• 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 10x42L: poor eye relief (1 Viewer)

E

ephemere

Member
Hi folks,

I'm new to binos, and I recently ordered a few pairs to test out. The best so far by a longshot are the Canon 10x42L IS, except for one fatal flaw—the eye relief. It's advertised as 16mm, but even with my glasses off I need to completely screw down the eyecups to get the full FOV. Extending the eyecups even one click blocks a fair portion of the FOV, which seems weird and unlike any other bino I can remember. With my glasses on, I estimate I'm getting at most 2/3 of the FOV. So 340' @ 1000 yds becomes more like 230'. If I'm laying down this much cash for binos, I'm not sure I can live with that compromise. Back to the store they may go, with reluctance.

Does anyone else have this same issue with the 10x42L? I read many reviews and threads before buying but didn't see this concern raised. The Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x32, on the other hand, gives me almost the full FOV with my glasses on, so it's not me.

Otherwise, I absolutely love these Canons. The IS makes viewing an entirely more pleasurable experience. Looking through other binos feels like a chore to be dispatched with quickly while looking through the Canons invites leisurely browsing, studying, and lingering. I saw 3 of Jupiter's moons right off the bat the first time I took them outside at night.
 
I can't use them with eyeglasses/sunglasses either. Without glasses, it only takes extending the cups one click to get proper ER. Fortunately, I don't wear glasses very often, so I am keeping them for now.

Might well be a different story when the day comes where I start wearing eyeglasses all the time........
 
Welcome to the Forum!

I use the Canon 10X42 L IS without eye glasses. In order to get the full field of view, I have the eye cups adjusted 1 position from full extension. It is the only binocular I have where the eye cups are not fully extended. All works as expected with that setting.

It does seem unusual that you have to have the eye cups fully collapsed without eye glasses to get a full FOV. I wonder how you are positioning the binocular in relation to your face. Generally, the top part of the eye cup should be touching your face just below the eyebrow. Bracing the eye cups against your face allows for a more steady hold. I get noticeable blackouts with the eye cups fully collapsed and viewing without eye glasses.

The eye relief seems about the same as some other 10X models I have. What is a little different is the eye cups on the Canon are a little bit longer in relation to the eye relief when fully extended. That is actually a good thing since the cups can be set to other than full extension. It is better to have an eye cup that can allow some extra extension than not enough.

I did some viewing with eye glasses with the eye cups fully collapsed and got the full FOV or very close to it, but there was no eye relief to spare.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting! I wear glasses, and I need about 16mm of eye relief; I find the Canon 10x42L IS gives me that much with the eyecups all the way down, and so I can use it comfortably with my glasses on. Without glasses, I get the best view with the eycups two clicks up from the bottom. One thing that may be at work here is that the Canon has unusually large eyecups, 45mm in diameter, and they have straight sides and a rather sharp "corner" at the top edge. They may be too large to fit comfortably in some individuals' eye sockets, and thus the practical eye relief may be short even with the eyecups retracted. Just a thought.

Welcome to the forum!

John
 
I have the Canon 10X42 L IS as well AND I wear glasses. I can get the full FOV while using them BUT it's on the edge of being able to do that. I have to actually kinda push the Canon up against my glasses to make sure I'm squeezing every mm of available eye-relief. This of course with the eyecups fully collapsed. WITHOUT eyeglasses, I can get the full FOV with the eyecups down one notch from fully extended.

Out in the field it DOES sometimes seem as if I'm NOT getting the full FOV. It's such a nontraditional device it's sometimes hard to tell. I never use the Canon as a primary or only binocular, only in conjunction with a 7 or 8X. I reach for the Canon only if I need a little help, usually at a distance so max FOV isn't all that important for me.
 
Thanks for all the feedback!

So it sounds like:
  1. If the eyecups are too large for my eye sockets, that could explain why I need to retract them fully to see the full FOV without my glasses.
  2. The surface of my glasses may be resting further away from my eyes, at least compared to other forum members. My wife suggested trying them with other glasses.
Nevertheless, it's interesting that the Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x32 worked so well with my glasses. I think it has 17.5mm of relief compared to the Canon's 16mm, but that spec was hard to find.

I've got some other binos on the way, including a 8x42 with a wide FOV and 18mm relief, so it will be interesting to see how that works.
 
ephemere said:
Hi folks,

I'm new to binos, and I recently ordered a few pairs to test out. The best so far by a longshot are the Canon 10x42L IS, except for one fatal flaw—the eye relief. It's advertised as 16mm, but even with my glasses off I need to completely screw down the eyecups to get the full FOV. Extending the eyecups even one click blocks a fair portion of the FOV, which seems weird and unlike any other bino I can remember. With my glasses on, I estimate I'm getting at most 2/3 of the FOV. So 340' @ 1000 yds becomes more like 230'. If I'm laying down this much cash for binos, I'm not sure I can live with that compromise. Back to the store they may go, with reluctance.

