I really have been enjoying birding with my Canon 10x30 IS's because I have been seeing birds I didn't see before especially in bushes. It makes me want a waterproof version of it. I am thinking about trying the Canon 10x42 L is. Is it worth the money to upgrade? Obviously if you need waterproofing it is. But are the optics that much better? Does anybody have both. Thanks!
-
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.
Is the Canon 10x42 L IS a worthy upgrade form the 10x30 IS? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Hermann
Well-known member
I shouldn't really reply to this because I don't know the 10x42 that well. However, from the few occasions I tried it in the field I think it's quite clearly better than the 10x30. The optics are a lot closer to the current alphas, with very low CA. The larger exit pupil is also noticeable in die field.
However, it's really a bit heavy as far as I'm concerned. That's the trade-off, you get better optics but you have to carry quite a bit more.
Hermann
However, it's really a bit heavy as far as I'm concerned. That's the trade-off, you get better optics but you have to carry quite a bit more.
Hermann
I´ve owned both, and agree with Hermann. The 10x42 glass is outstanding. I could discern more CA than I would expect from an "alpha", but it wasn´t a problem. The IS system in the unit I had was flawless, far better than in other models I´ve had. Views were stunning, very warm crisp images. However, it was a beast to handle. Dodgy eyecups, and brick-like in the hand (especially compared to the comparatively cute 10x30). I reckoned the weight and handling weren´t a sufficient trade-off for a mag of only 10x. I have the 15x50 now, and although the image quality isn´t as good, it´s easier to handle (same weight, but easier to handle), and the 15x fills a niche for me by giving me that much extra reach. I would recommend you try a 10x42 for a few days in the field, if you can, before making a decision.
Steve C
Well-known member
I had both the 10x30 IS, the 12x36 IS and the 10x42 L IS to hand last weekend. While I can only give some impressions, those were that the 10x42 L IS was easily the better glass of the three. The IS function acted better, the button didn't have to be so precisely pushed and the IS function seemed to be a little more stable to me. I thought the color and contrast was better in the 10x42 L. Definitely bigger in the hand. I would also agree that the 10x42 is on the heavy side. I'd prefer a 12x36 L if they ever make such a thing.
Last edited:
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Hmm, I can't see the value in the 10x42, especially if you already have the 10x30. A few issues off the top of my head. First, the clear aperture is only ~37mm. Second, many including myself find the IS button to be akwardly positioned, not being intuitive like the 15/18x50IS models. Finally, it really is way too heavy to carry birding for extended periods and at 10x I think I can handhold pretty steady without IS. If you can't you should experiment with the weigted string "monopod" trick.
Oh, since you like the 8x EII you should get the 10x too. I like it better than the 8x myself.
Oh, since you like the 8x EII you should get the 10x too. I like it better than the 8x myself.
I don't think a 12x36 L IS would perform as well as the 10x42 L IS. It would have a smaller exit pupil and the IS system doesn't stabilize 12X quite as well plus it wouldn't be as bright in twilight situations. I think Canon went with the 10x42 configuration to open the IS system to the hunting market. I know quite a few hunters who use the 10x42 L IS and say they can spot game much better than regular binoculars. I ordered one from Amazon for $1100.00 and I am going to compare it to my 10x30 IS to see which one I like. I get it Monday so I will write a comparative review. I think the weight will be the only downside but I will see if I can handle it.
Last edited:
I heard the newer Canon 10x42 L IS's have 40.5mm of clear aperture now and they have made other improvements in them as well. I have a hard time holding 10x anymore. Maybe I am getting older but I can see more detail especially at 10x with the IS system. I sold my Nikon 10x35 EII's because I just can't hold 10x steady. I prefer the Canon 10x30 IS over the Nikon 10x35 EII because I can see more detail with it. Better edge sharpness also. Like picking a bird out of a bush is much quicker with the Canon and also on windy days the Canon is superb when the wind is blowing your hands all around. I don't like to have to carry a monopod with me.
Isn't the 15x50 heavier than the 10x42? Is the 15x50 IS waterproof? I think it would be nice to have that feature just in case you get stuck out in the rain. Does the IS feature stay on on the 15x50 IS?
Afaik, the clear aperture of the 10x42 has been brought up to spec. There was a more detailed discussion on another BF thread.
The IS button an the 10x42 is sort of stuck in, not really well positioned. That said, the IS turns on with a push and stays on until the glass is let hanging again, so that is not an issue imo.
However, the glass is a brick and really needs a harness or something similar to be comfortably carried. A good one is here:
http://search.coleman.com/cgi-bin/M...r&hiword=MANAGE MANAGED MANAGERS bino manager
The IS button an the 10x42 is sort of stuck in, not really well positioned. That said, the IS turns on with a push and stays on until the glass is let hanging again, so that is not an issue imo.
