IS opinions (1 Viewer)

Hi. I have been birding for quite a while, and through all that time I have basically used the same pair of binoculars-the Canon 10x30 Image Stabilized. After all these years, these binoculars have become quite worn and even occasionally go a little out of focus when the IS is engaged (and it can't be brought into focus until you release the IS button). So, I am planning to buy some new binoculars.

I am currently debating buying:

The same kind. They are the lightest of the bunch, and provide a good wide FOV. Not waterproof.

Canon 12x36 IS II. Second lightest, higher power, but lower FOV. Not waterproof.

Canon 10x42 L IS Big and bulky, but has the largest objective lens and FOV (a small plus, as I also like astronomy). Is waterproof.


Nikon 12x32 StabilEyes. Heaviest. Lowest FOV, and smaller objective lens then the Canon. Stuck in because I am not sure how the IS in these compare to Canon. Waterproof/fogproof.
Fujinon TechnoStabi 12x32. Basically same as nikon. I am not sure how the quality of the IS compares to canon.

I do a lot of birding, including competitions where I bird non stop for 24+ hours. Does anyone have any experience with any of these binoculars and can compare them? I am not sure whether to go with more power, more aperture, or stick with the same ones that have served me well for about 10 years.

As you can probably tell, I REALLY like the image stabilizer binoculars. I have tried other binoculars, but have always liked the clarity provided by a shake free image. I have yet to understand why there are so few available.

Feel free to recommend other binoculars, but keep in mind that image stabilization is STRONGLY preferred.

I have the 18x50IS. Don't recommend the Nikon if you are happy with the Canon.

The 10x42L is Canon's flagship BUT the IS button is not in the best position for me. Also, it seems is has an aperture restriction and is really operating at ~37mm.

I think the 12x36IS would be a nice upgrade. You only give 1oz in weight and a few feet of close focus but should gain noticeable resolution and low light performance. As for the FoV, the difference is only 2ft at typical 40yds viewing distance.

BTW, you also might want to investigate having your 10x30 serviced.

good luck,
Rick

RJM said:

I have the 18x50IS. Don't recommend the Nikon if you are happy with the Canon.

The 10x42L is Canon's flagship BUT the IS button is not in the best position for me. Also, it seems is has an aperture restriction and is really operating at ~37mm.

I think the 12x36IS would be a nice upgrade. You only give 1oz in weight and a few feet of close focus but should gain noticeable resolution and low light performance. As for the FoV, the difference is only 2ft at typical 40yds viewing distance.

BTW, you also might want to investigate having your 10x30 serviced.

good luck,
Rick

Click to expand...

Great! Thanks for the input. I have had it serviced a few times, but the last couple of times it only fixed it for a short time. I guess these IS binoculars have a shorter lifetime (just like anything with moving parts). Depending on cost I may do both things, that way I have a backup pair.

It is interesting to hear that about the aperture restriction on the 10x42. I am now definitely leaning towards the 12x36, as all that extra weight of the 10x42 is certainly not worth ~ 1mm more aperture. I just wish the 12x36 was waterproof.

I have the IS 10x30 and the IS 12x36. Originally I preferred the 12x36, favouring the extra res. But gradually over the last few months I´ve grown to prefer the 10x30. They´re brighter, I like the wider FOV, they´re more compact and easier in the hand. (They´re also half the price!). The 12x36 seem to me to show more "flare" (or "ghosting", or whatever-it´s-called....crescent-shaped light or "haloes" that appear when the bins are pointed anywhere in the direction of the sun). The optics on the 10x30 seem a little sharper too. But....be sure to try the pair you buy. I´ve checked a few and there´s wide variation in just how smoothly the IS operates. Some are decisively less effective than others, "lurching" and going out of focus, or "drifting" with the slight movements of the holder. It´s the big weakness of IS, imho. But, despite the less-than-alpha optics, like you I love the fact that I see more detail on the bird with IS bins. All the above is IMHO only, I hope it helps.

I just purchased the Canon 10x30 IS binoculars. Am really enjoying the IS and the brightness. Two things concern me though:

1. I don't like the rubber eyecups. It's inconvenient for my wife & I to pass it back and forth from one another and have to fiddle with the eyecups (she wears glasses, I don't). Do any of you replace these?

2. Objective covers. It only comes with caps for the eyepieces, not the objectives. What do you use to tote these around, and do you have some sort of covering for the objectives?

