[NDhunter]

I have been watching the recent threads and excitement over the Canon's.

I must admit I have not tried the IS, but am conservative in nature, and
probably never will.

I do like nice optics, and have noticed the short 3 yr. warranty from Canon,
on the IS styles. That seems very short compared to all of the others, on
regular optics, and that is one thing that would really trouble me.

I do see why many are drawn to the 10x30 selling under $350.00, as if they
do go bad after that time, the repair will be more than value, so just throw
them in the dumpster.

And how about the 10x42 L IS, which lists for $1,599.00, and still
has the 3 yr. warranty, I am wondering who would go for that deal. Also
the 10x42 weighs 37 oz. and that is a heavy load.

A recent post on Cloudy Nites, has some wondering the same, about
the short warranty, all the electronics, and how do these fit in todays,
throw away world.

Jerry

[walternewton]

I think comparing Canon IS electronic binoculars to traditional binoculars is just apples and oranges...FWIW note a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III camera which lists for $6,999 comes with a 1 year warranty.

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

I have been watching the recent threads and excitement over the Canon's.

I must admit I have not tried the IS, but am conservative in nature, and
probably never will.

I do like nice optics, and have noticed the short 3 yr. warranty from Canon,
on the IS styles. That seems very short compared to all of the others, on
regular optics, and that is one thing that would really trouble me.

I do see why many are drawn to the 10x30 selling under $350.00, as if they
do go bad after that time, the repair will be more than value, so just throw
them in the dumpster.

And how about the 10x42 L IS, which lists for $1,599.00, and still
has the 3 yr. warranty, I am wondering who would go for that deal. Also
the 10x42 weighs 37 oz. and that is a heavy load.

A recent post on Cloudy Nites, has some wondering the same, about
the short warranty, all the electronics, and how do these fit in todays,
throw away world.

Jerry

Well Jerry, that is an understandable opinion. If what you have works, why fix it. I get that. What I don't get is the degree of skepticism that leads to the statement you probably never will try them.

That Canon 10x42 L IS will likely equal or defeat anything you have in terms of image optics. You don't have to change over to the IS world, but you should know something about what IS represents. You don't do yourself any favors by avoiding the issue. You will learn a lot in a few minutes with that glass. Yeah it's big, but there are trade offs everyplace.

Even old guard high end makers like Leica and Zeiss with their combo rangefinders and binoculars shave warranty significantly. I think IS has a long way that it will come in short time. It is likely the wave of the future as I see it.

[etudiant]

Most modern electronics are unfixable.
For example, Intel processors around 1500 contacts. No one could repair such a device.
So the warranty is only for a reasonable time, long enough for the device to become obsolescent.

Imo, digital optics such as cameras or IS binoculars are evolving towards a more realistic warranty period, long enough to catch infant mortality failures, but not much more, simply because there is no possibility of economic repair. This might be used as a marketing tool by the old line binocular makers who otherwise cannot keep up with the costs of electronic integration.

[NDhunter]

I guess this thread may be about the electronic and digital age, and how it does
relate to many things today. I am well aware of the technology, as I have a new
digital camera with a 1 yr. warranty, etc. The fact, that todays computers, have a
useful life of 3 yrs. or less.
Walter, does mention the short 1 yr. warranty on the high-end Canon camera, ouch!

In cameras, digital has quickly become the norm. But in binoculars, the IS tech. has
a very small part of the market. I am thinking that will be the case for many years to
come, I hope. Much of my viewing gets by quite nicely with the current technology.
I suppose it is good that sites like this do expand all of the technology available.

As one who has not tried the IS, I do hear from those who use them that the optics are not up to the standards, of many conventional makes, in terms of all of the optical
qualities that make the best try to be better. That is in, resolution, brightness, edge
quality, CA reduction, etc.

If the main thing the IS technology brings to the market, is just image "stabilization",
that may be important, but, it does come down to the "image", and isn't that what
most of us are seeking? If the image is better in the optics many are using now, and
is perfectly stable, and satisfactory, then that is why the technology is in question.

