• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon 10x42 IS L cutaway view (1 Viewer)

kabsetz

Well-known member
Here, so folks can compare the optical configuration with that of other alphas.

http://cweb.canon.jp/binoculars/10x42li-spsite/s_n/index.html

This takes you to a "special site" for the binocular. To get the cutaway, 1) skip the annoying animation by clicking "skip," 2) click 3rd from top red rectangle, 3) click the bottom left red rectangle, 4) click the 3rd from top red rectangle.

Sorry that this is so involved. If someone finds a more direct way to get to it, please post the link.

Kimmo
 
Last edited:
Thank you for finding this.
The schematics are excellent and very informative. The structure of the glass seems surprisingly involved to my layman's eyes. Packaging the IS and the battery pack clearly took some serious effort.
 
I've never been able to figure out a way to download these cutaways, so I made some screen grabs for protection against the day when the website disappears. It's certainly a very impressive looking optical design even without the IS.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0238.JPG
    DSC_0238.JPG
    156.5 KB · Views: 553
  • DSC_1027.JPG
    DSC_1027.JPG
    238.8 KB · Views: 580
  • DSC_1028.JPG
    DSC_1028.JPG
    216.3 KB · Views: 540
I have used Canon image stabilised binoculars for about 15 years.

Does anybody know if the variable prism element loses transparency over the years?

The 18×50 seems more or less the same after 10 years with Jupiter's moons, but I don't know if my eyes have lost a bit of transparency or the binocular or both or may be neither. It might just be the increase in light pollution.

An old Zeiss 15×60 gives much brighter images but it might just be the larger exit pupil.

The Canon 18×50 is about as good as you can get for finding moons very close to Jupiters limb. At least with a binocular not heavier or much more expensive than the Canon.
 
So, as the optics seem excellent, is there any reason why Canon has not just produced a purely mechanical binocular based on the L, without the complex stabilization?

This unit doesn't sell, for whatever reason, but why not just go mainstream and compete with the mid to upper tier binoculars? Without the stabilization, they should be smaller, lighter, cheaper and far less complex.
 
James,

This is a good question. I honestly have no idea what the folks at Canon are thinking when it comes to binoculars, but I can engage in some pointless, uninformed speculation.

Firstly, the stabilization is such an excellent improvement on binocular viewing that when you have the know-how to incorporate it into your binoculars, making a premium model without it may seem nonsensical to them. Kind of like offering a telescope without a tripod foot.

Secondly, these big Japanese companies seem to give very little weight to customer preferences in the west, and binoculars are a very marginal product line for Canon.

Thirdly, they may just have been thinking that in due course, the birders and other binocular users would start to see the benefits and gravitate towards their IS models. Obviously, this has not been happening very fast at all.

The funny thing is that if they would package these optics into a sleek more conventional-looking housing, they would have a binocular which would weigh about the same as the various SV's, HD's, SF's or Ultravids. Optically, it would be the equal of the very best, and ought to cost significantly less since the current IS model already costs less on most markets than the European "alphas" do.

My guess is that such a model would both take sales away from N+Z+L+S, and would also bring more customers to try the IS L.

Kimmo
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that if they would package these optics into a sleek more conventional-looking housing, they would have a binocular which would weigh about the same as the various SV's, HD's, SF's or Ultravids. Optically, it would be the equal of the very best, and ought to cost significantly less since the current IS model already costs less on most markets than the European "alphas" do.

My guess is that such a model would both take sales away from N+Z+L+S, and would also bring more customers to try the IS L.

Kimmo

Would not such a glass be simply a modern porro?
As such, it should cost less because the prisms are easier to make, although the complex eye pieces offset some of those savings.
 
James,

"Both and" is what I was talking about. It would be a downgrade of all times if they would terminate the IS and only sell the binocular, as good as it would be.

