW.

I compared new canon 10x42 with Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I noticed that optical quality of both Zeiss and Canon are the same but Canon had the upper hand with 3D like view and IS.

However the ergonomics of Canon is very bad, I don't mind the odd shaped body but the hard plastic Eyepiece is a poor design.
 
my two cents (I'm not an expert) FWIW.

I compared new canon 10x42 with Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I noticed that optical quality of both Zeiss and Canon are the same but Canon had the upper hand with 3D like view and IS.

However the ergonomics of Canon is very bad, I don't mind the odd shaped body but the hard plastic Eyepiece is a poor design.

The Canon and Zeiss did indeed get the exact same score for resolution
(10+) and contrast (10+) out of 12 on kikkertspesialisten.

Their new test scoring system hasn't yet listed the Canon

https://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kikkerttester_10x42_rev3.pdf
 
Talking of testing, why don't allbino test Canon binoculars ? Did the Polish distributor tell them to get lost or something...|:S|
 
The Canon and Zeiss did indeed get the exact same score for resolution
(10+) and contrast (10+) out of 12 on kikkertspesialisten.

Their new test scoring system hasn't yet listed the Canon

https://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kikkerttester_10x42_rev3.pdf

Careful with their "tests" (or whatever you want to call them). They never explained their methodology anywhere, and some of their "results" have been pretty fishy over the years.

If you want to read a good test of the Canon, have a look at the Lintuvaruste site: http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_15_canon10x42L_IS_WP_GB.shtml

Hermann
 
Careful with their "tests" (or whatever you want to call them). They never explained their methodology anywhere, and some of their "results" have been pretty fishy over the years.


Hermann

This is what I could find on their test scoring:

"Construction quality: Ruggedness is not tested. The test points are determined on how the binoculars are built and how often we have received customer returns or repairs.

Field sharpness: Apparent area of vision maintaining a high quality of resolution and contrast as tested.

Comparison of test values in different reviews: The test scores in one test report tell the level of quality of a model compared to other models in the same review. Do not compare scores in different reviews! In other words, if you compare the test score of a model in the 7x magnification test review to the score of a model in the 8x magnification review, you are likely to end up with an incorrect conclusion about which is better. The test score of 12 on a 8x20 pocket model does not mean that this model hasthe same level of image brightness as a 7x50 model with a score of 12 in the 7x magnification review.

Resolution, Contrast and Brightness: each scored 1 to 12 with +/- graduations:

12 Perfect
11
10 Excellent
9
8 Very good
7
6 Good
5
4 Fair
3
2 Poor
1

(They have recently switched to a 1-100 rather than 1-36 scoring system)

Do Allbinos even test resolution ?
http://www.allbinos.com/2.1-article-How_do_we_test_binoculars_.html
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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