I recently posted a question about binocular ratings, and rankings. I would sure like to see how the Canons compare. These are all tripod mounted to be sure.

Jerry

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

I guess this thread may be about the electronic and digital age, and how it does
relate to many things today. I am well aware of the technology, as I have a new
digital camera with a 1 yr. warranty, etc. The fact, that todays computers, have a
useful life of 3 yrs. or less.
Walter, does mention the short 1 yr. warranty on the high-end Canon camera, ouch!

In cameras, digital has quickly become the norm. But in binoculars, the IS tech. has
a very small part of the market. I am thinking that will be the case for many years to
come, I hope. Much of my viewing gets by quite nicely with the current technology.
I suppose it is good that sites like this do expand all of the technology available.

As one who has not tried the IS, I do hear from those who use them that the optics are not up to the standards, of many conventional makes, in terms of all of the optical
qualities that make the best try to be better. That is in, resolution, brightness, edge
quality, CA reduction, etc.

If the main thing the IS technology brings to the market, is just image "stabilization",
that may be important, but, it does come down to the "image", and isn't that what
most of us are seeking? If the image is better in the optics many are using now, and
is perfectly stable, and satisfactory, then that is why the technology is in question.

I recently posted a question about binocular ratings, and rankings. I would sure like to see how the Canons compare. These are all tripod mounted to be sure.

Jerry

Jerry
Take it from me. Give the Canon 10x42 L IS's a try sometime. Even without the IS engaged their optics are I assure you equal to any alpha out there. With the IS on they produce the best image and the most detail I have ever seen from any binocular. Their edge sharpness is the BEST I have ever seen. I am going down to one binocular and I want the best view I can get and I am willing to hold 36 oz. to get it. I sold my Zeiss 8x32 FL's, Nikon 8x30 EII's, and my Canon 10x30 IS's. The Canon 10x42 L IS's are big but man what a view. I compared them and their was no question which binocular for me produced the best view and the winner is the Canon 10x42 L IS. Try em.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

I have been watching the recent threads and excitement over the Canon's.

I must admit I have not tried the IS, but am conservative in nature, and
probably never will.

I do like nice optics, and have noticed the short 3 yr. warranty from Canon,
on the IS styles. That seems very short compared to all of the others, on
regular optics, and that is one thing that would really trouble me.

I do see why many are drawn to the 10x30 selling under $350.00, as if they
do go bad after that time, the repair will be more than value, so just throw
them in the dumpster.

And how about the 10x42 L IS, which lists for $1,599.00, and still
has the 3 yr. warranty, I am wondering who would go for that deal. Also
the 10x42 weighs 37 oz. and that is a heavy load.

A recent post on Cloudy Nites, has some wondering the same, about
the short warranty, all the electronics, and how do these fit in todays,
throw away world.

Jerry

Jerry
You can get the Canon 10x42 L IS from Amazon.com for $1100.00 with free shipping. If you don't like them you can easily return them. Read all the reviews on them on Amazon. They are rated 5 stars. Try them and see what you think. They are big but give them a chance.

[Steve C]

Jerry

I have to agree with Dennis. The image is alpha. IS pretty much means no tripod. The image is not second rate even in the Canon models below the L IS.

As far as hearing from others that the optics are somehow second rate, maybe they are talking about something else.

You need to look at these things for yourself. When you do you might wonder some about this thread. They were for me a real experience. I am still steady enough with conventional glass but the 10x42 L IS has my attention and I am considering a pair.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Steve C

Jerry

I have to agree with Dennis. The image is alpha. IS pretty much means no tripod. The image is not second rate even in the Canon models below the L IS.

As far as hearing from others that the optics are somehow second rate, maybe they are talking about something else.

You need to look at these things for yourself. When you do you might wonder some about this thread. They were for me a real experience. I am still steady enough with conventional glass but the 10x42 L IS has my attention and I am considering a pair.

Yes pretty much the whole Canon line is first rate and even the Canon 10x30 IS is very NEAR alpha quality and it beats almost everything in edge sharpness especially the FL. The Canon 10x42 L IS is without a doubt the best view I have seen from anything especially with the IS engaged. But it is definitely not for every birder because of the size and weight.