Etudiant,

Taking the pointless speculation even further, there would be two main options. Change the prism assembly to a conventional Schmidt-Pechan, for which there would be space once the IS bellows were no longer hogging their share. Then they would need all the dielectric & phase coatings, and image quality might suffer ever so slightly.

Secondly, they could just keep the formula as it is, with compact and non-problematic Porro II prisms. This would result in a more unconventional form-factor, but one that may be better in use as long as customers were willing to accept it. With IP-distance being adjusted by twisting eyepiece assemblies and the optical axes of the objectives situated below those of the eyepieces, with my 65 mm inter pupillary distance the main body lies about an inch lower than it would if the axes were not offset. Small as this sounds, it makes a difference in viewing comfort when your arms don't have to be quite as high up. Another benefit would be the possibility to retain the excellent tripod adapter thread under the one-piece main body. Not needing an adaptor of any kind between the Finnstick and the binocular saves weight and expense. The Swarovski binocular tripod adapter weighs about 160 g (we weighed it yesterday), almost three quarters of the weight difference between the IS L and a 10x42 SV.

Kimmo
 
Well, Canon would be wise to at least address the ergonomic shortcomings of the L-IS. Besides the bulk, the eye cups are horrid, the focus tiny and hopeless with gloves on and the shape just doesn't fit my hands.

They might think about a better warranty too, as the current one seems to dissuade more potential buyers than anything else, as the short warranty and high cost of repair are really out of step with the rest of the bino. world.
 
Well, Canon would be wise to at least address the ergonomic shortcomings of the L-IS. Besides the bulk, the eye cups are horrid, the focus tiny and hopeless with gloves on and the shape just doesn't fit my hands.

They might think about a better warranty too, as the current one seems to dissuade more potential buyers than anything else, as the short warranty and high cost of repair are really out of step with the rest of the bino. world.

The Canon 10x42ISL is a superior product with lots of flaws that could be easily addressed in a Mark 2 version. James Holdsworth highlights some of the more pressing, although the shape is probably fundamental and hard to change.
The warranty issue is a non starter imho for an electronics producer such as Canon. Their consumer optics, mostly cameras, usually have only 2-3 years of production life, so long warranties make no sense. In fact, just finding spare parts becomes problematic in a hurry. Binoculars are too small a business to justify changing the corporate warranty policy. To compensate, Canon does offer the consumer a superior product in this space at a 50% discount from the other alphas.
Kimmo is entirely right that removing the IS from their glass would be self defeating. Canon is not attuned to fighting on the same terrain as the other alphas, offering 'peace of mind' and 'lifetime warranties'. Rather they will succeed or fail on the strength of their innovations. My only concern here is that although Canon has greatly expanded their IS binocular product line, they have been slow to add improvements or new models at the leading edge. There is no 12x50ISL or even a 10x30ISL to complement the increasingly venerable 10x42ISL.
 
James,

This is a good question. I honestly have no idea what the folks at Canon are thinking when it comes to binoculars, but I can engage in some pointless, uninformed speculation.

Firstly, the stabilization is such an excellent improvement on binocular viewing that when you have the know-how to incorporate it into your binoculars, making a premium model without it may seem nonsensical to them. Kind of like offering a telescope without a tripod foot.

Secondly, these big Japanese companies seem to give very little weight to customer preferences in the west, and binoculars are a very marginal product line for Canon.

Thirdly, they may just have been thinking that in due course, the birders and other binocular users would start to see the benefits and gravitate towards their IS models. Obviously, this has not been happening very fast at all.

The funny thing is that if they would package these optics into a sleek more conventional-looking housing, they would have a binocular which would weigh about the same as the various SV's, HD's, SF's or Ultravids. Optically, it would be the equal of the very best, and ought to cost significantly less since the current IS model already costs less on most markets than the European "alphas" do.

My guess is that such a model would both take sales away from N+Z+L+S, and would also bring more customers to try the IS L.

