Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

canon 10x42 vs swarovski 10x56

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 9th January 2018, 21:30   #26
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
One big advantage of the Canon is it has an AFOV of 65 degrees
Apparent field of view of the 10x42L is 59.2 degrees according to Canon themselves - see https://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/pro.../10x42l_is_wp/

I'm just wondering how many commentators in this thread, kabsetz apart, have had a good look through both instruments?

Last edited by Patudo : Tuesday 9th January 2018 at 21:32.
Patudo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 9th January 2018, 23:29   #27
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,117
Looks like Canon's AFOV spec is a calculation using the ISO method. Neither that method nor the 65 simple calculation takes distortion into account. Swaovski's spec appears to be an actual measurement of the "true" AFOV including distortion.

Without measuring it we can't know the "true" AFOV of the Canon, but since we know it has some pincushion distortion, it's reasonable to to assume a value somewhere close to the midpoint between 59.2 and 65.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th January 2018, 09:46   #28
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 308
Canon IS 10x42 vs an "alpha" non-IS 12x (e.g. Swaro. EL 12x50): can anyone comment from experience? Thanks!
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th January 2018, 11:48   #29
wllmspd
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hampton
Posts: 123
Depends how still you reckon you can hold the 12x as the stabilisation allows you pick out really small details as the view isnt moving about.

Peter
wllmspd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th January 2018, 16:00   #30
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 308
Yes, I based the question on that concept--also aware that different non-IS 12x models, with differing weight and balance, will differ in stability in the hands of different users--but I am seeking reports of actual experience of "side-by-side" comparisons, in terms of seeing detail.
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th January 2018, 16:19   #31
doug el10x32
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 97
Hi Adhoc.

I think that you will find that if both are handheld, the Canon IS model will show far more detail. I didn't have a 12x Swarovski, but all of my Canon IS models run circles around my Swarovski 10x EL's and SLC's.

Doug.....

Last edited by doug el10x32 : Wednesday 10th January 2018 at 16:37.
doug el10x32 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th January 2018, 19:37   #32
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,150
I've tried the Canon 10x42L IS WP several times, but the 16mm eye relief always turned out to be a deal breaker. Those who use prescription eyeglasses owe it to themselves to evaluate this aspect before buying. Near sighted folks will probably be more comfortable than far sighted ones.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Wednesday 10th January 2018 at 20:16.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 12th January 2018, 20:43   #33
maico
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 251
As a Canon owner I'll throw in my 1 cents worth.

If you have a narrow IPD with a big nose or wear glasses when viewing try before you buy. Clearance can be tight.

The Canon performs optically slightly better with the IS off. If the IS were to fail it's not the end of the world.

Swarovski are sold by specialist dealers and it's hard to get a substantial discount. I tried and failed to buy a SLC 8x56 recently.
Canon on the other hand, is carried by places who sell washing machines and computers and here in England you can get great deals if you keep your eyes open !

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CANON-Bin...72.m2749.l2649


I used to run an arbitrage business selling prestige German brands into the US in situations where the official US importers jacked the prices up to unrealistic levels.
maico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th February 2018, 13:38   #34
forent
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
Maybe on the IPD being suitable for you.
The Canon 10X42 has a large diameter eyecup. Depending on a person's facial structure and nose width, that can cause a fit problem for someone with a narrow IPD. For purposes of comparison, the approximate outside edge diameter of the Canon eyecup is 45mm. (...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maico View Post
(...) If you have a narrow IPD with a big nose or wear glasses when viewing try before you buy. Clearance can be tight. (...)
Some weeks ago I tested the Canon 10x42 IS for myself and found it simply impossible to adjust those giant eyecups to my face. (Rather narrow IPD / strong nose - still looking extremely handsome ). Moreover, these eyecups are pretty sharp-edged and pinched painfully into the alar wings of my nose. We definitely are a bad match, the Canon 10x42 and me. It goes without saying that I wasn't interested in its optical performance anymore.
forent is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th February 2018, 03:52   #35
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 211
The SLC 56 will obviously be significantly brighter than any 42, if that's part of "wow" for you (it was for me). But you'd absolutely have to try an IS and non-IS bino yourself to decide between them. I have no experience with IS in a bino and haven't been curious, it just sounds like such a different experience aesthetically. (I bought my first serious digital camera with AF, IS etc a couple of years ago, and can't really say it's won me over yet.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
For purposes of comparison, the approximate outside edge diameter of the Canon eyecup is 45mm. This compares to approximately 41mm for a Swarovski 10X50 EL SV. Sorry, but I do not have any 56mm SLCs to compare but maybe someone else can supply a measurement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
My comments about stereopsis were limited to just the two binoculars the OP is considering. The objective spacing of my 8x56 FL is 69mm at the minimum IPD of 56mm and 91mm at the maximum IPD of 76mm. I am assuming the 10x56 SLC is about the same, so it should have equal or greater stereopsis compared to the Canon at any IPD.
SLC 10x56: eyecup outer diameter 40mm, about the same as the EL 50. Objective spacing at my IPD (about 67) is 12mm more than ocular spacing, a bit less than the FL 56.