[NDhunter]

These do sound tempting, but I have not seen these in any of the large sporting goods
stores I go to. They cater mainly to outdoors sports such as hunting etc.
Do some of the larger camera stores, carrry the Canon, as they have the top cameras
there? I have been to a Ritz Camera, but they don't carry many binoculars.

I shouldn't be so hard on the satisfied users here, and wish you well with these.
I am a little old fashioned, and just try to keep some things simple. My optics have
to be a reasonable weight for carry, and low light use, and so brightness is another
important factor.
Also, warranty is important to me, and why I have settled in with good experiences with
Nikon and Swarovski.


Jerry

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

These do sound tempting, but I have not seen these in any of the large sporting goods
stores I go to. They cater mainly to outdoors sports such as hunting etc.
Do some of the larger camera stores, carrry the Canon, as they have the top cameras
there? I have been to a Ritz Camera, but they don't carry many binoculars.

I shouldn't be so hard on the satisfied users here, and wish you well with these.
I am a little old fashioned, and just try to keep some things simple. My optics have
to be a reasonable weight for carry, and low light use, and so brightness is another
important factor.

Jerry

If weight is a big priority forget these but really they are not that much heavier than a full size 8x42. I mean really what difference does 6oz. make? I would not recommend them for a petite woman for instance. They are like carrying a 10x50 which alot of birders do. Once you get use to the shake free view you won't go back. You pretty much have to get them online. Buy them at Amazon and if you don't like them send them back. It's very easy. Be prepared though they are going to be bigger than a Zeiss 8x32 FL!

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

I shouldn't be so hard on the satisfied users here, and wish you well with these.
I am a little old fashioned, and just try to keep some things simple. My optics have to be a reasonable weight for carry, and low light use, and so brightness is another important factor.
Also, warranty is important to me, and why I have settled in with good experiences with Nikon and Swarovski.

Jerry

I don't see this as you being hard on anybody but yourself .

Now, having admitted I am considering the 10x42 L IS, I am looking at some things differently than I would be with a conventional glass. With batteries and the physical and electronic components of the IS at play, yeah, I do see where durability can be an issue. I'm not sure it's worth a $1,500 for something that will be obsolescent in three years when the L II series comes out and a three year's warranty does seem short.

So, if I get these, I will use something on the lines of a Badlands Bino bag to keep them out of the elements as much as I can, and due to size I am less likely to pack them very far, but I see great potential for a truck glass here and use when a binocular is the biggest thing in the gear bag.

[james holdsworth]

The IS bins may be great quality, optics-wise, but [in my brief usage] they simply didn't work well for birding.

Heavy, large, clunky, slow to steady, slow to focus,[and hard to do both with flying birds], as well as some weird artifacts / effects from the IS... swimming, wavering, stuttering. I found myself loosing birds all the time and found it cumbersome to try to go from close focus for bugs to farther out for birds.

For the tiny bit of shake I get from non-IS bins, the trade-off just wasn't worth it.

I think I would need a completely mechanical system, in a smallish package [with superb optics] to ever consider them. There must be some reason that you see so few in the field and I think a lot of it has to do with utility.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Steve C

I don't see this as you being hard on anybody but yourself .

Now, having admitted I am considering the 10x42 L IS, I am looking at some things differently than I would be with a conventional glass. With batteries and the physical and electronic components of the IS at play, yeah, I do see where durability can be an issue. I'm not sure it's worth a $1,500 for something that will be obsolescent in three years when the L II series comes out and a three year's warranty does seem short.

So, if I get these, I will use something on the lines of a Badlands Bino bag to keep them out of the elements as much as I can, and due to size I am less likely to pack them very far, but I see great potential for a truck glass here and use when a binocular is the biggest thing in the gear bag.

