Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 20:58   #26
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,187
David ... Well, there goes that theory! I am glad you brought up the batteries, because I thought of that as another possibility after posting. It sounds like the Canon rep had nothing to offer as to why you were not picking up any improvement in shake reduction. I have run out of ideas to explain it. Thanks for the feedback.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 22:26   #27
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Ted ..... Nice write up!

Reading your comments about the glare experience reminded me of a similar incident I experienced with a different binocular.

I happen to have a Monarch 7 8X30 which a few on this Forum have described as a glare monster. There was never a glare incident until one morning looking at a mountain slope directly in the direction of the rising sun, just before the sun was to rise above the ridge top. There was almost total wash out. I ended up putting my left hand over the top of the objectives acting as a shield and almost all the glare went away. The difference was quite incredible.

You may be able to get the same effect by adding the screw on lens shades as shown in the photos in my above posts. I have not experienced the glare situation you described and that may be because I have been using the lens shades most of the time. I had thought the shades were not necessary for reducing glare, but that may not be the case after reading about your experience. The objective lenses are quite close to the end of the objective housing so there is not much shielding direct from Canon.

You can get them cheap off Amazon or eBay from China. The size is 52mm. In additional to the possibility of resolving your glare issue, they do look cool on the Canon and give additional protection to the objectives since the objective lenses do not have a lot of setback. The Canon will still fit in the case, but it is tight. The length of the shield protruding on mine is approximately 3/4 of an inch or about 19mm.
"I happen to have a Monarch 7 8X30 which a few on this Forum have described as a glare monster. There was never a glare incident until one morning looking at a mountain slope directly in the direction of the rising sun, just before the sun was to rise above the ridge top. There was almost total wash out. I ended up putting my left hand over the top of the objectives acting as a shield and almost all the glare went away. The difference was quite incredible."

I had the same problem with the "Glare Monster" Nikon Monarch 7. By the way I coined that phrase. HaHa! I also had the exact same problem with the Habicht 8x30W in almost the same identical conditions you describe. Those glare shields you describe would work quite well to help control glare although I have not had too many problems with the Canon.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th December 2016, 22:31   #28
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Chuck ... It is good to hear you found the write-up and pictures useful!

Don't fret over the use of batteries. You are still viewing directly though glass so you will still get a conventional "analog" view as always, just without the shake. I do not feel that I have crossed over to the electronics side when using the Canon.

The batteries will have a vertical orientation when viewing with the Canon so just visualize the batteries as the legs of a bi-pod used to steady the view.
"Visualize the batteries as the legs of a bi-pod used to steady the view"

Interesting thought!
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 00:50   #29
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Bruce,

Although I'd tried the 10x30 previously, I first worked through the whole IS range in 2011 with a Canon rep in attendance. He checked I was using it properly, changed all the batteries and checked for himself the mechanisms were working as they should. In 2013 and 2015 I checked most of them again but was left to my own devices but I did ask for the batteries to be changed on a couple to be sure.

David
David:

You are a good resource and have much experience. This may be a
good post to counter all of the recent Canon love.......

Jerry
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 03:11   #30
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
David:

You are a good resource and have much experience. This may be a
good post to counter all of the recent Canon love.......

Jerry
Alternatively, David is the rare exception, someone whose physical characteristics are far enough removed from the average that the stabilization does not benefit him.
My own experience with the Canons is so different from his that I'm baffled.

Hence my recommendation that people try them before buying them. In most cases, I believe they will be delighted.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 05:05   #31
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Alternatively, David is the rare exception, someone whose physical characteristics are far enough removed from the average that the stabilization does not benefit him.
My own experience with the Canons is so different from his that I'm baffled.

Hence my recommendation that people try them before buying them. In most cases, I believe they will be delighted.
I don't think I'm that weird.... but others may disagree.

So far in this thread only Catnip (#18) and myself have had disappointing results with the Canon IS, but there have been others in the past. A minority I'd accept, but maybe not that rare.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 06:35   #32
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 208
Just to clarify that I did not mean in my post #18 that I think the IS does not work, or that I somehow do not like the improvement which IS brings.
The only thing I am saying is: tripod mounted gives A LOT more stable views than IS. So for me, IS ist just not good enough (I have not tested the expensive Fujinons nor the Zeiss 20x60, so cannot include them in this starement). And since the optics of the Canons, of which the 10x42 is clearly the best, are very good but do not outperform in my modest opinion an SF, EL SV or HD+, I do not concur that the Canon is simply "the best".
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 14:40   #33
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Talking

Hi David and Canip,

Thanks for your helpful input. There are always 2 sides to a story, as we all "see" things differently! It's been said in many pages of BF, "try before you buy". A specialized tool like the Canons will not work with every pair of eyes and presents unique ergonomic differences that certainly turns-off many a birder.

