Typo. What year was your Canon 10x42 IS-L manufactured? I notice a difference in the performance of the Canon 10x42 IS-L I have now which is a newer model versus the older one I had a few years back. My newer model has virtually no optical artifacts but as Etudiant says the IS system will not totally stop all movement in all situations like a tripod but it greatly helps and in most situations it will perform like a tripod , as far as, increasing the resolution. Resolution testing has shown with the IS system engaged there is a 30 to 40% increase in resolution almost identical to a tripod.I'm not doubting for a moment any of the IS benefits individuals are reporting here, but I just want to add a word of caution. It might not work for everyone.
With a well balanced 10x binocular, hand held costs me about 35% in detail compared tripod mounted. On three separate occasions I've tried the 10x42L IS (and the rest of the range) and I'd agree it's optically a pretty good binocular. However, for what ever reason, when I press the button, the view is not steady. It looks like the slower muscular shakes are dampened down, but the small, higher frequecy jitters that actually cause the loss of detail for me were unaltered. I've not done chart tests to confirm it, but my judgement at the time was that I was still seeing less detail than with my usual 10x42 hand held. It was the same story with the rest of the range.
Obviously individuals differ in the frequency and amplitude of their hand shake and also the level of detail they can potentially see. I'm more than happy to accept the 10x42L IS works for the majority of users, but maybe the current design is not for everyone.
David
Last edited: