celestron regal 10x42 vx canon 12x36 IS II (1 Viewer)

I bought a pair of secondhand canon 12x36 IS II off evilbay & over the next few days will do a comparison between these two..I bought the canon because when birding i would like to magnify a little deeper -i am also curious to test the Image stabilising function - which i have only ever used with d-slr (works well)

Overall ergonomics: even thought the canon is a porro - it looks much more like a roof imo. The mass i have not accurately measured but the binos feel about the same score = 0
. Holding in the hands the canon are bulky into the middle due to the electronics/battery compartment but they feel good & fit my hands quite well. The regal's actually feel skinny to me - I am 6'1/2" and while my hands are overly large the regals seem to have my fingers overlapping somewhat - in this respect the canon are much preferred by me. score 1 = canon

The neck straps are quite similar - neither being impressive (for long birding walks i will always take my bino harness (a good $15 investment)

The cases are both soft cases - neither would stop any sort of serious impact. the celestron feels quite nice - & hugs the binos. The canon feels flimsy in response - and is overly long, with a strange tilt at one end - the case is not rectangular but is longer on one long side..(i don't see why) score 1 = regals

The lens covers on the canon are invisible - the regals while having lens covers are totally in-adequate, both brands score = 0 for lens covers (these companies should do better for a $5 cover)

The regals have a nice single eyepice cover with bendable centre -it holds the ep's & does not fall off..it is attached to the neck strap. The canon have cheap pop on separated caps - fallen off first time i took them out of the case score = 2 regals.
The ep's themselves have about the same size glass - the regals have a green tint whereas the canons have a orange/brown tint. The regals have hard twist up eyecups - the canons soft flimsy eyecups - now that i wear glasses while observing i much prefer the soft rubber - which i can roll down - without glasses it is down to personal preference. The diopter adjustment on the regals is quite stiff, the canons quite smooth. score = 2 canon

I looked at the rubber lens covers i got from EO for the regals -they don't come close to fitting the canon's I don't understand why the lens housing is so big for only 36mm of glass - i presume it fits their 42mm bins as well.

Using my laser pointer subjectively i tested for reflections off the glass. he regals ep's reflected more light than then canon's. Off the objective lens it was fairly close..i checked a couple of times but i think the canon's had it just. score = 3 canon

close focus - no contest, regals = 3

It was almost dark by the time i got home, i had an opportunity to briefly check out the IS - firstly i (looking for shake) noticed how much shake there is at 12x - i was quite amazed as i have never used more than 10x hand held. The IS button needs to be presses for stabilising to take effect - it is not an ON/OFF button, but press for ON - the IS worked very well...comparing with my small shakes, the IS smoothed everything out.
For someone who has not looked thru the IS, i would say it is like the difference between a human having a fit...and a human doing the robot dance. The robot has definite slow movements compared with the jitters of the fit (not trying to offend anyone here)

I will report more optical comparisons when the weather clears - both day & night time views

I forgot - i checked the baffling..both seem quite well baffled - both had many tiny ridges..the regals had a larger pair - i will see if it makes any difference. Testing the reflections on the trotting track lights 1/2 mile away I would say on axis looking directly at light source the canon was ahead, the regal had 2 clear diffraction type spikes - the canon had virtually none. Off axis (light just outisde the fov) the regal appeared a fraction better - but the extra mag of the canons i think was amplifying the stray light slightly more.
score canons = 4

I tested this afternoon during overcast conditions - the regals were not really noticeably brighter. Looking at the sharpness the canons clearly had the edge
score = 6 canons (2 for sharpness). I could see more detail..it was like using a macro lens compared with a normal lens for close shots (the extras mag i think contributed)
i also thought at distance i detected a hint of CA in the regals, the slightest green tinge..the canons had none.

I also tested the close focus..i managed slightly better than 5m..i guessed maybe close to 4m looking at a small bird in a tree

Tonight thru the clouds got a brief look at the stars - the regals are very good out to 80%, fair from 80-90% then poor last 10%. The canons i feel were excellent to 80%, v good to 90% then fair last 10%...I am really surprised how well the pinpoints in them were- on axis then right to the edge..better than the fuji 16x70 at the edge of the field

score = canon 7..a clear winner & i'll be keeping them (anyone know where i can get a soft WP case for them to protect them)

it is extremely useful at night - for pointing out astronomical features in the sky.
They're not illegal in the UK, but their power is restricted. Mine strobes to keep the average power output down.

Hi dannat,

You've discovered the Canon IS, imo the best kept secret in binocular technology today.
You can probably save your money about the WP case, the glass is pretty weather resistant.
I cannot understand why this palpably superior technology has not become a basic standard for any high end binocular.

etudiant said:

Hi dannat,

You've discovered the Canon IS, imo the best kept secret in binocular technology today.
You can probably save your money about the WP case, the glass is pretty weather resistant.
I cannot understand why this palpably superior technology has not become a basic standard for any high end binocular.

Click to expand...