However, the glass is a brick and really needs a harness or something similar to be comfortably carried. A good one is here:
http://search.coleman.com/cgi-bin/M...r&hiword=MANAGE MANAGED MANAGERS bino manager
KorHaan
Well-known member
Anyone familiar with this gadget?
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/301/cat/24/limit/recent/date/1156344836
A friend of mine has got one, but I haven't been able to see it let alone try it.
It would be theoretically wonderful for the fullsized heavy Canons; I'd like to try it with my 18x50's. Better than a monopod/Finnstick?
The 10x42 L IS's remain something that's lurking in the background incessantly once one has discovered the joys of a shake-free image. I just can't forget about it, and must have it some day.
Best regards,
Ronald
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/301/cat/24/limit/recent/date/1156344836
A friend of mine has got one, but I haven't been able to see it let alone try it.
It would be theoretically wonderful for the fullsized heavy Canons; I'd like to try it with my 18x50's. Better than a monopod/Finnstick?
The 10x42 L IS's remain something that's lurking in the background incessantly once one has discovered the joys of a shake-free image. I just can't forget about it, and must have it some day.
Best regards,
Ronald
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Sorry, you have heard wrong. There have been no design changes or improvements made to this bino since its release.
I use a Bino-Manager for heavier glass. Would not be without one. They are wonderful. All the hunters out here use one also. Great for going through the brush because your binoculars don't get hung up. That's a good price on one. They are very nice. You don't even feel the weight of your binoculars.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Steve C
Well-known member
The Canon reps at the booth were pretty definite the aperture had been bumped to 42 mm as well.
I would like a 12x36 L IS not because it I necessarily think it would out perform the 10x42 L IS. There is not a great difference in the 12x36 IS and the 10x42 L IS. What would draw me to the 12x36 L IS is the size of the 12x36 is a lot nicer than the 10x42. I would actually like a 10x36 for the size issue, but I won't hold my breath for that. I can see the L upgrade for the 12x36 since it is in the lineup, and probably for the 10x30 for the same reason.
I don't think it matters where they place the IS button. Not everybody will like it wherever it goes. I have no issue with the IS placement, but I do think the focus wheel could be a little larger. I also can't like where they put the strap anchors at the base of the ocular. I tend to wonder if the heavy weight of the glass will make constant IPD adjustments necessary.
I would like a 12x36 L IS not because it I necessarily think it would out perform the 10x42 L IS. There is not a great difference in the 12x36 IS and the 10x42 L IS. What would draw me to the 12x36 L IS is the size of the 12x36 is a lot nicer than the 10x42. I would actually like a 10x36 for the size issue, but I won't hold my breath for that. I can see the L upgrade for the 12x36 since it is in the lineup, and probably for the 10x30 for the same reason.
I don't think it matters where they place the IS button. Not everybody will like it wherever it goes. I have no issue with the IS placement, but I do think the focus wheel could be a little larger. I also can't like where they put the strap anchors at the base of the ocular. I tend to wonder if the heavy weight of the glass will make constant IPD adjustments necessary.
Last edited:
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Dennis and Kevin, with all due respect to Mr. Schon, I remain confident in my judgement. No matter though because it is not my problem and at this price point I would not settle for anything less than full aperture.8-P
Last edited:
Hi Dennis, the 15x50 is indeed heavier, but doesn´t feel awkward as it´s better-balanced. The IS button falls nicely under my finger, unlike in the 10x42. The 15x50 isn´t waterproof, but "weather-resistant" or somesuch nonsense. I haven´t had it out in the rain yet. I´ll be giving it a full run-through while seawatching this summer, if I´m not absolutely happy I´ll sell it and buy a 12x36, which I used to own and which I imagine might be the best configuration for most users. Comparatively very light, and only three mag notches down from the 15x50. Good luck with the 10x42, I look forward to your assessment!:t:
Hi RJM,
I think you are right that there were no optical changes made.
The Schoen link Kevin posted includes 3 useful closeups of older and newer versions of the 10x42. (Blue links at the bottom of the article in the line marked Anhaenge
.
They clearly show a series of small engineering changes were made, stuff like boring out a fitting to open the light path or riffling the sides of the ocular tubes to cut down on stray light. Nothing to do with the optical elements, but rather tweaks of the support structure, that do have some impact on the overall light transmission.
I think you are right that there were no optical changes made.
The Schoen link Kevin posted includes 3 useful closeups of older and newer versions of the 10x42. (Blue links at the bottom of the article in the line marked Anhaenge
.They clearly show a series of small engineering changes were made, stuff like boring out a fitting to open the light path or riffling the sides of the ocular tubes to cut down on stray light. Nothing to do with the optical elements, but rather tweaks of the support structure, that do have some impact on the overall light transmission.
