[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

How could they be sharper than the 12? Was the 12 a poor sample?

Bob

They were. Alot of people have said the 10X is sharper than the 12X. Probably has something to do with the lower magnification looking sharper.

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

They were. Alot of people have said the 10X is sharper than the 12X. Probably has something to do with the lower magnification looking sharper.

I can confirm this from experience. The 12x36 that I was kindly given the opportunity to look through in the field by a fellow birder, and that was my first experience with IS binoculars, were great; sharp and bright, relaxed views, outperformed my Bynolyt Buzzards 10x42 by a mile or two.

In the store where I was determined to get the 12x36's, I found them to be less than satisfying, not quite as relaxed somehow, with strange quirks I was not comfortable with.
In comparison, the 10x30's I tried were way better, as Dennis describes;
so I bought these instead of the 12's that I had set my mind on.

Sample variation is ONE reason to try out before you buy!

Best regards,

Ronald

[medinabrit]

I have the 10, 30 & 15 Canonon ISs.I find i use the 12x36 more than all of the others combined.
Recently i compared the 15s to my 15x56 Swaro & fount that the Canons clear to just about the very edge.Actually better than the Swaros.
Why do i keep the Swaros? .waterproof & tough.And still a great bin.
I honestly think that the ISs are as good as any bins on the market optically.
Just not waterproof.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by medinabrit

I have the 10, 30 & 15 Canonon ISs.I find i use the 12x36 more than all of the others combined.
Recently i compared the 15s to my 15x56 Swaro & fount that the Canons clear to just about the very edge.Actually better than the Swaros.
Why do i keep the Swaros? .waterproof & tough.And still a great bin.
I honestly think that the ISs are as good as any bins on the market optically.
Just not waterproof.

Yes, I think they are better than anything outside of the Swarovision when it comes to edge sharpness. I compared them to my Nikon 10x35 EII's and although they weren't quite as good overall optically(What IS!) I could discern more detail because of the IS stabilization and of course they were sharper at the edge. I feel the Canon 10x30 IS is MORE stabile with the IS engaged than the 12x36 IS because of the lower magnification. I also think you are right about sample variation because these new Canon 10x30 IS I just bought seem to have a better stabilization mechanism than my 12x36's or my last 10x30's. They are almost rock solid or as if your binoculars were on a tripod. Quite amazing really. The IS system is faster if that is possible in that it ENGAGES faster than my old pair. I had them in the house comparing them to my Zeiss 8x32 FL's and I was trying to read the numbers on the microwave from across the room and I could read them clearly with the Canon's with the IS engaged and I couldn't with the Zeiss.

[KorHaan]

Oooh, am I glad I'm not the only one trying to read texts indoors, Dennis.
For example, and this good: we have a picture of two lovely teddybears printed on a metal plate in the open kitchen.
Sitting on the couch with my 18x50 IS's I can read the small text

c 1984 SNP CHICAGO 60614

made in hongkong

from 7 meters away ( I checked). The first sentence is 1 mm high, the second 0.7 mm ( I checked with a measure tape).

That's pretty good performance from the bins, and pretty daft that I'm actually doing this.

BTW, I couldn't read the text with my 10x30 IS's, IS switched on. Nor with my Dialyts 10x40 BT*'s.

Best regards,

Ronald

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

Oooh, am I glad I'm not the only one trying to read texts indoors, Dennis.
For example, and this good: we have a picture of two lovely teddybears printed on a metal plate in the open kitchen.
Sitting on the couch with my 18x50 IS's I can read the small text

c 1984 SNP CHICAGO 60614

made in hongkong

from 7 meters away ( I checked). The first sentence is 1 mm high, the second 0.7 mm ( I checked with a measure tape).

That's pretty good performance from the bins, and pretty daft that I'm actually doing this.

BTW, I couldn't read the text with my 10x30 IS's, IS switched on. Nor with my Dialyts 10x40 BT*'s.

Best regards,

Ronald

I am sure you get even greater detail with the higher magnification IS binoculars but you lose FOV and close focusing ability ,as well as, compactness so they become less desireable for closer range birding and for following faster moving birds. For long range I am sure the 18x50 IS's are the Cats Meow but I tend to think the 10x30 IS is more versatile for the way I use my binoculars. But I am impressed at how much difference having a steady view increases your detail recognition. Would you rate the 18x50's as steady as the 10x30's or less so because of the higher magnification. How do you hold them with out your arms dropping off?