Fragile, heavy, expensive, short warranty, still pretty quirky to use etc. I will want a pair when they can make them fully mechanical, light and compact and usable for near and far viewing, with quick focus and no lag. I have tried a few IS bins and find them full of compromises. I am a one bin. guy so it has to do it all.....so far they do not IMO.

james holdsworth said:

Fragile, heavy, expensive, short warranty, still pretty quirky to use etc. I will want a pair when they can make them fully mechanical, light and compact and usable for near and far viewing, with quick focus and no lag. I have tried a few IS bins and find them full of compromises. I am a one bin. guy so it has to do it all.....so far they do not IMO.

Click to expand...

Have not seen a fully mechanical calculator since my undergraduate days Friedens and Monroes.
That said, my Canon 10x42 IS is big and bulky, but very usable for near and far viewing.
It works very well even without the IS engaged and delivers a superior performance at half the price or less of conventional alpha glass.

james holdsworth said:

Fragile, heavy, expensive, short warranty, still pretty quirky to use etc. I will want a pair when they can make them fully mechanical, light and compact and usable for near and far viewing, with quick focus and no lag. I have tried a few IS bins and find them full of compromises. I am a one bin. guy so it has to do it all.....so far they do not IMO.

Click to expand...

James:

I agree with you here, I have no desire for any of the IS binoculars. I am a conservative type, no batteries in any optic for me. I can do quite well without the gimics.
I could even get along with a Zeiss FL if need be.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

James:

I agree with you here, I have no desire for any of the IS binoculars. I am a conservative type, no batteries in any optic for me. I can do quite well without the gimics.
I could even get along with a Zeiss FL if need be.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Let's hope it never comes to that!

NDhunter said:

James:

I agree with you here, I have no desire for any of the IS binoculars. I am a conservative type, no batteries in any optic for me. I can do quite well without the gimics.
I could even get along with a Zeiss FL if need be.

Jerry

Click to expand...

It's a great fortune for alpha makers that there are so many conservative users of optics out there who don't want to try something new. A bit irrational to me because IS definitely let you see more but buyers aren't rational, of course.

Steve

hinnark said:

It's a great fortune for alpha makers that there are so many conservative users of optics out there who don't want to try something new. A bit irrational to me because IS definitely let you see more but buyers aren't rational, of course.

Steve

Click to expand...

I don't think that it is 'irrational' to not want an IS bin. I don't want an IS bin because [the ones that I have tried] are inferior to what I have, just simply that............and I don't have shaky hands and see very little advantage in most situations. [as well as the previously mentioned weight, fragility, short warranty.]

I think it's great that people enjoy their bin. of choice but find it a bit insulting to suggest that anyone who doesn't want one [or currently own one] have made an 'irrational' choice.

james holdsworth said:

I don't think that it is 'irrational' to not want an IS bin. I don't want an IS bin because [the ones that I have tried] are inferior to what I have, just simply that............and I don't have shaky hands and see very little advantage in most situations. [as well as the previously mentioned weight, fragility, short warranty.]

I think it's great that people enjoy their bin. of choice but find it a bit insulting to suggest that anyone who doesn't want one [or currently own one] have made an 'irrational' choice.

Click to expand...

Well, as a birdwatcher I just want the bins that show the most details of the birds. In this respect nothing beats IS bins - even if their optics are inferior compared to alpha bins. BTW, I don´t have shaky hands either.

Steve

hinnark said:

It's a great fortune for alpha makers that there are so many conservative users of optics out there who don't want to try something new. A bit irrational to me because IS definitely let you see more but buyers aren't rational, of course.

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve:
Have you tried any alpha optics ? It seems not. Tell me what you will
see that I would not see through an alpha, or any quality optic ?

I am thinking the IS binocular is a very small percentage of optics sold,
and is not a consideration for most people.

Jerry

Everyone has got a right to his own opinion, and people who don't like Canon IS bins have every right to say so, and that's fine with me. But there's one thing I'd like to straighten out, if you don't mind: they're NOT fragile. I know, I have two Canons, the 10x30 IS and the 18x50 IS. The 10x30's have bounced twice already, from 5 feet onto the floor on linoleum, not carpet. They're fine, optically and physically.
The 18x50's I've pretty carelessly used for all kinds of rough birding, including salt-swept seawatches, they've been in hours of drizzle, sudden downpours and nasty sleet, got fine sand blown over them for several hours, got bumped every now and then,
and they seem immune. There's no dents, no scratches on the lenses ( which I particularly ignore cleaning the adviced way), they seem impeccable with rubber armour in place and looking right now as if they've just left the shop where I bought them.

I've had the famous Zeiss FL 7x42, that bounced once, from 3 feet on the same linoleum, they were dented on one objective. The view remained wonderful, so nothing inside was damaged. But I wrecked an eyecup after 4 weeks, got trouble with the diopter adjustment slipping. I sold them to my friend, and after 2 years the cap on top of the focus wheel has disappeared. It had simply fallen off.

