Canon ISIII 12x36 First impressions: amateurs vs professionals (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

@Hermann Thanks for your comments.
The 10x42 IS sounds, by most accounts, like "the" binocular. However, weight/size have a lot of weight on my scale of preferences (FOV, close focus and other considerations having less), so I'm not sure I would be tempted. Although, knowing that they have "alpha quality" AND image stabilization makes me drool, I can only imagine the awe they must produce when using them. I find the 12x36 IS III have a good balance between weight/size/performance. I found the price a little steep, considering that they won't last like a high quality "conventional" device. A couple of years ago I gave my used SE 8x32 to my brother; I bought it used, it is a 503xxx IIRC, and he uses it a lot... and every time I bird with my brother (say 2 - 3 times a year) I'm amazed at just how well the stand the test of time: the focus wheel, the rubber armour, the lenses, amazing. After just one yer, my IS III looks way worse, and I've tried to keep it inside its case as much as possible, and not thrash them like I have other 8x32.

One idea that the IS has made evident for me is that different kinds of binoculars fulfill different goals (or work for different niche audiences). I just bird for fun, it's a hobby that I practise several times a week. On some moments of the year (like migration) every single day, but it's just a hobby, so the whole experience must be pleasurable. That's why when choosing binoculars, for me it's always "fit over performance". If it doesn't fit me, even if the performance is really good, I just don't want it. So whenever I use a 7x42 FL, or a 7x35 Nikon Porro, or my 8x32 ELSV I usually smile because the image produces pleasure in my brain (it tickles some neurons up there).

On the other hand, I guess that people who bird "professionally" (like naturalists doing surveys, etc.) need a tool to do their job (hence the original idea of this post), and "pleasure" is a secondary consideration. In this sense, I think a rugged waterproof IS (10x42 IS?) should be on top of the list, because it shows more, more detail, more chances of ID, which is what matters in this scenario at the end of the day.

With these two ideas in mind, I guess the IS III sits on the edge: it gives more, but it also "takes more", let say the set of compromises is bigger. Well, every purchase of binoculars is a set of compromises.
Say you want an amazing level of performance, brightness, sharpness, ruggedness, durability, then probably a first compromise would be price, because you are probably going to need more money than if you didn't want all that.
In other cases, say you want amazing low light performance, weight and size (of an 8x56... or an WX!) are the compromises.
If you want really lightweight and small... like in a 8x20, you have other compromises.
And then you find IS... where the level of compromises is, as said before, quite large.
At the end of the day, "there's no free lunch", as a forum member had in his/her signature.

Those are some ideas I gathered from the use of the IS III during this year. In my case, I guess the answer seems clear, since I've bought an 8x20, it's on its way, it should arrive in a few days. I don't want to have huge expectations, but being an 8x I hope the level of CA to be less than in my 12x, and the thought of being able to carry a 450 g IS 8x on a case on the belt (like one of those light 8x30, but with enhanced image) seems really attractive. Let's wait and see. I'll post my impressions.

 

[yarrellii]

2 Year update, knock, miscollimation and repair

As part of this first impressions-short term-middle term-long term thread, here's a 2 year update.
The 12x36 IS III continues to be my go-to binocular, with the Swarovski EL 8x32 and the Opticron Traveller ED 8x32 as backups when going light or as a combo with the scope. As a matter of fact, I'm finding I use the Traveller more and more (more on this later) and the EL 8x32 less and less, so I'm seriously considering getting the 8x30 SFL to replace both the EL and the Traveller, but that's another story.

Anyway, my impressions about the Canon remain more or less unchanged from my assessment last year after one year of use, with the following comments:

• Dust, not tons, but more that I would hope for. I guess it's the consequence of the lack of waterproofness, and it's quite surprising being used to sealed binoculars. Even my non-sealed binoculars (like the EII or the Vixen 7x50, which have seen a fair share of use) don't get as much dust as the Canon. For some reason it seems to suck it in more than others. So far it doesn't seem to affect the performance terribly, but it's there.
• Lack of rubber coating/protection. I would say that the Canon show use more than other binoculars that I've used heavily, for example the Traveller.
• Focus wheel. I'd say (maybe nitpicking) that the focus wheel has developed a very subtle "vague point" when you change the rotation direction. If you look for it turning the wheel very slowly and then back again, you can feel it, but on normal use I'd say it's not noticeable, but I guess the use is taking its toll.

Other than that, same awkward mix of terrible and sublime.

As for the repair story. I dropped the Canon from a low height (they actually fell from the case I was using when taking it out of the car), I guess around 40 cm / 15 inches. It was on a gravel ground. When I picked them up in shock I inspected them and nothing seemed damaged, no scratch or sign of anything broken. I put it to my eyes and I could confirm that IS worked properly and the image was nice as always, but the moment I took them off my eyes, I got a terrible eye strain, a telling symptom. As luck would have it, I was on holiday in Denmark about to travel to the Netherlands for a few days. I remembered that 2 years ago on my quest for a trustworthy repair service in Europe (my experience in Spain had not been stellar) I ended up discovering dekijkerspecialist.nl a Dutch service that raised good comments, and back in 2021 I sent them a pair of binoculars for repair. So I wrote them and agreed to bring them my Canon for repair when in the Netherlands. And so I finally did on Wednesday.

And here you have it.


(I had never seen a collimator... now I want one for my living room!)

On a first quick test, Wim could assess that the Canon were indeed out of collimation. So I left the Canon with him for repair. He told me he would do his best, but he wasn't 100 % sure about what he was going to find and whether he could eventually repair them. It turns out that he discovered one eyepiece was bent and scratched (so the Canon landed on the eyepiece end, contrary to what I first thought), but in a struck of luck, he had a broken 12x36 lying around for pieces, so he could exchange the eyepiece and I had my Canon back in shape the next day. Great service!!!!
It's been several weeks without the Canon, so the Traveller has been my main device for a 4 week tour of Denmark and the Northwest coast of Germany, countless hours of birdwatching without a single moment of complain (I remain to be amazed about the small Opticron).

As a side note (I'm going to write about it in more detail in another more appropriate thread), I was not only lucky to have De Kijkerspecialist repair my Canon but also to enjoy his hospitality and patience showing me the IS range from Kite (he's a dealer and also a repair service for the brand and speaks highly of them). And I had the chance to briefly compare them with my Canon (nothing too serious, just a quick test in a few minutes out of a window), but I have to say that I was impressed by the small 12x30, so much so, that I secretly wished that the Canon were not repairable D). I think I now what my next binocular will be. But more on that on another thread.



Kite APC IS line up
12x42, Canon 12x36 IS III, 12x30 and 16x42.

The 12x42 has a blue ring instead of the Kite usual red because it's the Vogelbescherming edition (the Dutch partner of Birdlife International). My clear choice would be the 12x30.