[ceasar]

I have enough 10s. EDG, SE, and EII. I'm trying to decide on a 12 or better and have been considering a Canon 12 x 36 or 15 x 50. I'll have to think a while longer on it. 12 SE would be nice but I think I'd prefer IS at that power.

Bob

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I have enough 10s. EDG, SE, and EII. I'm trying to decide on a 12 or better and have been considering a Canon 12 x 36 or 15 x 50. I'll have to think a while longer on it. 12 SE would be nice but I think I'd prefer IS at that power.

Bob

Even though you have other 10X's you might be surprised how much more detail you can see with the Canon 10X30 IS's because of the steady image. It's quite amazing what a steady image will do for seeing detail. You will see more detail with the Canon's even though your other binoculars might have better overall optics. I liked the Canon's better than my Nikon 10x35 EII's because although the EII's have slightly better optics and not much really because the Canon's optics are excellent and actually their edge sharpness is way better than the EII's I can see MORE with the Canon's because they are like they are mounted on a tripod. It depends how steady you hold your 10X's. Me I shake all over the place with 10X. I think you will find you make out more detail with the Canon's. I had the Canon 12X36's and I prefer the 10X30's for the bigger FOV and they are brighter and sharper and they are lighter and more compact plus they are cheaper than the 12X36's. There is quite an advantage even at 10X with image stabilization. You don't need to buy the 12X's to see a noticeable difference. I don't feel the 12X's are as versatile because of smaller FOV and it is harder to track and find smaller birds.

[james holdsworth]

I have used nothing but tens for decades now and have never noticed any shake or unsteadiness, except on boats or really gusty winds. I guess it's an adaptation. I actually find a very light bin harder to steady, as my pulse tends to make it jump every few seconds.

I have tried IS bins before and, frankly, have seen very little advantage. I think for extended viewing, like at a nest or something, they would be superior though.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by james holdsworth

I have used nothing but tens for decades now and have never noticed any shake or unsteadiness, except on boats or really gusty winds. I guess it's an adaptation. I actually find a very light bin harder to steady, as my pulse tends to make it jump every few seconds.

I have tried IS bins before and, frankly, have seen very little advantage. I think for extended viewing, like at a nest or something, they would be superior though.

I think as I get older I shake more. 10X are definitely harder to hold steady than 8X for me and the 10X Canon with the IS definitely shows more detail than my other 10X's because of this. 10x would definitely be the most magnification I would attempt to handhold. With the Canon IS I find I can hold it on the bird longer and study detail better. Just an observation.

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I am sure you get even greater detail with the higher magnification IS binoculars but you lose FOV and close focusing ability ,as well as, compactness so they become less desireable for closer range birding and for following faster moving birds. For long range I am sure the 18x50 IS's are the Cats Meow but I tend to think the 10x30 IS is more versatile for the way I use my binoculars. But I am impressed at how much difference having a steady view increases your detail recognition. Would you rate the 18x50's as steady as the 10x30's or less so because of the higher magnification. How do you hold them with out your arms dropping off?

The 10x30's are much more versatile, because of their much lighter weight and smaller body, than the 18x50's. They're quicker on a bird.
They are also considerably easier to steady with IS on than the 18x's, the magnification is reaching its limit for IS in the latter, I think. It requires more effort to hold the bins still, but once this is achieved (helped by the inertia of the weight), then there is less shake than in a normal 7x binocular. And no pulse either. They are BIG but easy to hold, due to the rectangular shape, and though it's tiresome to hold them up to your eyes without elbow support, the strain on your arm muscles that would cause more shake is simply not translated into the steady image, which remains unaffected.

The 18x magnification has another advantage; a bird flying away fast can be ID'd though the binoculars take longer to raise to the eyes. I've experienced this when I compared them to the 10x30's which are faster on the eyes, but the 18x50's get more time to recognize details. The longer range you can follow the bird in, in good detail, make the 18x's a winner every time.

But the 10x30's are more versatile, easier brought to the eyes, have a pleasantly wide field of view, and can be held with one hand easily. They're ideal for quick views, and wonderfully pleasant to carry around all day.

The 18x's are more efficient if you don't feel like lugging a scope and tripod around, or whenever this is impossible.

