-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Canon 10x42 L IS waterproof binoculars coming soon (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dreamseason
- Start date
More options
Who Replied?Kimmo, I just used the 2 AA's that was included in the box from Canon. I am still on my original AA's in my Canon 12x36 IS II's that I purchased July 1 2004 . The new 10x42's and 12x36 IS II's are rated for four hours but the 10x42's have a 5 minute mode that works better for me than holding the IS button down. I have a four pack of lithium AA's that I carry in my backpack when I travel that I plan on using in the IS binoculars.
I think the new 10x42L's will set the standard for fine detail that could be seen in a handheld binocular.
Joe
I think the new 10x42L's will set the standard for fine detail that could be seen in a handheld binocular.
Joe
AlanFrench
Well-known member
jogiba said:[SNIP]
I think the new 10x42L's will set the standard for fine detail that could be seen in a handheld binocular.
Joe
There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.
Clear skies, Alan
AlanFrench said:There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.
Clear skies, Alan
It would be interesting to compare the new Canon 10x42 L IS on a tripod (IS turned off) to good Zeiss 10x42FL and Nikon 10x42SE.
Rich
Ok, you are right but the 10x42L's have better optics, lighter weight , much longer battery life and a close focus of 8.2 ft vs 19.7 ft for the 15x50 and 18x50's. I can pan birds or planes in flight much better with the 10x42L's than my 12x36 IS II's and I think 15x or 18x is pushing the limits of the Canon IS system IMHO.AlanFrench said:There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.
Clear skies, Alan
Joe
A superb 10x could conceivably show as much or more detail to the eye than a mediocre 12x, especially where brightness and contrast count. The 15x Canon, on the other hand, is good enough that it will show significantly more detail with IS than the best of 10x do tripod-mounted. The point, however, is more that thus far the IS binoculars have not quite been able to match the subjective "This is so sharp, bright and contrasty that I could not tell if it were better" impression given by the best non-IS 7-10x binoculars. In addition, for daylight use and when viewing subjects such as birds which sometimes come singly, sometimes in flocks, flitter around and disappear, fly hither and tither etc., smaller magnification with a greater field and depth of field is often very desirable. Another desirable factor thus far missing from IS binoculars but present in the 10x42 is a sufficiently large exit pupil for a comfortable view. I know there are those who maintain that you need at least 5mm to be truly comfortable, but for the most of us the point where diminishing returns really start to figure is around 4mm. There is a big difference in comfort between 3.3 and 4.2 millimeters.
When the specs for the 10x42 came out, I thought that finally Canon has got the package together - if only they don't blow it. Now that the binocular has made Joe O. regress into an infantile state of uncritical adoration (this is a joke, no insult intended) I am very hopefull that finally there might be an IS binocular good enough as a binocular to fulfill the promise of the technology.
I have done enough testing of the 15x50 not to be surprised if it turns out that the 10x42 IS is as good as or better optically than the Nikon SE or Zeiss FL.
And finally, Joe, are those lithiums you mention recharcheable or not, and if they are, how many milliamp-hours is their capacity?
Kimmo
When the specs for the 10x42 came out, I thought that finally Canon has got the package together - if only they don't blow it. Now that the binocular has made Joe O. regress into an infantile state of uncritical adoration (this is a joke, no insult intended) I am very hopefull that finally there might be an IS binocular good enough as a binocular to fulfill the promise of the technology.
I have done enough testing of the 15x50 not to be surprised if it turns out that the 10x42 IS is as good as or better optically than the Nikon SE or Zeiss FL.
And finally, Joe, are those lithiums you mention recharcheable or not, and if they are, how many milliamp-hours is their capacity?
Kimmo
kabsetz said:A superb 10x could conceivably show as much or more detail to the eye than a mediocre 12x, especially where brightness and contrast count.
That is my experience too. Simply comparing magnification and/or objective size does not tell you how much more/less an instrument will show when compared with another instrument unless the differences are large. Optical quality is far too important to ignore. I recall a 20x50 scope on a tripod that showed almost no more detail than my 8x42 binocular hand held, such was the poor image quality of the former. The binocular hinted at bands on a Sparrowhawks chest, whereas the scope just about resolved them.
I have noticed that the eye pieces on these Canon IS instruments look very long. Curious. Also does the 10x42 IS use mirrors or prisms?
Leif
kabsetz said:And finally, Joe, are those lithiums you mention recharcheable or not, and if they are, how many milliamp-hours is their capacity?
Kimmo
Kimmo, they are Energizer e2 non-rechargable lithiums by Eveready Battery Co.
