Canon 10x42 L IS cover scraping away - advice? (1 Viewer)

[Binocollector]

Binoculars without stabilisation are thus the dinosaurs of the optics world, sure to die out once the Chinese discover that market and start making stabilised binoculars. After all, Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss are still fast asleep.

I think the Sig Sauer Zulu6 16x42 is already "Made in China". I still don't think normal binos will die out. I do have a Canon 18x50IS but rarely use it. Maybe if I had gone with a smaller and lighter model like the Zulu6 or Kite, I might use it more often. But at the time I was thinking "bigger is better" and I bought it for astronomy not birding. I also didn't trust the optical performance of the Kite or Sig Sauer and not many reviews were available. If only Zeiss would make a smaller updated version of their mechanically stabilized bino. But it would probably still cost 6,000€ which is way more than I will ever spend on a bino.
Still, I like the simplicity of a normal bino (preferrably with smaller magnification). Not much a fan of everything having batteries and needing to be charged or having the batteries replaced. Also -- electronics don't age well.

 

[Hermann]

Not much a fan of everything having batteries and needing to be charged or having the batteries replaced. Also -- electronics don't age well.

Does your phone work without batteries? Or your camera? Or indeed your computer?

Hermann

 

[abirdingguy]

Thanks for the additional information and data point. I'm feeling better about the situation now.

As for stabilized binoculars, as much as I like the 10x42 L, I'm curious to see what 15+ years of miniaturization in electronics could do.

 

[Binocollector]

Does your phone work without batteries? Or your camera? Or indeed your computer?

Hermann

That's exactly the reason. We're already surrounded by electronics. I don't need one more battery powered gadget. But, like I wrote, I already have an IS-bino . I don't need all of them to be stabilized.
Just imagine regularly changing batteries of maybe 40 binos (I didn't count them). .

 

[WRL]

That's exactly the reason. We're already surrounded by electronics. I don't need one more battery powered gadget. But, like I wrote, I already have an IS-bino . I don't need all of them to be stabilized.
Just imagine regularly changing batteries of maybe 40 binos (I didn't count them). .

You just probably have the wrong IS bino. You should try the 8x20 IS. It is handy. It is light. It is optically "good enough". Single handed operation including focusing is easily managed. - I was out this morning in a moor area. Had my (small) scope on the tripod over my left shoulder (secured by my left hand). With the right hand I grapped my 8x20 IS when checking for any interesting birds (perching, flying, swimming). I will never buy a non stabilized bino again (I have a good non-IS one, sits on the kitchen window sill).
And by the way, sorry: The whining about "everything is on batteries" appears to me as quite inauthentic. Reason: Why specifically a battery in a bino (not a "gadget" for me, but a tool) is too much? - Anyway, Hermann gave the rationale already.

 

[Binocollector]

And by the way, sorry: The whining about "everything is on batteries" appears to me as quite inauthentic. Reason: Why specifically a battery in a bino (not a "gadget" for me, but a tool) is too much? - Anyway, Hermann gave the rationale already.

I honestly couldn't care less. I wonder why people always try to have the last say on a topic of personal preference. I don't need or want a stabilized 8x bino. I also didn't "buy the wrong bino" as I bought the 18x50IS for astronomy -- what good would an 8x20 be for astronomy? Right -- not very good at all. And I don't want more than one stabilized bino at all. Call it "inauthetic" (what's that even supposed to mean in that context?) -- it is very authentically my opinion. So nobody's opinion on that topic is right or wrong. Call it a preference if you want to. I prefer a good old fashioned compass over GPS, I prefer not to use a phone at all when out in nature and I prefer not to have to think about carrying batteries when taking the bino on a hike. Oh, I also prefer mechanical watches over quartz, in case you were wondering. If that's "inauthentic" to you -- your problem.

 

[Richard D]

Have IS binoculars dramatically improved over the last 10 years? When I last tried a pair I found the stabilisation worked pretty well but it took a few valuable seconds to kick in and the image quality left a bit to be desired - sharp enough but CA was very noticeable.

 

[Binocollector]

I think so, yes. The IS works pretty fast on my 18x50IS. No artefacts either as far as I can tell.
It is not that I don't like the technology. But it seriously reduces the life expectancy of a binocular to put oil-filled vario prisms (not in the newer models however) and electronics inside. That's one reason I will never wish nor expect them to replace normal binos completely. It's nice to have a choice though.

 

[kabsetz]

Sure, it is more than likely that the life expectancy of my Canon 10x42 IS is shorter than my Nikon 10x42 SE, which has been gathering dust in a drawer since I got my first Canon (15x50) about 20 years ago. That Canon still works and is used regularly by a friend, as is my first pair of 10x42 IS L which is of the first year of production.

I will probably never sell the Nikon, as it is a classic and is nice to have, but I will not ever take a non-stabilised binocular as my primary pair again.

As far as batteries, since the Canon gives about a week of pretty heavy birding at a minimum before batteries need recharging, there are not many electronic devices that require charging less frequently. I have even stopped carrying a spare pair along most of the time.

Kimmo