I always take a low, lightweight stool as well, so I can comfortably sit down, resting my elbows on my knees, and even with the little 10x30's this is already a joy. But with the 18x50's it's simply even more rewarding and, quite frankly, the best way to use them.

Best regards,

Ronald

[KorHaan]

BTW...

Anyone noticed that in the " Twitching - A very British obsession" documentary there was a guy who had Canon 10x42 L IS's around his neck? Brett Richards I believe his name is, a top twenty lister in the British ranking. He had a scope too. Now that's what I call dedicated!

Best regards,

Ronald

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

The 10x30's are much more versatile, because of their much lighter weight and smaller body, than the 18x50's. They're quicker on a bird.
They are also considerably easier to steady with IS on than the 18x's, the magnification is reaching its limit for IS in the latter, I think. It requires more effort to hold the bins still, but once this is achieved (helped by the inertia of the weight), then there is less shake than in a normal 7x binocular. And no pulse either. They are BIG but easy to hold, due to the rectangular shape, and though it's tiresome to hold them up to your eyes without elbow support, the strain on your arm muscles that would cause more shake is simply not translated into the steady image, which remains unaffected.

The 18x magnification has another advantage; a bird flying away fast can be ID'd though the binoculars take longer to raise to the eyes. I've experienced this when I compared them to the 10x30's which are faster on the eyes, but the 18x50's get more time to recognize details. The longer range you can follow the bird in, in good detail, make the 18x's a winner every time.

But the 10x30's are more versatile, easier brought to the eyes, have a pleasantly wide field of view, and can be held with one hand easily. They're ideal for quick views, and wonderfully pleasant to carry around all day.

The 18x's are more efficient if you don't feel like lugging a scope and tripod around, or whenever this is impossible.

I always take a low, lightweight stool as well, so I can comfortably sit down, resting my elbows on my knees, and even with the little 10x30's this is already a joy. But with the 18x50's it's simply even more rewarding and, quite frankly, the best way to use them.

Best regards,

Ronald

I guess that both magnifications have their place. Very nice binoculars. I guess I would like to try the Canon 10x42L IS's. I hear they are pretty heavy but have superb optics. Waterproof too.

[Sancho]

As a confirmed imbecile, I´ve owned all the Canons except the 18x50, which I´ve tried in a store. Here´s a rapid-fire assessment:

Canon IS 8x25: Very, very nice optics. Horrible handling, very cheap and plasticky. IS system great when you´re already on the bird, but lousy for panning - very jerky. No great advantage over a regular good 8x bino if you can hold these steady.

Canon IS 10x30: Great. Small. Look chunky, but they´re not really. Optics good, finger falls right on the IS button. Great panning. At an airshow, they outclassed all other binos (including EII, SE, and SV) for viewing planes, with great cockpit-views, passing by. However, something lacking in terms of "vividness" of image when viewing birds in anything less than very bright conditions. I can´t explain this, but the image appeared flat and a bit lifeless sometimes. I didn´t choose them as a general "all-purpose" bino for this reason.

Canon IS 12x36: Great. A lot lighter and more user-friendly than they look. Finger falls nicely on the IS button, and the extra mag makes a big difference. A great complement to a pair of light 8x binos, or compacts. A bit more CA than the IS 10x30, but no big deal. You can still see far more detail of the bird, whether at rest or in flight. Optics good, not great. I learned the great shortcoming of Canon IS binos when they fell, and got knocked out of collimation. Three attempts at repair ended up with the collimation fixed, but the IS system totally banjaxed. I gave up.

Canon IS 10x42 L: I got these 2nd-hand and had them briefly. Truly stunning optics, despite more CA than I liked. But tank-like in build, and the finger-fall for the IS button was way off, making them fiddly to use. I decided quickly that they didn´t have much advantage over a top-class 8x non-IS bino, particularly after wearing them around my neck one day for about an hour and doing my spine a little damage. My bad, not Canon´s.

Canon IS 18x50: I tried these in a store. Nice. But narrow, and a bit darker than I would be comfortable with. The dealer wanted an outrageous price so I walked.