Last edited by tenex : Wednesday 28th February 2018 at 03:56.
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th February 2018, 16:39   #36
huronbay
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: michigan
Posts: 14
Patudo (#26)

We are fortunate to own both. The IS won my wife over over on the first look at the night sky and became her only handheld. I wouldn't want to choose between them if held to one, as would probably pick the 8.5x42. They are both more or less specialty glass for us, low-light wildlife and astro.

As to sharpness, I have only compared once really, by placing both on tripods. Definitely, of our two examples the Swaro is the sharper. Not to say the Canon isn't superb...it is. IMHO, in practical use, the IS makes it an alpha competitor.

The 10x56 Swaro gives me a discernible advantage in low-light having spent considerable time comparing it to the Canon and others. Like its stable mate the 15x56, it gives fantastic daytime views and I prefer it to the 10x EL. For whatever reason, I can hold the big SLC more steadily than the EL--well enough to prefer using it to the Canon--my wife cannot. However, the IS feature of the Canon allows it to perform better in revealing detail in low-light than other 42mm, we have compared. It would be interesting to compare the Canon 10x42 next to some alpha type 50mms in low-light.

The Swaro 56mm SLC next to a Zeiss HT 54mm has a noticeably larger "sweet spot" for me and in practice, between the Canon and Swaro 10x56, do consider the edge differences a non-issue. But on paper, I'm sure that may be important...:)

fwiw...

Last edited by huronbay : Wednesday 28th February 2018 at 16:41.
huronbay is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th February 2018, 22:33   #37
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,230
Here is good review on the Canon 10x42 IS-L by Kimmo.
https://www.suomenlintuvaruste.com/k...L_IS_WP_GB.pdf

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 1st March 2018 at 16:16.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st March 2018, 15:48   #38
Stanbo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Here is good review on the Canon 10x42 IS-L.
https://www.suomenlintuvaruste.com/k...L_IS_WP_GB.pdf
The author can be found in postings #9 and #11.

Stan
Stanbo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd March 2018, 18:57   #39
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,454
The author (me) should update the review, since it is many years old and the binocular scene has somewhat evolved in the meantime. However, the Canon 10x42 L IS has also evolved a bit, and my overall conclusions have not changed fundamentally.

Some additional testing concerning hand-held vs. stabilised hand-held vs. tripod-mounted viewing can be found here:http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776
Here I have used a more recent sample of the Canon than in the original test report. However, the thread digresses a bit later on, as these threads tend to do.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th March 2018, 01:02   #40
tenex
Registered User
 
tenex's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 211
I think I see why I just don't want to get interested in IS binos myself, regardless of how well they may work... not to mention digital zoom etc. Since cameras have become electronic and obsolescent, all my lifelong affection for classic optics that basically last forever has shifted over to binos, where there's no really compelling reason to modernize. I think I'd rather get a Habicht than an IS, just to thumb my nose at "progress".
tenex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th March 2018, 12:47   #41
Canip
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Nordschweiz
Posts: 306
Canip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th March 2018, 15:25   #42
Troubador
Moderator
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 7,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenex View Post
I think I see why I just don't want to get interested in IS binos myself, regardless of how well they may work... not to mention digital zoom etc. Since cameras have become electronic and obsolescent, all my lifelong affection for classic optics that basically last forever has shifted over to binos, where there's no really compelling reason to modernize. I think I'd rather get a Habicht than an IS, just to thumb my nose at "progress".
I would choose a Dialyt 7x42 but for exactly the same reasons.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th March 2018, 20:42   #43
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,454
There are many beautiful classic binoculars with no electronics available these days, with better performance than what was available five or ten years ago. Several of them I would love to own, have sitting on my shelf and occasionally even use, but for serious birdwatching I no longer use binoculars without IS. I simply see that much more and more easily with them. As far as IS binoculars, I would very much like to see even better models than the current cream of the crop, but as for now the Canon 10x42 IS L offers the best stabilized image available and that is what I will use until something better comes along.

I don't consider electronic IS obsolescent, on the contrary, I now consider non-stabilised binoculars largely obsolete.

But I sympathise with the sentiment of wishing to hold on to lifelong service-free reliable purely opto-mechanical instruments.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
swarovski slc 10x56 batvenci Swarovski 3 Friday 8th September 2017 12:10
nikon se, canon is or swarovski slc 10x42 Hati Binoculars 19 Thursday 17th August 2017 16:39
Eden XP 10x42 and 10x56 typo Others 3 Wednesday 23rd May 2012 18:50
Canon IS 12x36 v. Swarovski EL 10x42 Sancho Canon 36 Tuesday 21st October 2008 15:55

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19336796 seconds with 30 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04.