Does anyone else have this same issue with the 10x42L? I read many reviews and threads before buying but didn't see this concern raised. The Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x32, on the other hand, gives me almost the full FOV with my glasses on, so it's not me.

Otherwise, I absolutely love these Canons. The IS makes viewing an entirely more pleasurable experience. Looking through other binos feels like a chore to be dispatched with quickly while looking through the Canons invites leisurely browsing, studying, and lingering. I saw 3 of Jupiter's moons right off the bat the first time I took them outside at night.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------------
welcome to the forum.
I have a pair of 15 x 50 Canons, and with glasses on can only see about 2/3 of the field with the eyecups all the way down. This is an 'old' pair with fold down rubber eyecups. I agree the view with IS is quite wonderful. I purchased them 10 years ago for astronomical viewing and they have served me well (without glasses)

If you're auditioning binoculars for daytime viewing, and you'll be wearing glasses. I can recommend the following:
Swarovski 8x32 SV
Vanguard Endeavor ED2 8x42
Tract Toric 8x42
With all of these, I can see the entire field, the big circle with the sharp edge, with eyecups down and glasses on.

With the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 I can almost see the entire circle. Not quite, but its close! The one drawback of that binocular for me. Otherwise it is excellent, and in regular use, I don't think about it.

Pentax Papillo II: Not good with glasses (for me)

Some here on this forum who wear glasses have a wider tolerance, however, through trial and error, I've found I need a few more mm in the eye relief spec than they do. I've concluded so far that anything below 18 mm MIGHT occlude some of the field. Below 17 mm it will DEFINITELY do it. And I've not sampled everything out there, so my 'research' continues.. Trying them out is the only way you'll know.

Enjoy the hunt!

Bill
 
Last edited:
ephemere said:
Hi folks,

I'm new to binos, and I recently ordered a few pairs to test out. The best so far by a longshot are the Canon 10x42L IS, except for one fatal flaw—the eye relief. Does anyone else have this same issue with the 10x42L?

Otherwise, I absolutely love these Canons. The IS makes viewing an entirely more pleasurable experience. Looking through other binos feels like a chore to be dispatched with quickly while looking through the Canons invites leisurely browsing, studying, and lingering. I saw 3 of Jupiter's moons right off the bat the first time I took them outside at night.
Click to expand...

Hello Emphemere and Welcome to BF! :hi:

I no longer wear eyeglasses and obtain a full FOV using my 10X42L IS with the cups 1 position out from fully collapsed. With sunglasses, I have to have them fully down. With my roofs, I typically adjust eye cups all the way extended to prevent any black-outs, leaving plenty of adjustment when wearing sunglasses. It does appear the Canon's eye relief can be challenging.

Possibly, your glasses frame style\correction\eye socket depth may be keeping you from getting the full FOV. SWMBO suggestion is a good one, may need to check with your eye care specialist on other options for binocular use!?

I agree with your findings on their optical attributes. Hopefully, you can sort out this issue and enjoy their FOV prowess even more! :t:

Ted
 
Like many other I use the 10x42L with my eyeglasses eye cups all the way down and it's a very relaxed view. The binoculars you ordered were New?
 
Problem solved! It's my glasses!

Before I go on, thank you all for the warm welcome to the forum. I've been reading off and on for some time.

Tonight I dug out my previous 4 pairs of glasses, for a total of 5 pairs. Results from worst to best:
  • approx 65% FOV—unfortunately this is my current pair
  • approx 85% FOV
  • approx 85% FOV
  • approx 95% FOV
  • 100% 👍
Subjectively, I could probably live with the FOV in all but my current glasses. Now I know it's a solvable problem. For reference, the picture below shows current pair, although the fellow pictured is not I.

As for why I need the eyecups fully retracted with glasses off, it seems to be because the large eyecups are hitting my nose or something.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I might not have put this much effort into it otherwise.
 

Attachments

  • david_beckham-617.jpg
    david_beckham-617.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 84
WDC wrote, " Trying them out is the only way you'll know."

This is true but Typo has also found from his trials with bins that he can usefully, but not necessarily wholly reliably, judge what available eye relief he requires. He, and I, both wear spectacles.

