-
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.
swarovision 10x42 vs canon 10x42 is (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Masio
- Start date
I happen to have both of theses binoculars. Jring's post above is true. The image is really sweet while looking thru the Canon IS 10X42. But in no way would the IS 10X42 be my primary binocular. IMO it's too heavy and bulky with worse ergonomics overall than a typical binocular. I'm not even sure the last time I even used the Canon. I used my SV 10X42 this past Sat/Sun and used a Noctivid 10X42 the week before.
I just weighed both binoculars. Only thing attached to the binoculars is the RYO harness snaps.
Canon 10X42 L IS- 40.3 ounces with batteries.
SV 10X42- 30 ounces even.
I can see the Canon as a second 10X42. One you use when walks are short or maybe no walk at all. One you can use when you want to. But I had rather have a nice 10X42 over the Canon in practically every instance.
I just weighed both binoculars. Only thing attached to the binoculars is the RYO harness snaps.
Canon 10X42 L IS- 40.3 ounces with batteries.
SV 10X42- 30 ounces even.
I can see the Canon as a second 10X42. One you use when walks are short or maybe no walk at all. One you can use when you want to. But I had rather have a nice 10X42 over the Canon in practically every instance.
Attachments
As a counterpoint, imho the IS benefits more than offset the ergonomic shortcomings of the Canon.
The weight is easily tamed, either with a harness or with a bandoleer carry strap. It is clunky and heavy, but it just shines when used for birding.
Birds really stand out when the jitter is removed, so for keeping track of a small target among the leaves or the weeds, it is a game changer. Of course IS also helps a lot for birds in flight.
It matters as well that the Canon sells for a fraction of the price of the SV.
Current price on Amazon for the Canon is $1050, the Swaro $2598.
Rathaus
Well-known member
I agree with Chuck. For the same reasons, I only have the Canon as a secondary 10x bino. It's not just the weight of the Canon but more importantly it's huge and ungainly bulk and potential fragility.
The Canon does however offer a technically stunning view. From my experience, as a Swarovski owner and admirer, overall I would place the Canon above the SV10 optically. It is slightly sharper at the edge of the FOV than even the Swarovision, which in turn is sharper in the outer periphery than anything else I've used. A flat field and resolution at absolute field edge has become something of a holy grail around here, and for many is the SV's 'raison d'être'. The Cannon is better.
Some folks seem to enjoy viewing in the outer periphery (its not for me), or enjoy novelty viewing such as splitting double stars on the absolute edge of the FOV (I did this once but never since) - the Cannon is your tool for this. Part of the irony of the 'IS' Canon is that If your visual acuity is up to it, turning off the otherwise brilliant IS and fully bracing or tripod mounting the Canon brings out yet a further increase in resolution. From my experience, The Canon will effortlessly resolve alongside any alpha binocular on the market today. I spent a day doing comparative resolution testing very recently with Swarovski SV, Noctivids, various newer Habicht, Nikon, Zeiss and Fujinon - and the ease and pace at which the Canon 10x42 pulled full resolution on my particular target was incredible but not unexpected. The Canon deals with flare and glare far far better than the Swarovision. I haven't done night time testing between the two, but at sunset, dusk and deep dusk the Cannon is a far far superior instrument due to its ability to control glare. I haven't compared the Canon to the Noctivid in this regard, but the Canon has been my previous 10x benchmark for viewing in challenging light.
So, the important factors in the cannon's favour - the perfectly weighted silky smooth focus, the effortless clarity, superb glare control, the big APFOV which is essentially all sweetspot, and the brilliant IS system which brings out instant detail which unbraced alpha binoculars can only dream of. On purely optical merits, the Canon is a very formidable instrument.
The reason I don't use the Canon so much is that (almost unconsciously) I do elbow, hand and head brace for a good majority of my viewing, so the Canon loses its IS advantage, and I therefore nearly always end up using a far smaller and lighter and more convienient and robust binocular. I also prefer the image aesthetic/beauty through other bins such as the Noctivid, but this is highly subjective, and others may prefer the 'beauty' of the Canon view. Something else I'm not so keen on is that to me, the Canon looks and feels like a cheap and nasty bulky plastic kitchen appliance purchased via a telemercial. Once again, just an opinion, and completely meaningless when viewing!
Happy binocular hunting.
The Canon does however offer a technically stunning view. From my experience, as a Swarovski owner and admirer, overall I would place the Canon above the SV10 optically. It is slightly sharper at the edge of the FOV than even the Swarovision, which in turn is sharper in the outer periphery than anything else I've used. A flat field and resolution at absolute field edge has become something of a holy grail around here, and for many is the SV's 'raison d'être'. The Cannon is better.