Joe
Canon says they use Vari-Angle prisms in the 10x,12x,15x and 18x. The eyepieces have 7 elements in 5 groups and look like a compact version of Pentax XL eyepieces with the same 65° AFOV.Leif said:That is my experience too. Simply comparing magnification and/or objective size does not tell you how much more/less an instrument will show when compared with another instrument unless the differences are large. Optical quality is far too important to ignore. I recall a 20x50 scope on a tripod that showed almost no more detail than my 8x42 binocular hand held, such was the poor image quality of the former. The binocular hinted at bands on a Sparrowhawks chest, whereas the scope just about resolved them.
I have noticed that the eye pieces on these Canon IS instruments look very long. Curious. Also does the 10x42 IS use mirrors or prisms?
Leif
Anyone who has a Canon SLR system know that the L series of lenses with the red ring are the state of the art in optics and the 10x42L's are the first L series binoculars.
Joe
Last edited:
AlanFrench said:There is simply no reason to expect you will not see more detail in their 12x36, 15x50, or 18x50 versions. The only place the 10x42s could have a visual edge is around dusk or under poor lighting. Things might be close with the 12x36s, but there is sure to be a fair difference when you get to 15x or 18x.
Clear skies, Alan
Alan,
I like the 12x36 and 15x50 Canon IS bins but have to say that the optics of the new 10x42 are superior. It has a noticable greater fov (65 ° vs. 60° afov) which is still sharp over almost the whole fov than the 12x36 and it doesn´t suffer that much from reflections and stray light (flare and backlight properties) than e.g. the 15x50. Also brightness and contrast are better than with the older models IMO. I assume that Canon has improved the transmission with the 10x42. Also the eye relief has been improved (16 mm against 14,5 with e.g. the 12x36).
Kimmo: AFAIK all Canon IS bins (possible exceptions might be the older 12x36 I and 15x45) can be used very well with recharchable NiMH cells. I use them with my 15x50 without any problems.
Leif: since the 10x42 has porro II prisms I assume that there are no mirror surfaces in the light path.
Steve
Last edited:
AlanFrench
Well-known member
I am sure the optics in the 10x42 IS are great, and likely improved in some ways over the original line (hence the L designation) but my question is "which IS binocular shows more detail and allows for identifications from farther away?" When comparing a high quality binoculars with a mediocre one, I am sure that magnification might not be the deciding factor in answering this question. I don't think any of the Canon IS binoculars would be considered mediocre.
I think one of the only - perhaps the only - place that carries binoculars in Schenectady may have the 10x42s. I'll have to pay them a visit and check them out in person.
Clear skies, Alan
I think one of the only - perhaps the only - place that carries binoculars in Schenectady may have the 10x42s. I'll have to pay them a visit and check them out in person.
Clear skies, Alan
Alan,
The two or so 18x50 IS binoculars I have ever tried had such bad image quality that even if they did show more detail than the 15x50, I could not bring myself to use them. Judging from reviews and user reports by others, much better ones must be out there as well, but I feel pretty confident in predicting that your likelihood of getting a good 15x50 is considerably higher than of getting a good 18x50.
With respect to the 15x50 vs the 10x42, even without having yet seen the 10, I am absolutely certain that unless you get a real lemon, the 15x50 will show you more detail in daytime viewing and more stars (within a given square degree of sky) in the night sky. I base this on my original measurements for the resolution of the 15x50, published in my ALULA review and posted on the web, where the hand-held and stabilized Canon 15x50 resolved a standard target from a distance over 1.4 times greater than a tripod-mounted Nikon 10x42 SE and 1.8 times greater than the Nikon hand-held.
However, relative to the eye's ability to discern detail, the 10x42 is in all likelihood significantly sharper, and hopefully (and Joe's account supports this) shows much less of the "stabilizer artefacts" many of us have reported upon and which many users find objectionable to the degree that they are unwilling to use the 15/18x50s.
For those who must see the maximum amount of detail and do not carry a scope with them, the 15x or 18x50 will remain the binocular that delivers. For most of the rest, I predict the 10x42 will become the hands-down favorite.
Kimmo
The two or so 18x50 IS binoculars I have ever tried had such bad image quality that even if they did show more detail than the 15x50, I could not bring myself to use them. Judging from reviews and user reports by others, much better ones must be out there as well, but I feel pretty confident in predicting that your likelihood of getting a good 15x50 is considerably higher than of getting a good 18x50.