Thanks!

timyu said:

I just purchased the Canon 10x30 IS binoculars. Am really enjoying the IS and the brightness. Two things concern me though:

1. I don't like the rubber eyecups. It's inconvenient for my wife & I to pass it back and forth from one another and have to fiddle with the eyecups (she wears glasses, I don't). Do any of you replace these?

2. Objective covers. It only comes with caps for the eyepieces, not the objectives. What do you use to tote these around, and do you have some sort of covering for the objectives?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I usually wear my glasses when birding, but not always. There´s no real solution to problem 1, you´ve got to fold the eyecups down for glasses. They give me full field of view this way, which is a plus.

They don´t come with objective covers, but then I never use these on any binos. I have a plastic bag full of objective covers from all the binos I´ve (foolishly) bought. Don´t see the point in them, really. If the binos are in their case, they don´t need the covers. If they´re out of the case, they still don´t need ´em ´cos I´ll be looking through them. If it rains, they hang down on my chest so they still don´t need the objective covers. We had a thread about this some years back, some folk like the covers, some don´t.

timyu said:

I just purchased the Canon 10x30 IS binoculars. Am really enjoying the IS and the brightness. Two things concern me though:

1. I don't like the rubber eyecups. It's inconvenient for my wife & I to pass it back and forth from one another and have to fiddle with the eyecups (she wears glasses, I don't). Do any of you replace these?

2. Objective covers. It only comes with caps for the eyepieces, not the objectives. What do you use to tote these around, and do you have some sort of covering for the objectives?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Just measure the objective diameter and get the Bushwackers objective covers at Eagle Optics. I have had the three smallest Canon IS binoculars 8x25, 10x30, and 12x36. Pretty nice binoculars and I liked the IS BUT they all had alot of flare in the sun and none of them have near the optical performance of the alphas especially the Zeiss FL's. I sold them all because I felt although I was seeing detail I was missing the color saturation, contrast and resolution and the WOW of the Alphas. They are all a couple rungs down the optics ladder from the big three and I personally missed that.

Hi,
Exploiting this post my question is if there's somebody who can compare both 50mm ISCanon 15X and 18X. I consider stabilized only interesting over 10X if you had a pair of average arms. Never seen stabilized fujinon just now.

I had both. The IS artifacts can be more noticeable in the 18x but you quickly learn to adapt. No other real difference other than magnification and FoV. Your choice as to what works best. I found I prefer the 18x.

Rick

ChIck3n said:

Hi. I have been birding for quite a while, and through all that time I have basically used the same pair of binoculars-the Canon 10x30 Image Stabilized. After all these years, these binoculars have become quite worn and even occasionally go a little out of focus when the IS is engaged (and it can't be brought into focus until you release the IS button). So, I am planning to buy some new binoculars.

I am currently debating buying:

The same kind. They are the lightest of the bunch, and provide a good wide FOV. Not waterproof.

Canon 12x36 IS II. Second lightest, higher power, but lower FOV. Not waterproof.

Canon 10x42 L IS Big and bulky, but has the largest objective lens and FOV (a small plus, as I also like astronomy). Is waterproof.


Nikon 12x32 StabilEyes. Heaviest. Lowest FOV, and smaller objective lens then the Canon. Stuck in because I am not sure how the IS in these compare to Canon. Waterproof/fogproof.
Fujinon TechnoStabi 12x32. Basically same as nikon. I am not sure how the quality of the IS compares to canon.

I do a lot of birding, including competitions where I bird non stop for 24+ hours. Does anyone have any experience with any of these binoculars and can compare them? I am not sure whether to go with more power, more aperture, or stick with the same ones that have served me well for about 10 years.

As you can probably tell, I REALLY like the image stabilizer binoculars. I have tried other binoculars, but have always liked the clarity provided by a shake free image. I have yet to understand why there are so few available.

Feel free to recommend other binoculars, but keep in mind that image stabilization is STRONGLY preferred.

Click to expand...

The question that I don't think anybody asked you is:

1. HOW shaky are your hands on the Brockter Scale:
(note: each whole number increase in magnitude represents a twofold increase in measured shakes, with 5 being equal to a clonic-tonic seizure).

1-5?

2. WHY do you need 10x? What kind of birding do you do in these marathon birding events? And is this the same kind of birding you do most of the time?

3. If you do need 10x+ magnification, would you be willing to mount your bins on a monopod or tripod and carry that around with you?