Fortunately you can save yourself the Badlands bag. The 10x42ISL is really fully waterproof.
I clean mine under the tap.
Also the outer glass at the objective end is just an optical flat, not an expensive lens, so you don't need to add a neutral density filter to protect the lenses.
The binocs are heavy and bulky, so a good carrier harness such as the BinoManager here:
http://search.coleman.com/cgi-bin/Ms...bino%20manager
will be a useful purchase.

Otherwise, these have been easy to use and robust, at least in my experience, as well as durable.
Mine are 4 years old and have never needed service.

[Kevin Purcell]

Also the outer glass at the objective end is just an optical flat, not an expensive lens, so you don't need to add a neutral density filter to protect the lenses.

Though that is true I'd still consider it. And a bag for toting the bin around (that never goes into the field) is a good thing.

Canon have been shown on this forum to not have the best customer support and estimated repair costs can be quite big. And as NDHunter points out the warranty is short compared to other sport optics (but not the cameras).

But IS makes a big difference. It may be a while but I suspect my next bin might be the 10x42 IS L (or a 10x30 IS L should they every make it). But for now I have the Swarovision

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Jerry
Take it from me. Give the Canon 10x42 L IS's a try sometime. Even without the IS engaged their optics are I assure you equal to any alpha out there. With the IS on they produce the best image and the most detail I have ever seen from any binocular. Their edge sharpness is the BEST I have ever seen. I am going down to one binocular and I want the best view I can get and I am willing to hold 36 oz. to get it. I sold my Zeiss 8x32 FL's, Nikon 8x30 EII's, and my Canon 10x30 IS's. The Canon 10x42 L IS's are big but man what a view. I compared them and their was no question which binocular for me produced the best view and the winner is the Canon 10x42 L IS. Try em.

Dennis:

I am pleased you are happy with your latest binocular purchase. I have
heard you laud the Zeiss FL, and how the Nikon 8x30 EII is the best optic
available. I am a bit disappointed you have sold those quality optics.
What if the Canon takes a poop, do you have a good backup, I hope so.

Jerry

[james holdsworth]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

Dennis:

I am pleased you are happy with your latest binocular purchase. I have
heard you laud the Zeiss FL, and how the Nikon 8x30 EII is the best optic
available. I am a bit disappointed you have sold those quality optics.
What if the Canon takes a poop, do you have a good backup, I hope so.

Jerry

The great thing about Dennis is his flexibility, definitely not a slave to any brand.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by james holdsworth

The great thing about Dennis is his flexibility, definitely not a slave to any brand.

All I really care about is the view through the binoculars. I could care less what brand they are. I really like the Canon IS's lately because I like the steady view. They make me realize how much I am shaking and how much it decreases the detail you can see. I compared the Canon 10x42 L IS's to my other binoculars and it was easily the best view so the other ones go. It's my binocular now until something else comes along which is superior. I don't care if they last ten years because there will be something better in less time than that.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

Dennis:

I am pleased you are happy with your latest binocular purchase. I have
heard you laud the Zeiss FL, and how the Nikon 8x30 EII is the best optic
available. I am a bit disappointed you have sold those quality optics.
What if the Canon takes a poop, do you have a good backup, I hope so.

Jerry

I don't think it will take a poop! I have confidence in it. The Zeiss FL or Nikon EII simply didn't perform like the Canon for my eyes. I really see an advantage to the IS system. Maybe I shake more than you but I am never going back to the unstabilized image.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by james holdsworth

The IS bins may be great quality, optics-wise, but [in my brief usage] they simply didn't work well for birding.

Heavy, large, clunky, slow to steady, slow to focus,[and hard to do both with flying birds], as well as some weird artifacts / effects from the IS... swimming, wavering, stuttering. I found myself loosing birds all the time and found it cumbersome to try to go from close focus for bugs to farther out for birds.

For the tiny bit of shake I get from non-IS bins, the trade-off just wasn't worth it.

I think I would need a completely mechanical system, in a smallish package [with superb optics] to ever consider them. There must be some reason that you see so few in the field and I think a lot of it has to do with utility.