For those reasons and the fact I've never had an opportunity to try them in the past, I've waited a long time. Owning and using 4 different Canon EF L-Glass SLR lenses, I'm very familiar with their excellent "IS" products (all still going strong after 12 years). Figured I had nothing to loose with their current bino sales and the vendors generous return policy. For my eyes and style of glassing, happy I found a very -portable tripod like system- that is not as good as a tripod itself, but much easier to deploy while on the excursion trip.

They do not posses better optics to the SF, SV, UV+ or probably even the NV (so far, no experience). Their non-transferable warranty falls way short of most in the optics market with potential costly repairs in the future. But for Me they present another unique way to see, in an alpha hand-held stabilized view, all wildlife and the environment. IMHO, instituting an efficient\effective IS system in a comparative size\features\optics of the top alpha offerings would be the single best improvement they can make to today's top glass!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 15:13   #34
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,291
As far as I know the Zeiss 20x60 has the best resolution of any hand held binocular, but you must be strong to use it.
Only a Takahashi 22x60 with a stabilised gimbal mount might beat it, but much heavier.
The Yukon 30x50 folded refractor binocular with stabilised gimbal mount would equal the Zeiss resolution, but poor transmission and dullish image.

Helicopter professional observers generally use the Fujinons.

I have seen the old Canon 10x30 IS on the bridge of an enormous U.S. aircraft carrier. Used by the captain, which surprised me as he could choose anything he wanted without price limits.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 15:58   #35
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
As far as I know the Zeiss 20x60 has the best resolution of any hand held binocular, but you must be strong to use it...
Binastro,

The Zeiss 20x60 S possibly so, but at 50% more weight, 4x the cost and 20 power (way too much for birding), the Canons will be much more "user-friendly" for me. As far as all of these (including the Canons), I assume if IS could be implemented in an optic instrument package the size\weight\cost of say the SF, SV or NV, it would have been already done....sighhhh!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!

Last edited by Theo98 : Wednesday 14th December 2016 at 16:08.
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 16:40   #36
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,336
I've been trying to find out some info on the frequency and amplitude of the shakes, and less successfully, trying to find out the response profile and time lag for the Canon IS correction.

It's not particularly easy to find articles on normal, healthy individuals but I did find a nice simplistic statement that said the hand shakes at 8-10hz, the fingers at 17-20 hz and the elbow at 3 to 5hz. Seems reasonable to expect that when using a binocular all three would be involved, but probably which predominates would depend on an individual's physical make up and glassing technique.. Then it gets complicated. There is a tendancy with old age for the 8-10hz hand shake to move to 3 to 5hz, and if weight and or tension is applied to the thumbs then a 3-5hz shake can develop, and something more complex happens to the fingers.

I only found one comment about Canon IS technology it and might have been directed at cameras not binoculars. It said IS was most effective at 10hz. Total speculation, but it seems an interesting possibility that perhaps those who find the Canon IS most effective have predominantly 8-10hz shakes? Others that find it less effective might be troubled by other frequencies? I doubt it's as simple as that.

David

Last edited by typo : Wednesday 14th December 2016 at 16:45.
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 17:04   #37
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I've been trying to find out some info on the frequency and amplitude of the shakes, and less successfully, trying to find out the response profile and time lag for the Canon IS correction.

It's not particularly easy to find articles on normal, healthy individuals but I did find a nice simplistic statement that said the hand shakes at 8-10hz, the fingers at 17-20 hz and the elbow at 3 to 5hz. Seems reasonable to expect that when using a binocular all three would be involved, but probably which predominates would depend on an individual's physical make up and glassing technique.. Then it gets complicated. There is a tendancy with old age for the 8-10hz hand shake to move to 3 to 5hz, and if weight and or tension is applied to the thumbs then a 3-5hz shake can develop, and something more complex happens to the fingers.

I only found one comment about Canon IS technology it and might have been directed at cameras not binoculars. It said IS was most effective at 10hz. Total speculation, but it seems an interesting possibility that perhaps those who find the Canon IS most effective have predominantly 8-10hz shakes? Others that find it less effective might be troubled by other frequencies? I doubt it's as simple as that.

David
Very interesting David! Not only do we "see" differently (eyes\brain\interpretation), but we also "shake" differently (fingers\hands\elbows\and can I add...bootie)!!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 19:19   #38
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo98 View Post
Very interesting David! Not only do we "see" differently (eyes\brain\interpretation), but we also "shake" differently (fingers\hands\elbows\and can I add...bootie)!!