With respect to the 15x50 vs the 10x42, even without having yet seen the 10, I am absolutely certain that unless you get a real lemon, the 15x50 will show you more detail in daytime viewing and more stars (within a given square degree of sky) in the night sky. I base this on my original measurements for the resolution of the 15x50, published in my ALULA review and posted on the web, where the hand-held and stabilized Canon 15x50 resolved a standard target from a distance over 1.4 times greater than a tripod-mounted Nikon 10x42 SE and 1.8 times greater than the Nikon hand-held.
However, relative to the eye's ability to discern detail, the 10x42 is in all likelihood significantly sharper, and hopefully (and Joe's account supports this) shows much less of the "stabilizer artefacts" many of us have reported upon and which many users find objectionable to the degree that they are unwilling to use the 15/18x50s.
For those who must see the maximum amount of detail and do not carry a scope with them, the 15x or 18x50 will remain the binocular that delivers. For most of the rest, I predict the 10x42 will become the hands-down favorite.
Kimmo
ln particular, L (for luxury) specifies the lens has one or elements of the following type: low-dispersion glass, anomalous-dispersion glass, fluorite crystal (a Canon specialty), or ground-glass aspheric. L lenses perform at the level of the best from Zeiss and Leica. Should be interesting to see how Canon addresses CA.jogiba said:... Anyone who has a Canon SLR system know that the L series of lenses with the red ring are the state of the art in optics and the 10x42L's are the first L series binoculars.
Hello,
I'm new at bird watching but my wife has been feeding and watching her birds for years and has me very interested. We have a cheap pair of 10x50 bins and I've been in the market for Canon IS. I'm having a rough time in deciding what to buy. I found this forum very informative but still lack a decision on my part. Our use is for watching the birds in our yard, looking at airplanes, looking at the night sky, and taking them with us on our cruises twice a year. I narrowed my choice to the 12x36 IS II and the 15x50 IS but now the new 10x46 have entered my mind. It seems to me the difference between 10 power and 12 power isn't that much but from 10x to 15x should make a big difference. Also, the IS would probably work better with 12x than 15x . I would appreciate some advice. If you had to choose, which binocular would you buy?
Thanks,
Sonny
I'm new at bird watching but my wife has been feeding and watching her birds for years and has me very interested. We have a cheap pair of 10x50 bins and I've been in the market for Canon IS. I'm having a rough time in deciding what to buy. I found this forum very informative but still lack a decision on my part. Our use is for watching the birds in our yard, looking at airplanes, looking at the night sky, and taking them with us on our cruises twice a year. I narrowed my choice to the 12x36 IS II and the 15x50 IS but now the new 10x46 have entered my mind. It seems to me the difference between 10 power and 12 power isn't that much but from 10x to 15x should make a big difference. Also, the IS would probably work better with 12x than 15x . I would appreciate some advice. If you had to choose, which binocular would you buy?
Thanks,
Sonny
Last edited:
Sonny, the only advantage I see with my Canon 12x36 IS II's over my Canon 10x42L IS WP's is weight. With an ultrasharp,chromatic aberration free 65° AFOV view they have the best looking 6.5° FOV in binoculars IMHO. I panned planes and birds with them that makes me feel like I have a NASA tracking system.
I have about 15 pairs of binoculars with several large binoculars from 15x70 to Apogee RA-88-SA's and 25x100's that I use on a Unimount,Unistar or Helix Hercules 12" fork mount that I use in my backyard along with a Bogen 475 tripod with 501 fluid head. That is why I never purchased the 15x50 or 18x50 Canons.
But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.
Joe
I have about 15 pairs of binoculars with several large binoculars from 15x70 to Apogee RA-88-SA's and 25x100's that I use on a Unimount,Unistar or Helix Hercules 12" fork mount that I use in my backyard along with a Bogen 475 tripod with 501 fluid head. That is why I never purchased the 15x50 or 18x50 Canons.
But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.
Joe
Canon says this: "The high quality L series optics, featuring 2 Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) lens elements (on each side), deliver excellent correction for chromatic aberration."Rico said:ln particular, L (for luxury) specifies the lens has one or elements of the following type: low-dispersion glass, anomalous-dispersion glass, fluorite crystal (a Canon specialty), or ground-glass aspheric. L lenses perform at the level of the best from Zeiss and Leica. Should be interesting to see how Canon addresses CA.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=128&modelid=11092
jogiba said:Sonny, the only advantage I see with my Canon 12x36 IS II's over my Canon 10x42L IS WP's is weight. With an ultrasharp,chromatic aberration free 65° AFOV view they have the best looking 6.5° FOV in binoculars IMHO. I panned planes and birds with them that makes me feel like I have a NASA tracking system.
But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.