They definitely are not for everyone! They are large and heavy but that is the price you pay for phenominal optics. I don't find the Canon 10x42 L IS's slow to focus and quite the contrary I find them faster than a regular binocular to steady. I really don't see any weird artifacts. Maybe you can hold your binoculars steadier than I can but with regular binoculars I have more than a "tiny bit of shake". The difference between the IS view and a non-stabilized view is enormous for me and I think for most people it will be.

[kellmark]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

I have been watching the recent threads and excitement over the Canon's.

I must admit I have not tried the IS, but am conservative in nature, and
probably never will.

I do like nice optics, and have noticed the short 3 yr. warranty from Canon,
on the IS styles. That seems very short compared to all of the others, on
regular optics, and that is one thing that would really trouble me.

I do see why many are drawn to the 10x30 selling under $350.00, as if they
do go bad after that time, the repair will be more than value, so just throw
them in the dumpster.

And how about the 10x42 L IS, which lists for $1,599.00, and still
has the 3 yr. warranty, I am wondering who would go for that deal. Also
the 10x42 weighs 37 oz. and that is a heavy load.

A recent post on Cloudy Nites, has some wondering the same, about
the short warranty, all the electronics, and how do these fit in todays,
throw away world.

Jerry

Jerry, your comments are well taken. But I think you should definitely at least try a pair to see how you like them.

I have always been a Leica fan, at least of their compacts. I started around 30 years ago with a 10X25 Trinovid, then got the later 8X20 and 10X25 Ultravids.

But when I saw the Canons with IS, I had to have them. This was after I had acquired a Canon 300MM F4 IS lens for my SLR camera. The IS technology was amazing. Makes a major difference.

Then when the Canon 10X30 IS binos came out, I immediately acquired a pair. It was an incredible experience, to see the view so stable and clear. I felt it was a new world. I have had them for at least 10-12 years, whatever. Never a problem.

Then when the 18X50 IS weather resistant came out, with their high magnification I had to get them as well. Incredible. I sit on the 22nd floor of my apartment and look out to sea at ships and am able to identify them and read the names from miles away, hand held. I can read signs several miles away when I can not even see the sign itself with the naked eye, also hand held. I have had them about 8 years, I would guess. Also, never a problem with them.

And then, when I saw the new 12X36 II come out, I got them too. I like them because they have greater magnification than the 10X30s and are much lighter weight than the 18X50s. I also find their view is extremely clear. The IS is superb. Very stable. They really have become my favorites with their combination of magnification and stabilization and light weight. Also, never a problem. I have had them I guess about 4 years.

Do I still have my Leica binos? Yup. But now I really only use the 8X20s. A perfect combination for me is to have the Leica 8X20 Ultravids and the Canon 12X36 IIs.

Caveats. If high magnification is not your thing then the Canon's may not be for you. If you like a tripod, then why have IS? Or if you like low light, then you should try the 10X42Ls. But I am quite happy with the others. I tend to like less weight these days, as i get older, so the 12X36s do just fine for me. Also, if weather proofs are what you need, then the 10X42s would again be the choice, but they are heavier.

So I have had these three Canon IS binos for many years and never a problem.

I would say not to fear.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

Though that is true I'd still consider it. And a bag for toting the bin around (that never goes into the field) is a good thing.

Canon have been shown on this forum to not have the best customer support and estimated repair costs can be quite big. And as NDHunter points out the warranty is short compared to other sport optics (but not the cameras).

But IS makes a big difference. It may be a while but I suspect my next bin might be the 10x42 IS L (or a 10x30 IS L should they every make it). But for now I have the Swarovision

What would be the attraction of a 10x30 L IS besides being smaller? Optically it would never be as good as the 10x42 L IS.

[Matt_RTH]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

What would be the attraction of a 10x30 L IS besides being smaller? Optically it would never be as good as the 10x42 L IS.

Mass. I've done the "drag the 15x50 on the hike" thing. It isn't unbearable and I can certainly handle it, but it just plain doesn't make sense to wear an anchor about your neck when there are plenty of suitable alternatives.

If Canon or one of the several IS bin manufacturers came up with a 10x35 or 10x42 that wasn't sized like a 10x50 and weighed like a 20x80 then it would be a winner. Also, it would be great if Canon would consider making their IS more suitable for boat use.