Because I have three Swaro EL bins, each using the same eyepieces, (two of which have stated ERs of 20mm and one of 19mm, which last one does not work well for me), and that these distances are measured from the ocular glass surface to the exit pupil point, that the available eye relief for me is about 15mm or more. That is because the distance from the lens to the plane of the rim of the eye cup is about 5mm.

Consequently, I have found that (some?) zeiss bins, with lower stated ERs do work well for me.

Surely it would help spectacle wearers if binocular (and scope) companies listed both methods of measurement. Had this been the case I might well have started with Zeiss instead of Swarovski for top end bins, as I have found some of their bins, at least, to have a more natural, less saturated view, than the Swaros.
 
Ephemere, do those glasses each sit closer to your eyes as the % of view increases? I cannot, however, work out how you can find this out without getting someone else to observe you sideways. If there is a way to do this oneself I would appreciate knowing how. Thanks!

PS. Please ignore that second part. Only after posting that did I realize that it can be done, simply, with a phone which has a camera, or a camera per se. I am a bit prehistoric and use neither. In the meantime Binastro had replied as below.
 
Last edited:
You have to rotate your head really fast. :)

Or use mirrors.

Alternatively, use a compact camera, which is pretty easy.

P.S.
Just did it easily with a Canon compact using the macro setting.

However, don't use flash unless you are using a Konica Minolta Z5 or Z6, which gives correct exposures at very close distances.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't that be "and" (not "or") use mirrors? Even if you rotate your head faster than the speed of light (to be precise, such that the pupil, which takes in the image, has moved faster than 'c') how does the light from the image (of your profile) get into to your eye? (Try it if you don't trust my logic. Be warned that you might feel dizzy.)

Unfortunately or fortunately I don't have a camera now, nor does my phone, which is a basic (non-smart) cell phone. Don't the sophisticated, super-sensitive, current digital cameras give correct exposure without flash in a very wide range of light conditions and distances, and even if not, won't one be able to "tweak" the result? This is what I have gathered about wildlife photography and I may be quite wrong.
 
Last edited:
Thanks adhoc.
At least you got the joke.

The initial speed of light tests were indeed done using rotating mirrors. (Michelson?) Although timing Jupiter's moons gave an earlier result.

My compact camera is 9 years old, but I have a low light level camera.

A young lady backed her new red small car straight into a skip outside late 2 nights ago and I used 800 ISO, but it wasn't fast enough.
She destroyed her door mirror, some of the car's side and the bumper.
If she claims her insurance premium will rocket.

The Sony A7S is fine at 51,200 ISO or 102,400 ISO but it wasn't handy.
With The Samyang 85mmm f/1.4 lens the photos would have been good.
She was very pretty, but not much of a driver.

Maybe using a make up mirror with 3 mirrors would work on the side of ones face. The ones on a desk type thing.
In clothing stores they used to have mirrors so that you could see all round. I don't know if they still do.
They also had free X-ray machines for ones feet. Don't think they were safe, but I am still here.

Does your computer have a camera? Mine doesn't.
Nor do I have a camera phone.

I see they dropped a Nintendo 1000ft and it survived.
They should try binoculars.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Binastro. Please see the PS to my post #12.

I was going to reply only that you had forgotten Morley. Then I looked up Wikipedia. A magical invention, like the binocular. I learn with surprise: "In 1629, Isaac Beeckman proposed an experiment in which a person observes the flash of a cannon reflecting off a mirror about one mile (1.6 km) away."

The young lady can keep the premium down by telling the insurance co. that an astro-nerd- or bird-watcher-looking (i.e. weird) man was aiming a camera at her and she panicked.

No my computer is a desktop and the screen does not have a camera. I am nervous that I might be spied upon. Also I am paranoid about "computer technology" for want of a better term, AI etc. (though even more magical). My "screensaver"? shows Kasparov with his hands on his head, the first time a world champion was beaten at chess by a computer. I was gifted a smartphone and a tablet but gave away the phone to a domestic aide and have not switched on the tablet after using it a few weeks for a special purpose for which it was given.

Have you seen the Zeiss Conquest videos? They drop it only a few feet but they do other extreme things to it.

Sincere apologies to normal readers. This began within the OP's theme.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Similar threads

A
Usable Eye Relief (spartan method)
Replies
9
Views
527
Patudo
P
A
Entry - Midrange Binocular Recommendation ($500)
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Binovehje
B
S
Hello from Singapore, Binocular help
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Chris Pringle
C
J
Hello from South Korea!
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
jackjack
J
J
brief comparison between Vanguard Endeavor ED 2 / ED4 10x42
Replies
0
Views
510
jackjack
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top