Canon IS 15x50: I´ve been yearning for these for years, and this Christmas intercepted Santa. After a brief struggle I wrested them from his sack. I like them a lot. They are as heavy as the 10x42, but for some reason (perhaps greater caution on my part), I haven´t damaged my neck with them yet. I carry them in a neoprene padded shoulder-bag designed for an old-fashioned JVC camcorder, into which they fit snugly. The optics aren´t as good as the 8x25 IS or the 10x42 L IS, but they are very, very good. CA evident, but it is a joy to get an ID, or more detail, on birds that are quite distant. Easy to use, the IS button falls right under the finger (although I don´t like the "click-on, click-off" IS; my personal preference is for the 12x36 "push and hold down to activate" version of the 10x30 or 12x36). These replace in certain circumstances (most?) a Nikon ED50 or a bigger scope. They may also be a joy to use on seawatches, in conjunction with a big scope, but that remains to be seen next July-September.

Bottom line? If you want a Canon IS bino as an all-round bino, go for 10x30 or 12x36. If you don´t need very high-mag, the 12x36 is about as good as it gets. And as the prices of Canon IS binos are progressive in quantum leaps, the 12x36 is about the best value IMHO. I am undecided as to whether the 15x50 represents a major improvement on the 12x36 - a 25% increase in mag, for a far greater increase in weight and bulk, and FOV-loss. My gut-feeling at the moment is that the IS 12x36 represents the best compromise between pushing the mag on the one hand, and retaining generally usable FOV and handling on the other. Just don´t drop them.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Sancho

As a confirmed imbecile, I´ve owned all the Canons except the 18x50, which I´ve tried in a store. Here´s a rapid-fire assessment:

Canon IS 8x25: Very, very nice optics. Horrible handling, very cheap and plasticky. IS system great when you´re already on the bird, but lousy for panning - very jerky. No great advantage over a regular good 8x bino if you can hold these steady.

Canon IS 10x30: Great. Small. Look chunky, but they´re not really. Optics good, finger falls right on the IS button. Great panning. At an airshow, they outclassed all other binos (including EII, SE, and SV) for viewing planes, with great cockpit-views, passing by. However, something lacking in terms of "vividness" of image when viewing birds in anything less than very bright conditions. I can´t explain this, but the image appeared flat and a bit lifeless sometimes. I didn´t choose them as a general "all-purpose" bino for this reason.

Canon IS 12x36: Great. A lot lighter and more user-friendly than they look. Finger falls nicely on the IS button, and the extra mag makes a big difference. A great complement to a pair of light 8x binos, or compacts. A bit more CA than the IS 10x30, but no big deal. You can still see far more detail of the bird, whether at rest or in flight. Optics good, not great. I learned the great shortcoming of Canon IS binos when they fell, and got knocked out of collimation. Three attempts at repair ended up with the collimation fixed, but the IS system totally banjaxed. I gave up.

Canon IS 10x42 L: I got these 2nd-hand and had them briefly. Truly stunning optics, despite more CA than I liked. But tank-like in build, and the finger-fall for the IS button was way off, making them fiddly to use. I decided quickly that they didn´t have much advantage over a top-class 8x non-IS bino, particularly after wearing them around my neck one day for about an hour and doing my spine a little damage. My bad, not Canon´s.

Canon IS 18x50: I tried these in a store. Nice. But narrow, and a bit darker than I would be comfortable with. The dealer wanted an outrageous price so I walked.

Canon IS 15x50: I´ve been yearning for these for years, and this Christmas intercepted Santa. After a brief struggle I wrested them from his sack. I like them a lot. They are as heavy as the 10x42, but for some reason (perhaps greater caution on my part), I haven´t damaged my neck with them yet. I carry them in a neoprene padded shoulder-bag designed for an old-fashioned JVC camcorder, into which they fit snugly. The optics aren´t as good as the 8x25 IS or the 10x42 L IS, but they are very, very good. CA evident, but it is a joy to get an ID, or more detail, on birds that are quite distant. Easy to use, the IS button falls right under the finger (although I don´t like the "click-on, click-off" IS; my personal preference is for the 12x36 "push and hold down to activate" version of the 10x30 or 12x36). These replace in certain circumstances (most?) a Nikon ED50 or a bigger scope. They may also be a joy to use on seawatches, in conjunction with a big scope, but that remains to be seen next July-September.

Bottom line? If you want a Canon IS bino as an all-round bino, go for 10x30 or 12x36. If you don´t need very high-mag, the 12x36 is about as good as it gets. And as the prices of Canon IS binos are progressive in quantum leaps, the 12x36 is about the best value IMHO. I am undecided as to whether the 15x50 represents a major improvement on the 12x36 - a 25% increase in mag, for a far greater increase in weight and bulk, and FOV-loss. My gut-feeling at the moment is that the IS 12x36 represents the best compromise between pushing the mag on the one hand, and retaining generally usable FOV and handling on the other. Just don´t drop them.