I've had 10x32 Trinovids, where my careless cleaning of the ocular lenses caused half of the coating to come off.

Whatever you may say about the Canons, they're every bit as tough as the alpha models, maybe even more so. The electronic bit inside seems well guarded, and it is my believe Canon made a fine series of bins, maybe not to everyone's liking optically, but the housing is reliable.

Best regards,

Ronald

Lately there has been some growing interest in these IS bins on a Dutch forum that I regularly visit. It's funny that I meet the same prejudice as here on Birdforum, the objections are the same, as are the questions.
Frankly, before I got my first pair, I had the same attitude towards the electronics and batteries and all, but that's proven to be of no issue once I actually dared starting to use them in the field.

Now I'm just glad I bought them. The 18x50's mag wipes the floor with all others, no matter what amazing quality these posess, optically.


Hmm...

I think I'm going to own the 10x42 L IS's after all. They seem more and more attractive...

Best regards,

Ronald

NDhunter said:

Steve:
Have you tried any alpha optics ? It seems not. Tell me what you will
see that I would not see through an alpha, or any quality optic ?

I am thinking the IS binocular is a very small percentage of optics sold,
and is not a consideration for most people.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

yes I have tried them. May I suggest that you do a careful side by side (IS vs. non-IS, same magnification) comparison in the field by looking exactly at the same thing (e.g. a bird or, for all I care, a car licence plate) and pay attention to which piece of optics you simply see the most details or with which you can see the finest details easier. Give it a try without preconception. BTW there are also alpha IS binoculars available: Zeiss 20x60S.
Steve

NDhunter said:

Steve:
Have you tried any alpha optics ? It seems not. Tell me what you will
see that I would not see through an alpha, or any quality optic ?

I am thinking the IS binocular is a very small percentage of optics sold,
and is not a consideration for most people.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry: I've tried it. I have alpha bins. You can see more with IS.

e.g. Feather edge detail on a juvi Northern Shrike appeared in the IS bins that wasn't visible in the alpha 10x I was using. It's a field mark described in the field guides. It was a clear difference.

Saying it doesn't make a difference just isn't correct. It takes out a lot of high frequency vibration that limits what you can see with 10x bins.

There are some potential downsides (shorter warranties, weight versus waterproofing, possible fragilitiy though I've not seen many reports of broken bins) but that doesn't mean there aren't upsides too.

There are very few supercars sold but that doesn't stop them being faster than your pickup truck (which are sold in bigger quantities).

...and whereas using a supercar to its horsepower limit may get you killed and should bring you a speedig ticket, the IS, to those of us who use it, brings useful extra performance every time.

Kimmo

Kevin Purcell said:

Jerry: I've tried it. I have alpha bins. You can see more with IS.

e.g. Feather edge detail on a juvi Northern Shrike appeared in the IS bins that wasn't visible in the alpha 10x I was using. It's a field mark described in the field guides. It was a clear difference.

Saying it doesn't make a difference just isn't correct. It takes out a lot of high frequency vibration that limits what you can see with 10x bins.

There are some potential downsides (shorter warranties, weight versus waterproofing, possible fragilitiy though I've not seen many reports of broken bins) but that doesn't mean there aren't upsides too.

There are very few supercars sold but that doesn't stop them being faster than your pickup truck (which are sold in bigger quantities).

Click to expand...

Kevin:

Nice analogy, and I do see where some like the IS binoculars, and I am happy for
you.
By the way, I have several binoculars, and can liken them to my pickup trucks, and a couple of sportscars. I am just not ready to purchase a "hybrid".

The downsides you mention, may limit the popularity, but you have others to
choose from, when you go out the door.

Isn't it wonderful, we have such a wide variety of optics to choose from, and
gives many here, the opportunity to discuss them.

Jerry

KorHaan said:

Lately there has been some growing interest in these IS bins on a Dutch forum that I regularly visit. It's funny that I meet the same prejudice as here on Birdforum, the objections are the same, as are the questions.
Frankly, before I got my first pair, I had the same attitude towards the electronics and batteries and all, but that's proven to be of no issue once I actually dared starting to use them in the field.

Now I'm just glad I bought them. The 18x50's mag wipes the floor with all others, no matter what amazing quality these posess, optically.


Hmm...

I think I'm going to own the 10x42 L IS's after all. They seem more and more attractive...

Best regards,

Ronald

Click to expand...

For me, the big mags -- the 15's and 18's-- seem to be what this format was designed for. I have long thought about one of these monster's as a replacement for a scope, as I HATE lugging a scope and tripod anywhere. Good to hear about their durability and [just so you know I'm not a hater] I will try to get my hands on a 15 or 18 and see if it's for me.

james they don't really replace a scope - but sit clearly between scope & handheld bins

Yes, I can't wait to have my scope/tripod combination at the ready when I finally spot a bittern on the other side of a lake I know which has parking near to viewing points... when walk around lakes, woods and coastlines I only want to be carrying binoculars. Simples!