IS not working (1 Viewer)

IS not working - repair cost?

A friend give me his 10x42 L IS WP to look at - the IS doesn't work. He bought them about 5 years ago, so they are out of warranty (3 years I guess?)

The optics are really very good, top class compared to my Swaros and Nikons.

I have had an L series camera lens repaired by Canon, it was about $280 (I had dropped it, and the autofocus and IS didn't work.)

Has anyone had these glasses repaired by Canon recently? I'm curious about what the repair could cost. Thanks,

John F

No experience with a failed 10x42, knock on wood, mine is still working fine at about that age.
Have you tried the usual drill, fresh, ideally lithium, batteries?
Also try to toggle the on/off switch repeatedly, just in case crud has fouled the contacts.

Absent that helping, you'll need expert help from Canon. My guess is the glass would go back to Japan, because it is doubtful that the sales have been large enough to justify setting up a US repair capability.
So any repair would probably not be cheap. Unfortunately, unlike their printers, a new 10x42 is just too dear to justify scrapping the old one, even in the face of a multi hundred dollar repair bill.

barshnik said:

A friend give me his 10x42 L IS WP to look at - the IS doesn't work. He bought them about 5 years ago, so they are out of warranty (3 years I guess?)

The optics are really very good, top class compared to my Swaros and Nikons.

I have had an L series camera lens repaired by Canon, it was about $280 (I had dropped it, and the autofocus and IS didn't work.)

Has anyone had these glasses repaired by Canon recently? I'm curious about what the repair could cost. Thanks,

John F

Click to expand...

John:

Too bad, I suppose the battery has been checked out.

This is one reason, I will not buy any optic that needs batteries to operate.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

John:

This is one reason, I will not buy any optic that needs batteries to operate.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Me too except for the 10x30 IS, which can be had secondhand for a nice enough price that you'd probably get your money's worth before it fizzled.

A 15x50 IS owner on Cloudy Nights had his Canon repaired after it failed. I can't remember what it cost him, but it was a considerable chuck of change.

That "amortized cost over a lifetime" argument may work for an alpha that will still be serviceable in 25-30 years from now, but for an IS bin that could fizzle in 5 years or less, that's harder to make.

OTOH, if you're an older birder and have shaky hands, and your lifetime might not last another 25-30 years of warranty or perhaps you might not be healthy enough to go out birding when you're in your 80s, then by all means, Carpe Diem! Buy the IS and enjoy it while you can, and if they kick the bucket before you do, buy another pair or get the old one repaired.

My main beefs with the Canon IS bins are their small exit pupils, which won't be an issue for older birders, and the substantial weight of the models larger than the 12x36 IS, which could be an issue even if you're younger.

Perhaps nanotechnology will allow for less bulky and lighter full sized IS bins in the future, but I'm not sure what the solution is to the small exit pupils. The 10x42 IS L is the only IS bin available with a 4mm exit pupil. All the rest are around 3mm.

Brock

Do note the Canon 10x42 is a very fine binocular even without the IS, very bright and sharp, with a decent FoV. It does not turn dark and useless if the IS fails, it just revert to being a normal binocular. So the concern about battery operated gear seems a bit over the top in this case.

I second what Etudiant says above. By Canon users' standards, all conventional binoculars are running on dead batteries 100% of the time.

- Kimmo

kabsetz said:

I second what Etudiant says above. By Canon users' standards, all conventional binoculars are running on dead batteries 100% of the time.

- Kimmo

Click to expand...

THAT is funny, thanks for giving me a chuckle.

I did the arrangements with Canon for returning the 10x42 L IS's for repair, now it is up to my friend to actually pack them and get them in the mail. He doesn't want to send them until he & his wife return from a vacation in July. I tried to to convince him that they would only be gone 3 to 4 weeks, but he doesn't want to take the chance.

They have enough mass to make them quite stable even without IS, and the optics are extremely good.

Comparing them to my Swarovski 10x32 SV's, the only items that I can notice are the slightly smaller FOV of the Canon, and ever so slight less contrast. By gosh they are impressive though, with virtually no CA and little distortion.

John F