4. How great is your need for WP/FP?

Trying to get a feel for what you need and how flexible you are about the IS feature before I make recommendations.

Are these 24-hour-bird-a-thons rain or shine?

If so, I don't know how you made it this far with the 10x30 IS!

Let's look at what's going on today and this week with College Station's weather:

http://www.wunderground.com/US/TX/College_Station.html

Only 68* today, but look at that humidity - 84%! I can imagine fungus growing on the inside of your 10x30 IS just thinking about it. Maybe that's what's killing the electronics?

And you have a heat wave coming this weekend - 81* on Saturday and possible T-storms on Sunday.

So maybe WP/FP should be an equal or higher priority on your list as/than IS?

Here's biggest issue I see (or as it is, can't see) with IS bins for birding, and that is the smallish exit pupils, the largest being 3.7mm for the 10x37 IS L.

Next up is the 15x50 IS with 3.3mm, and it goes downhill from there.

But only Arnold could hold those 15x50s up for 24 hours straight, and maybe not even Arnold, who has become a "girly man" since he became the Governator.

You said you also like astronomy, the 15x50s would be great for stargazing - except for Messier Marathons!

Apparently, at your latitude, exit pupil size isn't that big an issue as it is here in the frequently overcast and sometimes downright dim Northeast:

"Gone south for the winter, see you in the spring." - Sol

or you wouldn't have lived with the 10x30s that long.

(btw, HOW LONG have you owned it? I'm wondering about IS bins longevity?).

Still, a cloudy day is a cloudy day whatever your latitude, and for me, the 10x30 IS doesn't cut it on a completely overcast day, looking for birds in deep woods, or in the winter.

Maybe it will when I'm around 75 and that's all my entrance pupils can open, but for now, I want bigger holes to look through.

Exit pupil size and image quality would take priority over IS for me even though I don't fancy carrying around a tripod.

If IS is a priority, you know what your choices are, and they are rather limited.

If you are willing to go with lower power 7x or 8x, 8.5x, and have about $500 to a grand in your budget, the world is your oyster ($1,500 - $2k for the oysters with pearls .

Good ideas all but a question is where would be a good place to buy. EO is out of stock and I am not sure of B&H return policy. Any thoughts

B&H has been good about returns in my experience, at least on walk in orders. I've no experience with returning stuff to them on mail order, but believe them to be pretty reasonable.
Adorama is also pretty well known and I've had reasonable experience with them on returns.
http://www.adorama.com/
Cabelas is another option, even though they are hunting oriented.
Of course shipping and sometimes restock fees make mail order more expensive than the catalog prices suggest, but at least you have more choice.

Fernando np said:

Hi,
Exploiting this post my question is if there's somebody who can compare both 50mm ISCanon 15X and 18X. I consider stabilized only interesting over 10X if you had a pair of average arms. Never seen stabilized fujinon just now.

Click to expand...

tvwg.nl reviewed both. He prefered the 15x over the 18x

And IS does make a difference at 10x even though I can hold the 10x30 IS very steady.

Kevin Purcell said:

And IS does make a difference at 10x even though I can hold the 10x30 IS very steady.

Click to expand...

Same here. I love my Nikon 10x35 EII to bits, and can hold it pretty steady, but I can see more with my 10x30 IS.

Fuji 12x32

HI Chick:

i have the Fuju 12x32, and some reviews on the web notwithstanding, i find the optical quality a step down from the canon line. they are phase coated roofs, i believe, and OK for the most part, but lack the snap and image etch, and color fidelity of the canon 10X30's, which i also have (i believe both the 30 and 42L canons are porros). they are as well prone to a bit of "veiling glare" or whatever it's called, a wash of translucent whitish light, most often seen as a cresent moon shaped affair right at the bottom of the FOV. not a constant feature, it seems dependent on how close to the FOV the sun appears. i have however seen this during cloudy days as well. they are quite a handful, twice or more so the wt/bulk of the canon 30's, and more blocky shaped than the canon 42 L's, with out the nice curved housing.

the IS operation is a bit of a mixed bag; they dont display the wobbulation/oscillation whatever of the canon, that is the fine scale, defocus-like jitter i have seen in the 30Canon, and to a lesser extent, in the 42's. really rock solid in this regard. but they do posess less of a tripod mounted-like steadiness of the canons; basically it seems small scale movements of the hand, or shake, is not damped as well. i have compared this effect to hand held 6X Leopold Katmai's i ocassionally pull out, and they are somewhat steadier than that. i estimate the Fuji's show about the amount of hand shake of a 3-4X hand held glass. i found using them at the hawk watch quite neat, though, where they are clearly superior to the canons for following raptors in flight; the hand shake is not that noticable when the bin is in motion, and the lack of shudder in the image (vs the canon) is an advantage for iding subtle underwing patterns.