Nice review! I have had the Canon 8x25, 10x30 and the 12x36 IS binoculars. I prefer the 10x30 IS for all around use because of the larger FOV, smaller more compact size and to me it seems sharper and brighter than the other two. It is interesting you didn't like the 10x42 L IS because it gets rave reviews all over. I understand your trying them all. It's fun to try them and see what the differences are. They are a fun binocular to own and use with the IS. I think the lack of vividness and flat, lifeless view you describe in the 10x30 is probably due to their field flatteners and probably the fact that they don't have the contrast of the top alphas. Funny, but I noticed this more in the 12x36's than the 10x30's.

[Kevin Purcell]

Great summary, Sancho.

If I might add:

Canon IS 8x25: Silly flat lithium battery ... what were they thinking?

Canon IS 10x42 L: Finger fall is bad but the button only has to be pushed to turn on IS and pushed (or the bin returned to the upright and hanging position) to turn of IS "click-on, click-off". Canon really intended that IS be on all the time. I'm slightly curious why they didn't make this fully automatic based on the gravity/shake accelerometer. They should come with a harness.

I think the best bang per buck is the 10x30 (it's the cheapest edge to edge sharp bin even without the IS!) but the updated 10x42 might make a good top end bin that you never want to trade in (ask Kimmo!).

Originally Posted by KorHaan

BTW...

Anyone noticed that in the " Twitching - A very British obsession" documentary there was a guy who had Canon 10x42 L IS's around his neck? Brett Richards I believe his name is, a top twenty lister in the British ranking. He had a scope too. Now that's what I call dedicated!

I noticed that too.

If you are "in the Premiership" you'd better take a scope too. Wouldn't want to get a hypertwitch like the Eastern Crowned Warbler in Sunderland (filmed in the documentary) and not get a view.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-1808131.html

News of the sighting brought anoraked and optics-laden enthusiasts flocking to South Tyneside from all over the country.

Wasn't Brett Richards the older guy who was about to retire? Perhaps the one I had most sympathy with. BTW, the documentary is strongly recommended to see the "outer reaches" of birding. Quite an affectionate view too.

It all started on BF too. See these threads:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=112879
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=148517

[KorHaan]

Hi Sancho,

Congrats on the 15x50's!

Nice summing-up of the IS-models, thanks, very useful.
As much as I'd like to own the 10x42's, I still can't make the jump and empty my pockets for a pair. Your assessment of the "fingerfall" on the IS-button has added a little more doubt if I truly need these bins. Remarkebly, when lined up, the 10x42 and 15x50 IS's seem to show no conceivable difference as to thye location of the IS-button:

http://www.tvwg.nl/testrapporten/kij...en12x36stb.htm

as shown on Jan Meijerinks review site.

I have, like you, no problem to place my index finger on the IS-button of the 18x50's, which are identical to the 15x50's. Is the IS-button on the 10x42's really that far off that it becomes awkward to reach?

BTW, the "click" of the button I've gotten used to. And the IS can also be engaged like in the 10x30's and 12x36's by keeping it pressed down; you don't have to release it when you don't want to.

And finally, for what it's worth: the 15x50's and 18x50's are all-weather, meaning they can be used in heavy rain without damage. (See instruction booklet.) And believe me, mine have been used in very, very wet weather, downpours, drizzle and sleet, seawatches with salt spray and sand blown over them, and have survived all ordeals with flying colours.
No scratch marks on the lenses either, the coatings are tough as nails.

Best regards,

Ronald

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Wasn't Brett Richards the older guy who was about to retire? ]

Yes, that's him. He got my sympathy too, the whole documentary was a joy to watch. Very nicely done.

Best regards,

Ronald

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

Yes, that's him. He got my sympathy too, the whole documentary was a joy to watch. Very nicely done.

Of all the guys he was the one I thought I'd most like to go birding with. I also noticed that he was counting (and not just listing) when seawatching. Sign of a good guy.

Canon 10x24 L and a Zeiss 85FL ... almost a man after my own heart!