Some folks seem to enjoy viewing in the outer periphery (its not for me), or enjoy novelty viewing such as splitting double stars on the absolute edge of the FOV (I did this once but never since) - the Cannon is your tool for this. Part of the irony of the 'IS' Canon is that If your visual acuity is up to it, turning off the otherwise brilliant IS and fully bracing or tripod mounting the Canon brings out yet a further increase in resolution. From my experience, The Canon will effortlessly resolve alongside any alpha binocular on the market today. I spent a day doing comparative resolution testing very recently with Swarovski SV, Noctivids, various newer Habicht, Nikon, Zeiss and Fujinon - and the ease and pace at which the Canon 10x42 pulled full resolution on my particular target was incredible but not unexpected. The Canon deals with flare and glare far far better than the Swarovision. I haven't done night time testing between the two, but at sunset, dusk and deep dusk the Cannon is a far far superior instrument due to its ability to control glare. I haven't compared the Canon to the Noctivid in this regard, but the Canon has been my previous 10x benchmark for viewing in challenging light.
So, the important factors in the cannon's favour - the perfectly weighted silky smooth focus, the effortless clarity, superb glare control, the big APFOV which is essentially all sweetspot, and the brilliant IS system which brings out instant detail which unbraced alpha binoculars can only dream of. On purely optical merits, the Canon is a very formidable instrument.
The reason I don't use the Canon so much is that (almost unconsciously) I do elbow, hand and head brace for a good majority of my viewing, so the Canon loses its IS advantage, and I therefore nearly always end up using a far smaller and lighter and more convienient and robust binocular. I also prefer the image aesthetic/beauty through other bins such as the Noctivid, but this is highly subjective, and others may prefer the 'beauty' of the Canon view. Something else I'm not so keen on is that to me, the Canon looks and feels like a cheap and nasty bulky plastic kitchen appliance purchased via a telemercial. Once again, just an opinion, and completely meaningless when viewing!
Happy binocular hunting.
When I want the best view. I grab the Canon 10x42 IS-L. I don't care if it looks different than other binoculars or if it is heavier.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
We should call you ''Jukebox'', because you change your tune so often...:cat:
If you would just try the Canon 10x42 IS-L's you would change your tune too.:-O
It sure hasn't changed any game for me. In fact if money is an issue, in most instances I'd much rather have a sub $1000 Zeiss Conquest HD 10X42. Even LIGHTER and more FOV to boot.
It is all about your priorities. If you want the best view and the most detail and optics are your main priorities then the Canon 10x42 IS-L is your binocular. If you value light weight and ergonomics then get the Swarovision, Zeiss SF or Zeiss Conquest. You will see more detail with the Canon than the others because of the IS.
Last edited:
I fully agree with your last sentence - as you say, you see more detail with the Canon because of the IS - and not because of the optics!!!
If, however, optics are your main priority, the the EL or the SF are your binocular.
For those of us whose vision is less than perfect, because of age or because of nature, the IS benefit are much more easily perceived than the difference in optical performance.
Exactly. IMO there is not a lot of difference in optics between the Canon 10x42 IS-L and an alpha level binocular like the Swarovski 10x50 SV. I had them both for a long time and I compared them in different situations and used them both in the field. At the end of the day I kept the Canon and sold the Swarovski. The Canon gave me the best view and showed me more detail than the big SV and wowed me more. If there is any small advantages optically in the SV I couldn't see them and the IS pushed the Canon ahead every time. The Canon actually also had much better glare control and a much smoother focus than the SV which I really appreciate.
Last edited:
I don't find the Canon's ugly. It is all in what you are used too. You are used to looking at a regular binocular so that is your standard of beauty. IMO the Canon's are modern and space-age looking. Now a Prius. I agree they are butt ugly!:-O. Here is a picture showing the electronics inside the Canon and a cutaway view of the optical system. Do you think Swarovski could engineer something like this? Pretty impressive!
Attachments
Last edited:
Dennis
Maybe you have been looking at the wrong butts. I was looking at one last week and I can tell you it had any Prius or Ferrari beat.
The Canon is not only ugly, it is made to fit the hand or paw of an alien. It is so heavy that trying to make it back home while carrying it could kill you from hunger, thirst or exhaustion or all three, especially if you keep taking a rest to consider how many butts are better looking than it.
Put it objective-lenses down on a worktop in the kitchen and your wife will pick it up thinking its a food processor. Your kids will try to force fruit into it in order to make those thick fruity drinks.
Neighbours you invite around for drinks will pick it up to make vodka martinis that are shaken, not stirred, and finally your local Mexican band will (providing Trump hasn't kicked them out) think it is the new iMaraca from Apple.
Got the picture?
Lee
EnjoyTheView
Well-known member
If you are a bit shaky with 10x or you will be making longer detailed observations of activity/behaviour then get the Canon 10x42.
Note they have announced new x32 models that are better looking and probably more ergonomic. However they are not available yet, and they have not yet announced any updates to the x42 or any L-series binocular yet. Seems like it might be coming though, but x32 is all the rage these days so hard to say. An x32 in L-series would be interesting.
Note they have announced new x32 models that are better looking and probably more ergonomic. However they are not available yet, and they have not yet announced any updates to the x42 or any L-series binocular yet. Seems like it might be coming though, but x32 is all the rage these days so hard to say. An x32 in L-series would be interesting.