overall, though, i view the fujis as a specialty glass, really the wt and cinder block shape not my cup of tea for long days in the field. i chose it originally over the 12X Canon because of it's much better close focus.

i agree w/ Kevin on the shake damping advantages of IS, even at 10X. i have found it impossible to go back to non-IS bins at this point. probably just a matter of reacclimation, though, but i am unwilling to retrain my eye-brain conduit at this point. i almost always haul out either the 30 or 42 canons. pity, really, with all that great glass (10X42 FL, 10X45 Night Owl, 8 and 10X SE, ect) sitting unused in the drawer.

kind regards,
UTC

Let me ask this question then.

My wife and her parents are looking to het her brother and his family a pair of the 12 x 36 II for x-mas. I just found out that they will probably leave them on their sail boat (a big boat and stored inside) for maybe week at a time. Is the fact that they are not waterproof (just resistant) going to be an issue. I worry about mold growing on the inside. What to do...?

FYI - I called B&H today and if a purchase (Bins) are a x-mas present they are extending the return until 1/15/10, original condition of course.

The Canon IS system is not suitable for using on a boat. I've tried. It is not "strong" enough to correct for the pitch/roll. I also would not store any non-waterproof non-nitrogen purged bin that I cared about on a boat even for just a week. I think you need to choose between the Fujinon or Nikon stabilized bins for this application. I would lean towards the Nikon.

cheers,
Rick

ChIck3n said:

Hi. I have been birding for quite a while, and through all that time I have basically used the same pair of binoculars-the Canon 10x30 Image Stabilized. After all these years, these binoculars have become quite worn and even occasionally go a little out of focus when the IS is engaged (and it can't be brought into focus until you release the IS button). So, I am planning to buy some new binoculars.

I am currently debating buying:

The same kind. They are the lightest of the bunch, and provide a good wide FOV. Not waterproof.

Canon 12x36 IS II. Second lightest, higher power, but lower FOV. Not waterproof.

Canon 10x42 L IS Big and bulky, but has the largest objective lens and FOV (a small plus, as I also like astronomy). Is waterproof.


Nikon 12x32 StabilEyes. Heaviest. Lowest FOV, and smaller objective lens then the Canon. Stuck in because I am not sure how the IS in these compare to Canon. Waterproof/fogproof.
Fujinon TechnoStabi 12x32. Basically same as nikon. I am not sure how the quality of the IS compares to canon.

I do a lot of birding, including competitions where I bird non stop for 24+ hours. Does anyone have any experience with any of these binoculars and can compare them? I am not sure whether to go with more power, more aperture, or stick with the same ones that have served me well for about 10 years.

As you can probably tell, I REALLY like the image stabilizer binoculars. I have tried other binoculars, but have always liked the clarity provided by a shake free image. I have yet to understand why there are so few available.

Feel free to recommend other binoculars, but keep in mind that image stabilization is STRONGLY preferred.

Click to expand...

Hi:

I think you'd be happiest perhaps with another 10x30 IS or the 12x36s. I suspect that the failure you've experienced is pretty unusual, so I don't know that I'd let that sour you on the 10x30s if you otherwise are happy with them. I know that I use my 10x30s more than any other binocular for birding.

While it's true that the 12x36s aren't waterproof, they are rubberized the same as the 10x30s and will probably be fine if you take some care to avoid getting them really wet. They're also nice and lightweight.

I think you should test the 10x42s though before hand. They are quite heavy, though optically great.

Although I haven't used the Nikons, I did look at the Fujinon stabilized binos (and the Nikos look suspiciously similar). I don't think the Fujinons would work very well for birding.

I have a complete review of the Canon lineup up on my web site, if you're interested. That should help you with your decision.

Regards,
Gary

www.GarySeronik.com

Thanks Rick,
One more question. What about the batteries? It looks as bigger the IS bino as higher the power hunger. The idea to carry some pairs of extra batteries doen't made me entusiastic. I spend a lot of time looking through.

Fernando

Batteries are NOT a problem. I keep 2 pairs of the Sanyo Eneloop rechargeables and they last forever.

Rick