Kimmo

But, before going much further they'd be wise to acknowledge the population's eye relief needs.

Ed :smoke:
 
But, before going much further they'd be wise to acknowledge the population's eye relief needs.

Ed :smoke:

A modest redesign of the oculars to slim them down half a centimeter would be helpful, as it would allow the glass to be placed closer to the eye than the present design permits.
In fairness though, the current glass has enough eye relief for me even though my glasses correct 300/400 vision.
 
A modest redesign of the oculars to slim them down half a centimeter would be helpful, as it would allow the glass to be placed closer to the eye than the present design permits.
In fairness though, the current glass has enough eye relief for me even though my glasses correct 300/400 vision.

Hi etudiant,

As I mentioned on another post today:

"For whatever reason, the idea hasn't caught on that your eyeglass prescription plays a major role in determining your eye relief needs. In general, near sighted folks can get away with shorter eye relief than far sighted people. The optical explanation has to do with how the prescription lenses move the effective location and size of your eyes' entry pupils."

Depending on the prescription involved, we're talking about 3-5mm.

Being 3.5D far-sighted, usability for me begins with ER ≥ 18mm.

They are in the optics business and peddle expensive products. It's only fair that they provide what the population needs.

Ed
 
Hi etudiant,

As I mentioned on another post today:

"For whatever reason, the idea hasn't caught on that your eyeglass prescription plays a major role in determining your eye relief needs. In general, near sighted folks can get away with shorter eye relief than far sighted people. The optical explanation has to do with how the prescription lenses move the effective location and size of your eyes' entry pupils."

Depending on the prescription involved, we're talking about 3-5mm.

Being 3.5D far-sighted, usability for me begins with ER ≥ 18mm.

They are in the optics business and peddle expensive products. It's only fair that they provide what the population needs.

Ed

Thank you very much 'elkcub' for that extra detail, very informative.
So being very near sighted works to my advantage here. The Canon's 16mm eye relief is quite adequate, something I did not really understand until you provided the answer.
 
Thank you very much 'elkcub' for that extra detail, very informative.
So being very near sighted works to my advantage here. The Canon's 16mm eye relief is quite adequate, something I did not really understand until you provided the answer.

Yes, and for what it's worth you also have slightly larger "effective" entrance pupils, experience somewhat smaller retinal images, and have a larger apparent field than your far-sighted counterparts. Light per unit area on the retina (i.e., brightness) remains constant, however, because the larger pupil size is balanced by the larger retinal field.

This may be the most well kept secret in all of Binoculardom. :brains:

Ed
 
Last edited:
Ed,

Some measurements that pertain to the eyepieces and eyeglass (un)friendliness of the Canon 10x42. My eye-relief measurements come from the eyecup rim, not the lens surface, since you cannot push your glasses beyond the rim anyway.

ER Canon = 13 mm, ER Swaro 8x42 SLC HD = 16 mm, ER Swaro 10x50 SV = 16 mm.
ER Canon with eyecup rubber removed = 15 mm. You can achieve this if you remove the rubbers and put rings of thin adhesive felt around the eye lens.

Diameter of eye lens (gives an idea of subjective FOV/ER): Canon = 23 mm, SLC HD 8x42 = 23 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 24 mm.

Diameter of eyecup: Canon 44 mm, SLC HD 8x42 38 mm, ELSV 10x50 40 mm. The diameter of the Canon cup is truly huge, and since the very edge of the rim is the most elevated, some curved eyeglass lenses will sink in them a bit.

Eyecup extension/ click stops: Canon 6, 9, 11 mm out from fully in, SLC HD 8x42 = 8, 12 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 3, 9, 13 mm.

Closest focusing distance, with my far-sighted eyes: Canon 2.6 m, SLC HD 8x42 1,9 m, ELSV 10x50 2,8 m.