[kabsetz]

Ronald,

I second Sancho's opinion about the IS button on the 10x42. I moved to this binocular from the 15x50, and even though it looks like the button is just in the same place and equally well contoured so that you should find it by "feel," it just isn't as natural to use. A big part of this comes, at least in my sample, from the button needing considerably more force to press and activate than in the 15x, so even after some considerable use and familiarity, it still happens that I don't push hard enough to activate and have to push again. With the 10x, it also takes more force to keep it down if you wish to use it the "push/on - release/off" way. With the 15x, the button always worked as I thought it should.

Kimmo

[Sancho]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

BTW, the "click" of the button I've gotten used to. And the IS can also be engaged like in the 10x30's and 12x36's by keeping it pressed down; you don't have to release it when you don't want to.

And finally, for what it's worth: the 15x50's and 18x50's are all-weather, meaning they can be used in heavy rain without damage.
Best regards,

Ronald

Thanks Ronald! Good to know. The click-on/off is useful, but not always.

It´s a very personal thing, and all depends on how steady one can hold a good regular 8x/10x bino, but I think that below 12x, I don´t really need IS at all. The advantage of the 10x42L IS is outweighed (literally!) by it´s bulk and chunkiness.

It´s a pity, though, that the 8x25 IS isn´t a runner. When on a bird, in the garden for example, the views are beautiful. I don´t know why it pans so badly, but I tried two samples and didn´t like them. The FOV is also a bit tight compared to a normal 8x bino. The 10x30 IS is a nice bino, very easy to use, it´s a pity it wasn´t produced in an 8x30 IS version, with a wider FOV.

I´ll look forward to testing the 15x50 IS on a seawatch with some rain added. It certainly looks fairly weather-resistant.

[Kevin Purcell]

I´ll look forward to testing the 15x50 IS on a seawatch with some rain added. It certainly looks fairly weather-resistant.

But careful with the rain though. Wasn't there someone who reported he had a warranty repair turned down by Canon on the 15x50 or 18x50 because he got them wet. Just weather wet not immersion wet. They're just resistant not waterproof so Canon didn't see the need to fix them.

It seems like a worse gray area than the SE

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by kabsetz

Ronald,

I second Sancho's opinion about the IS button on the 10x42. I moved to this binocular from the 15x50, and even though it looks like the button is just in the same place and equally well contoured so that you should find it by "feel," it just isn't as natural to use. A big part of this comes, at least in my sample, from the button needing considerably more force to press and activate than in the 15x, so even after some considerable use and familiarity, it still happens that I don't push hard enough to activate and have to push again. With the 10x, it also takes more force to keep it down if you wish to use it the "push/on - release/off" way. With the 15x, the button always worked as I thought it should.

Kimmo

Thanks, Kimmo.
Doesn't this bother you, after the 15x's? Is there some obstruction underneath that has something to do with the JIS 7- level waterproofing, I wonder?
If I'm not mistaken it is adviced to renew the rubber sealings around the battery door compartment every two years, to prevent leaking under submersion. Maybe it's got to do with that, somehow. Otherwise, I wouldn't know.

Best regards,

Ronald

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Sancho

It´s a very personal thing, and all depends on how steady one can hold a good regular 8x/10x bino, but I think that below 12x, I don´t really need IS at all. The advantage of the 10x42L IS is outweighed (literally!) by it´s bulk and chunkiness.
.

That's what I think, too. That's why I keep saying to myself that 1110 grams isn't all that much for such wonderful views, but though it's not as heavy as my 18x50's, these latter have the obvious advantage of showing me stuff the 10x42's couldn't. For no other reason do I tolerate that much weight!

Best regards,

Ronald

[KorHaan]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

But careful with the rain though. Wasn't there someone who reported he had a warranty repair turned down by Canon on the 15x50 or 18x50 because he got them wet. Just weather wet not immersion wet. They're just resistant not waterproof so Canon didn't see the need to fix them.

It seems like a worse gray area than the SE

When I did some research on the 10x42 L IS's on the Internet, I strayed into some German forum discussion that got my neckhairs raised.
During an excursion by motorbike ( or moped, I forgot) the JIS7-level waterproof Canon 10x42 L IS's of one guy fogged up in one tube badly when they were underway for hours in pouring rain.

I'll take my chances with the 18x50's in the rain, because they're too bulky to
put them under my coat. We'll see if I need to post another tale of woe on here in the future, but for the time being I'll be using them as intended, i.e. in heavy rain.

Best regards,

Ronald