Ted
The bottom line on the Canon 10x42 IS-L is it will give 30 to 40% better resolution than any other alpha binocular including the SV,SF or HD Plus. If optics are the most important thing to you it is your only choice.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 21:38   #39
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
The bottom line on the Canon 10x42 IS-L is it will give 30 to 40% better resolution than any other alpha binocular including the SV,SF or HD Plus. If optics are the most important thing to you it is your only choice.
Any "other" alpha ?
Since when is the Canon considered an alpha?
And I can assure you, it is definitely not my "only choice" ....
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 21:59   #40
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canip View Post
Any "other" alpha ?
Since when is the Canon considered an alpha?
And I can assure you, it is definitely not my "only choice" ....
The Canon 10x42 IS-L is right up there with any alpha optically without the IS system. It is your ONLY choice if you want the best resolution and want to see the most detail without a tipod.

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Thursday 15th December 2016 at 01:34.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 22:34   #41
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,091
A bit surprised no one has mentioned Kimmo's review of the earlier version of the bin in debate

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/...IS_WP_GB.shtml
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th December 2016, 22:40   #42
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
I've been trying to find out some info on the frequency and amplitude of the shakes, and less successfully, trying to find out the response profile and time lag for the Canon IS correction.

It's not particularly easy to find articles on normal, healthy individuals but I did find a nice simplistic statement that said the hand shakes at 8-10hz, the fingers at 17-20 hz and the elbow at 3 to 5hz. Seems reasonable to expect that when using a binocular all three would be involved, but probably which predominates would depend on an individual's physical make up and glassing technique.. Then it gets complicated. There is a tendancy with old age for the 8-10hz hand shake to move to 3 to 5hz, and if weight and or tension is applied to the thumbs then a 3-5hz shake can develop, and something more complex happens to the fingers.

I only found one comment about Canon IS technology it and might have been directed at cameras not binoculars. It said IS was most effective at 10hz. Total speculation, but it seems an interesting possibility that perhaps those who find the Canon IS most effective have predominantly 8-10hz shakes? Others that find it less effective might be troubled by other frequencies? I doubt it's as simple as that.

David
I found this graph awhile back and Have quoted Kimmo's explanation. See top of post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dipped View Post
I found this graph representing improved IS in the 12x36 model so presumably there is a similar improvement in the 10x30 model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
Thanks for this, Dipped. This kind of info has been sorely lacking thus far, or at least I've not managed to see it.

On the vertical axis seems to be residual shake in percentages of unstablized shake, and on the horizontal axis is tremor frequency in Hz (cycles per second). If this graph is correct, the improvement is quite significant.

Kimmo

Last edited by dipped : Wednesday 14th December 2016 at 22:47.
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 04:59   #43
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo98 View Post
Hello Chuck,

Back from my 3-day excursion on the Natches Trace. The 10x42L was the Only glass I brought and overall it performed admirably out in the field. Dawn\dusk temps ranged from 16 to 26 degrees and the optics and electronics didn't miss a lick (or should I say, a great view)!

I also agree with everything that Bruce highlighted in his wonderful report. His Pros and Cons hit the nail on the head very well as the 10x42 L's have some serious optical prowess. But alas, there are 3 possible issues I've not read or heard about that I discovered while birding and glassing wildlife for 20 hrs or so this weekend. The rainguard, eye cups and IPD adjustment lobes are soft natural rubber that are "Dust Magnets"! May not be a big deal as a dry clean brush removes the contaminants, but this I've not experienced (to that degree) with my Swaros, Zeiss or Leupolds in field travels. Secondly, veiling glare reared it's ugly head one evening glassing the horizon to the West while following raptors riding the thermals about an hour before sunset. I really had to work with eye placement to minimize this, but otherwise, never saw it again. Thirdly, while using sunglasses with eye cups all the way in, I was missing about 5-10% of the FOV. Now, these shades I used are big and have maybe too much eye clearance. If I had a normal pair with me, I'm sure they would not have caused restrictions.

Otherwise like Bruce, these are the first binos that I don't extend the eye cups all the way out. The 3rd click setting gives my unaided sight a wonderful and immersive FOV that with the very nice 3D Porro II effect, gives Me a view that seems even more as-if-you're-there image over my 10x50 SV (Especially with IS on)! My IPD is 62mm and the objectives are 70mm. Compare to any of my 4 Habicht porros (6x-10x, porro I, much greater offset), the depth and 3d effect is more natural and pleasing to my eyes. Now, this could be related to the slow "close focus to infinity" of 2.75 turns, but when you get the subject locked in, the 10x42L displays typical Canon "L Glass" foreground\background bokeh that is extremely "photo" like, allowing excellent attention and depth to your subject. The slow focus could be a negative for birding, as it takes more time and effort to go from 2 to 300m+. For me, it helped to lock in a sharp focus quicker and cleaner without any misses of ID's.