I'm thinking of doing a thorough test of the 10x42 IS L that I just bought, since the original test I've written was on one from the first year of production. Thus far, resolution measurements show the new one to essentially equal the 10x50 ELSV both in centerfield sharpness, sweet spot size and off axis resolution all the way to the edge.

Kimmo
 
Last edited:
Ed,

Some measurements that pertain to the eyepieces and eyeglass (un)friendliness of the Canon 10x42. My eye-relief measurements come from the eyecup rim, not the lens surface, since you cannot push your glasses beyond the rim anyway.

ER Canon = 13 mm, ER Swaro 8x42 SLC HD = 16 mm, ER Swaro 10x50 SV = 16 mm.
ER Canon with eyecup rubber removed = 15 mm. You can achieve this if you remove the rubbers and put rings of thin adhesive felt around the eye lens.

Diameter of eye lens (gives an idea of subjective FOV/ER): Canon = 23 mm, SLC HD 8x42 = 23 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 24 mm.

Diameter of eyecup: Canon 44 mm, SLC HD 8x42 38 mm, ELSV 10x50 40 mm. The diameter of the Canon cup is truly huge, and since the very edge of the rim is the most elevated, some curved eyeglass lenses will sink in them a bit.

Eyecup extension/ click stops: Canon 6, 9, 11 mm out from fully in, SLC HD 8x42 = 8, 12 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 3, 9, 13 mm.

Closest focusing distance, with my far-sighted eyes: Canon 2.6 m, SLC HD 8x42 1,9 m, ELSV 10x50 2,8 m.

I'm thinking of doing a thorough test of the 10x42 IS L that I just bought, since the original test I've written was on one from the first year of production. Thus far, resolution measurements show the new one to essentially equal the 10x50 ELSV both in centerfield sharpness, sweet spot size and off axis resolution all the way to the edge.

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo,

Actually, the 10x42 IS L is the first Canon that's even approachable to me. Every time I picked one up in the past the 14.5mm eye relief made me put it down. Your measurements of the 8x42 SLC-HD are spot on, although my preference would be to measure the inside of the eyecup to get an idea of how much spectacle lens sag fits it. For the SLC-HD the inner diameter is 30mm, and my guesstimate is that sag accounts for about 1.5mm of the 2.5mm drop from the inner edge to the eye lens. Since the Canon's eye lens is also 23mm, the situation might be very similar. The outside measurement of the eyecup is very important relative to the person's anatomy, as shown in the last attachment. This is a problem I had with the Nikon 8x E2, although, of course, it might not be true for everyone.

I'll try to evaluate the Canon 10x42 IS when I'm in Palo Alto next time.

PS. The effect of one's eyeglass prescription is still very significant and largely not understood. But then, what can we expect if an operation like Allbinos doesn't even include ER in their rating formula? It boggles the mind.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Eyeglass-Eyecup.jpg
    Eyeglass-Eyecup.jpg
    18.9 KB · Views: 147
  • Eyecup:Glasses Interface-2.jpg
    Eyecup:Glasses Interface-2.jpg
    221.7 KB · Views: 235
  • Eye Anthropometry .jpg
    Eye Anthropometry .jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 218
PS. The effect of one's eyeglass prescription is still very significant and largely not understood. But then, what can we expect if an operation like Allbinos doesn't even include ER in their rating formula? It boggles the mind.

Ed

Thank you again, 'elkcub', for highlighting a really substantial ergonomic/optical issue.
Most birders wear glasses, at least based on my limited sample, yet the practical consequences are almost always ignored by the evaluators.
I do know that the oversized oculars fitted to the Canon 10x42ISL would be too big for my face, but my wearing glasses allows the Canon to fit, while my myopia prescription helps make the Canon eye relief adequate. These are tangible changes which transform the usability of the product much more than would an extra 2 percent transmission, yet that is the focus of reviewers.
Steve Ingraham used to appraise binoculars in a column entitled 'Better View Desired', maybe we need a 'Better Reviews Desired' supplement.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top