Somewhere in the middle is a very innovative solution which would I think would be very marketable for birders and God forbid, hunters . I don't buy all this "unserviceable" stuff on electronic components in bins. Make it a good, long warranty, make the components modular and keep enough on hand to supply the market, at a price well below replacement cost of an entire unit. An integrated system like an IS bin should not be like a car that is rendered useless and unserviceable if the water pump goes bad. How do I really feel? We may never know.

[brocknroller]

I have a love/hate relationship with Canon IS bins. The 10x30 IS is the best bang for the buck, but even at that price point, there are variations in stability. The correction angle given for each model is not a "given," but what the best sample can do. Not all samples will have this correction angle.

With one sample, I experienced nauseating "swimming," with the other sample, this was much less noticeable, although I still saw "artifacts" with both while following birds in flight and while panning the sky while stargazing.

The guy I bought my 10x30 IS from (and subsequently sold them back to) had five samples, which varied to some degree in terms of their stability, from "swimming" to "rock steady".

So if you do get a sample in which you see the image "swimming," it could be that your eyes/brain are just not compatible with IS technology. Not everybody is suited for it. OR it could be that you need to try another sample.

I would prefer an 8x42 IS so as not to sacrifice DOF and so I wouldn't have to compensate for my poor focus accommodation by continually having to reset the diopter at different distances as I do with 10x bins.

But Canon can't make an 5mm exit pupil 8x42 IS, and if Raging Rick is correct, the jury is still out on whether they can make a bin with a 4.2mm exit pupil work (3.7mm?).

The need for a small exit pupils is the IS Achilles Heel. If a design team could find a way to conquer that barrier, IS technology will be more flexible about which configurations it can accommodate and therefore be more desirable to birders. Birders don't prefer 8x bins only because it's the highest power they can hold steady, they also prefer them for their wider FOV and greater DOF.

The short warranty period will remain an obstacle for IS bins. People have made comparisons with other electronic consumer items that carry similar short warranty periods. However, that was always the case with such consumer items, and given the cheap prices because of being manufactured offshore, few people quibble about it.

But users will compare the IS bins to alphas, not just in optical quality, but in warranty. What put me off was a story on CN where a guy with a 15x50 IS had his electronics fizzle (after the warranty period expired), and the repair cost estimate that Canon gave him was nearly as much as he paid for the bin.

If the IS circuitry goes, and you are willing to mount the bins, they might not work as well. That's another big can 'o worms. Many contend that the IS bins are sharpest when the IS is engaged even when they are mounted. If that is the case, then they are disposable consumer items like other electronic gadgets.

Although I might change my mind if I looked through a Canon 10x42 IS, right now, except for the "L" glass, which I would really like since I'm susceptible to CA, I wouldn't buy one until they got the weight down to 27-28 oz., which is probably impossible with current IS technology. I might also find those large twist-up eyecups hard to fit between my high bridge nose.

Somebody asked if 6 oz. make that big a difference. Canon specs state the 10x42 IS L weighs 36.79 ounces, which we can round off to 36.8.

So comparing them to the current crop of alphas, does 8.8-9.8 ounces make that big a difference? If you are out in the field for long periods lifting the bins to your eyes over and over again, unless you have arms like Arnold (did), you bet your sweet bippy it does!

Like any bin, you're not going to know whether or not it suits you until you have it in your hands and up to your eyes, regardless of the IS tech.

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

What would be the attraction of a 10x30 L IS besides being smaller? Optically it would never be as good as the 10x42 L IS.

It would be lighter and more compact.

It would be optically just as good (just with a smaller exit pupil) with ED glass.

And waterproof (or at least rainproof) unlike the current 10x30.

I would of course like to see a wider AFOV. That would probably mean a more complex EP which might be the limitation on size but it would be smaller than the 10x42 EP.

I like 30mm-ish bins. I'm sure others do. So an L based 30mm would be a nice complement to the 40mm ish bin. Just as it is in other top end makers bin ranges.