Overall, the ergonomic facts (weight, bulkiness, etc.) and other quirks do not deter me from being excited about their use. Actually, loaded (all accessories attached) they are just 3oz heavier than my 10x50 SV's, about the same length but easier to hand hold for a steadier image. After 3 days and 20 hrs using the supplied bino strap, I experienced no handling issues or discomfort. For my small frame (but big hands), they have a solid heft that balances and works well for me! I'm sure they are not for everyone, but glad I took the plunge. I now know the 10x50 SV is a tad sharper, has a wider AFOV and is brighter (Yes Dennis, Still a definite keeper). However, the Canon is a unique tool for glassing enjoyment. With the 10x42L IS engaged, think of Your "Best Glass with a Built-In Tripod View"!!

If you're yearning to try them Chuck, hard to beat the current deal and return policy at B&H (by 1-31-2017)!

Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas,

Ted
Thanks Ted!
Between you and Bruce I'll soon be a Canon IS binocular specialist in short order!

Obviously, I'm not a one brand or even one type binocular person. I think I'm a pretty good candidate to try them. But in no way could I EVER imagine handing over my FL 7X42 OR SV 8.5X42, et al for some Canon IS binoculars. Can't imagine it.

Oh....I do have one final question and it has been touched on by a few but I don't think directly answered:

How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 06:42   #44
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,336
Thanks for that plot Dipped. I could see that the IS system was reducing the effect of my pulse at something around 1 hz, but not seemingly the other shakes which were interferring with the level of detail I could see. Very curious!

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 09:57   #45
Andrew Whitehouse
Professor of Listening
 
Andrew Whitehouse's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 18,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Thanks Ted!
Between you and Bruce I'll soon be a Canon IS binocular specialist in short order!

Obviously, I'm not a one brand or even one type binocular person. I think I'm a pretty good candidate to try them. But in no way could I EVER imagine handing over my FL 7X42 OR SV 8.5X42, et al for some Canon IS binoculars. Can't imagine it.

Oh....I do have one final question and it has been touched on by a few but I don't think directly answered:

How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!
I've been using the 10x42 IS for the past year or so with glasses. I find they work very well for me. Unlike quite a lot of other binoculars I use them with the eyecups all the way down and that gives a comfortable view with no obvious loss of field of view. I've read quite often (and have tried for myself when raising my glasses) that the eyecups are a bit uncomfortable for non-spectacle wearers as they're quite hard and dig into the eyebrows a bit. That's not a problem for those wearing glasses though, as they just press against the spectacles. In that respect, the Canons might be even better for those with glasses than those without.

Other users may have a different experience but my own experience of using these with glasses is very positive, and indeed they work better for me than many other binoculars before you even get to the massive benefits of IS.
__________________
Andrew

Listening to Birds
Andrew Whitehouse is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 10:10   #46
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post

Oh....I do have one final question and it has been touched on by a few but I don't think directly answered:

How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!
The Canons are actually a little easier to use for glasses wearers, because one can just hold the enormous (45mm diameter) eye cups against the glasses, rather than trying to jam them into the eye sockets.
Eye relief is decent, maybe 15-16 mm, enough for me to see the full field with glasses on.
Note that there was an earlier posting on BF stating that glasses for nearsightedness increase the effective eye relief. I'm near sighted, so maybe my glasses are helping.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 15:22   #47
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by chill6x6 View Post
Thanks Ted!
Between you and Bruce I'll soon be a Canon IS binocular specialist in short order!

...How user-friendly are the Canon IS for those of us that wear eyeglasses??

THANKS to all!
Your welcome Chuck! They'll be plenty of positives and negatives to deal with. Hopefully they are a good "fit" for you and their virtues are what you expect from this unique binocular to be a keeper!

You'll have to judge with Your specs to see if their FOV is to your liking (like Andrew and Etudiant). I feel the weight may be a challenge, as you seem to travel "light", but you might be willing to set these up for short term special occasions. HERE is another aspect that makes these very interesting...curious if you find similar benefits.

If you want\need to return these, I know they aren't for everyone but at least in a way, your "trying before buying". Besides, I bake a mean crow pie!!