Thanks Joe. I'll give the 10x42L IS WP's more consideration. They cost more than canon 18x50 and are 3x the price of the Canon 12x36 IS II.
Sonny
dipped said:This bin. is now listed at Anacortes at $1195 roughly equivalent to £660 (UK pounds).
I've seen it even cheaper in the US whereas Warehouse Express want £1100 a pop, i.e. almost twice as much. I'm tempted to write to Canon UK to ask for an explanation of the price differential.
Leif
Sonny said:Sonny, my 80mm f6 Fluorite Triplet APO OTA cost about twice as much as my CR150 150mm f8 achromatic refractor with CG5 mount and I bet the 10x42L's objectives cost alot more than the 50mm objectives in the 18x50's.jogiba said:Sonny, the only advantage I see with my Canon 12x36 IS II's over my Canon 10x42L IS WP's is weight. With an ultrasharp,chromatic aberration free 65° AFOV view they have the best looking 6.5° FOV in binoculars IMHO. I panned planes and birds with them that makes me feel like I have a NASA tracking system.
But for all around use in a waterproof binocular you can't beat the new Canon 10x42L IS WP's IMHO.
Thanks Joe. I'll give the 10x42L IS WP's more consideration. They cost more than canon 18x50 and are 3x the price of the Canon 12x36 IS II.
Sonny
Joe
Hi,
I just bought one of the first 10x42L IS binos from Eagle Optics in Wisconsin (www.eagleoptics.com) for $1,199 before the Canon $100 rebate - a much lower price than I have seen elsewhere. I have had a pair of the 10x30 IS binos for 4? years and before that a pair of Swarovski 8x42 and way back when some Trinovid 10x40s.
The 10x42Ls are built like a tank - very heavily armored, in contrast to the 10x30s which I felt were a bit fragile, having mine go out of alignment twice already. The eye relief is much better, allowing me to wear glasses without any apparent loss of the field of view, a striking contrast to the 10x30s. The 10x42s are HEAVY and LARGE. I would not particularly consider them ergonomic, and they will be a handful for a smaller person. The IS takes longer to settle down than with the 10x30s, but is rock solid when it does settle (2 seconds?), and remains on for 5 minutes or until you lower your binoculars to a vertical position!
What really sold me on the binoculars was a view of a male Wilson's warbler. The color of the bird was so bright, and rich and contrasty in the 10x42Ls, that it was like I had never seen the bird before at all. Did I mention they were heavy.
The binos have real ocular lens caps that won't get lost, caps at the other end as well for good protection. Did I mention they are HEAVY? They come with a nice, padded nylon case with a compartment for extra batteries, and the binos (not the case) comes with a very good neoprene+strap neck strap. The weight has not been a problem around my neck so far, but try holding them up for 15 minutes looking at warblers and your arms get a dramatic workout.
I wish they were smaller and lighter (and I will use my Bushnell 7x24 Customs for travel), but the view these 10x42Ls offer is everything I could hope for.
I just bought one of the first 10x42L IS binos from Eagle Optics in Wisconsin (www.eagleoptics.com) for $1,199 before the Canon $100 rebate - a much lower price than I have seen elsewhere. I have had a pair of the 10x30 IS binos for 4? years and before that a pair of Swarovski 8x42 and way back when some Trinovid 10x40s.
The 10x42Ls are built like a tank - very heavily armored, in contrast to the 10x30s which I felt were a bit fragile, having mine go out of alignment twice already. The eye relief is much better, allowing me to wear glasses without any apparent loss of the field of view, a striking contrast to the 10x30s. The 10x42s are HEAVY and LARGE. I would not particularly consider them ergonomic, and they will be a handful for a smaller person. The IS takes longer to settle down than with the 10x30s, but is rock solid when it does settle (2 seconds?), and remains on for 5 minutes or until you lower your binoculars to a vertical position!
What really sold me on the binoculars was a view of a male Wilson's warbler. The color of the bird was so bright, and rich and contrasty in the 10x42Ls, that it was like I had never seen the bird before at all. Did I mention they were heavy.
The binos have real ocular lens caps that won't get lost, caps at the other end as well for good protection. Did I mention they are HEAVY? They come with a nice, padded nylon case with a compartment for extra batteries, and the binos (not the case) comes with a very good neoprene+strap neck strap. The weight has not been a problem around my neck so far, but try holding them up for 15 minutes looking at warblers and your arms get a dramatic workout.
I wish they were smaller and lighter (and I will use my Bushnell 7x24 Customs for travel), but the view these 10x42Ls offer is everything I could hope for.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 4K
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)