Wishing You and Your Family a Very Merry Christmas!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 17:30   #48
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,187
Chuck .... One of the beauties of being a binocular enthusiast is that you can have a favorite (such as a Swaro EL SV for you) yet still enjoy using other models. As you would never give up you Swaro for the Canon, I would not give up the Zeiss SF, but I still am glad to own the Canon and get a kick out of using it.

One of the best ways I know of to demonstrate the shake reduction is to take it out on a dark clear night and look at the stars. The stars will show bounce or jitter with either a conventional binocular or the Canon with the IS turned off. Turning the IS on settles the view and the jitters go away with the stars becoming near rock solid for me. The same shake is there looking at detail in the daytime but it just is not as obvious with all the visual clutter.

As a side note, viewing the stars is also a good way to see how much shake one really has. I have done this with people who thought they had almost no shake with say a 10X and were surprised to see so much movement of the stars. It is also an excellent way to judge the difference in shake between say a 6X and a 10X.

Do not rush to judgment. Give yourself several days to get used to the Canon since it is quite different in feel and mechanics. The bottom is thick and flat so that gives it a different feel in the hands. As mentioned previously, the body does not bend so that may seem strange at first. Also adjusting the IPD is quite different since just the eye pieces move rather than the whole body. That may at first appear awkward but it becomes natural after doing it a few times.

The relationship of the alignment of the eye piece to the objective lens varies because the eye piece moves separately as compared to a conventional binocular. The end result is that a person with a more narrow IPD setting should get more of a Porro effect compared to someone like me with a wide IPD (70mm) which is the same as the objective lens spacing.

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment....9&d=1474735139

Batteries: Use of AA alkaline batteries is fine for your evaluation but I would not recommend them long term for the Canon or any other valuable electronic gear. The reason is they have a greater tendency to leak as compared to other types. Two popular types are the Energizer non-rechargeable lithium AA (L91) which I am currently using and the Eneloop NiMH rechargeable AA batteries.

The advantage of the non-rechargeable Energizer is a large capacity, long shelf life due to a very low self-discharge rate, less likely to leak, and excellent cold weather performance. The disadvantage is cost. It also has a higher beginning voltage of just above 1.7 volts even though the specs show a nominal voltage of 1.5 volts. I asked Canon what was the max allowable voltage and was told they did not have that information available but any AA should be fine. I like the idea of the low-self discharge and high capacity since I do not use the Canon on a regular basis, yet want it to be ready to go when I grab it.

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/l91.pdf

I am looking forward to reading how the Canon works out for you.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

Last edited by BruceH : Thursday 15th December 2016 at 20:51. Reason: Spelling fix
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th December 2016, 21:36   #49
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
 
Theo98's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SE La
Posts: 723
Like Bruce, I also replaced the included alkalines with new "20yr. shelf life" Energizer AA lithium's. Had No trouble this past weekend with 16 deg F cold weather. Their "new" 1.8 beginning voltage dropped to just 1.73V after 20hrs in the field (about 20% of IS usage). Cost of the lithium can be 5X more, but pay $1 or $5 for use in a $2K instrument...a no brainer for me. I too didn't trust alkalines...had too many ruined electronics in the past due to leakages.

Enjoy the journey Chuck!

Ted
__________________
Seeing is Believing ...Believing without Seeing is...FAITH!
Theo98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 19th December 2016, 01:51   #50
chill6x6
Registered User
 
chill6x6's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alabama
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo98 View Post
Like Bruce, I also replaced the included alkalines with new "20yr. shelf life" Energizer AA lithium's. Had No trouble this past weekend with 16 deg F cold weather. Their "new" 1.8 beginning voltage dropped to just 1.73V after 20hrs in the field (about 20% of IS usage). Cost of the lithium can be 5X more, but pay $1 or $5 for use in a $2K instrument...a no brainer for me. I too didn't trust alkalines...had too many ruined electronics in the past due to leakages.

Enjoy the journey Chuck!

Ted
You very well know I'll be needing an optic "fix" soon!!
__________________
Chuck
chill6x6 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Autumn Olive...something I may consider planting...pros and cons cadillactaste Trees, Flowers, Plants and Shrubs 10 Thursday 9th May 2013 00:59
8x32 pros and cons Matri-Juve Binoculars 36 Wednesday 25th April 2012 13:22
Pros and cons to Nyjer feeder styles Backyard Sanctuary Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 9 Sunday 6th March 2011 17:51
The pros and cons of Gin Traps! Peewit Other Wildlife 9 Wednesday 6th May 2009 08:22
Pros and cons for digital photography/new equipment? MBP Cameras And Photography 11 Sunday 14th November 2004 05:27

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.29124594 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:01.