-
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.
question about canon IS 10x30's distortion (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gwsudiro
- Start date
They are sharp to the edge, IMHO. Very slight "rolling-globe" effect, but I'd never noticed it until I learned to look for it (having read about it on BF). Lovely binos, major weaknesses are CA which seems to intensify when I press the IS button, narrow (6 degree) FOV, and a slight softening of the image when IS is pressed, necessitating constant slight re-focussing. As with all IS binoculars, this means that the clarity and detail you get (compared with non-IS) is superb, but they're not ideal for working at closer distances, in woods, etc.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
No, it doesn't change
The IS just moves the image around in the focal plane. It doesn't change the amount of pincushion in the bins?
Like all modern bins (in the last 50 years) they have some pincushion added to reduce the rolling globe. How much pincushion you need may well be different from others so asking others how the perceive the effect might not match how you perceive it.
As always the only way to find out for sure is to try it yourself (which, of course, might be a bit more difficult in Indonesia). Local birding clubs are good for this (though not all bins are represented ... even in Seattle, WA I've seen another pair of IS 10x30 in the field once).
The IS just moves the image around in the focal plane. It doesn't change the amount of pincushion in the bins?
Like all modern bins (in the last 50 years) they have some pincushion added to reduce the rolling globe. How much pincushion you need may well be different from others so asking others how the perceive the effect might not match how you perceive it.
As always the only way to find out for sure is to try it yourself (which, of course, might be a bit more difficult in Indonesia). Local birding clubs are good for this (though not all bins are represented ... even in Seattle, WA I've seen another pair of IS 10x30 in the field once).
Agreed, the RG doesn´t change. And it´s barely perceptible to me even if I search for it.
I´ve never, ever seen another pair of IS binos on anyone here in the field. I know a guy who has the 10x42L, but I´ve never met him with them while birding.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Off topic but I've seen two pairs of 10x42L in the wild. One on a beginner in a local Audobon soc birding trip to a local site. The other with an older more experienced birder who noticed he was getting more shaky: he was very happy with the IS.
You know when you are an optics geek when you start listing bins along with the birds
doug el10x32
Well-known member
Hi Galih,
I was so impressed with the ISB 10x30 that I traded my SLC's and EL's for the 12x36II and 10x42L ISB's. Although the Alpha biniculars may be an improvement when viewed on a tripod or when tested through an optical bench, I use neither of these devices when I am actually using my binoculars for nature and astronomy. This is where the IS really takes over and the improved image exceeds anything that I have ever viewed handheld through my Alphas. The 10x42L's have a very clear and sharp image all the way across the field and rolling globe and pincushion effects are basically a non issue for most objects viewed. As Sancho noted, the 12x36's show a small amount of CA but only when looking at telephone wires and tree limbs against a bright sky. All binoculars seem to show various levels of CA and the Canon ISBs are really no different. I did test a pair of the new EL 10x42's and when the Canon 10x42L's are compared, it is quite difficult when handheld to actually see a real difference. When the IS is switched on there is no comparison. Even though the Canon warranty is shorter and the 12x36's are not water proof, you can purchase a lot of ISB binoculars for the price of one pair of the Alphas !!
In a word Galih, you will not regret buying the 10x30 ISB's.........
Doug.........
I was so impressed with the ISB 10x30 that I traded my SLC's and EL's for the 12x36II and 10x42L ISB's. Although the Alpha biniculars may be an improvement when viewed on a tripod or when tested through an optical bench, I use neither of these devices when I am actually using my binoculars for nature and astronomy. This is where the IS really takes over and the improved image exceeds anything that I have ever viewed handheld through my Alphas. The 10x42L's have a very clear and sharp image all the way across the field and rolling globe and pincushion effects are basically a non issue for most objects viewed. As Sancho noted, the 12x36's show a small amount of CA but only when looking at telephone wires and tree limbs against a bright sky. All binoculars seem to show various levels of CA and the Canon ISBs are really no different. I did test a pair of the new EL 10x42's and when the Canon 10x42L's are compared, it is quite difficult when handheld to actually see a real difference. When the IS is switched on there is no comparison. Even though the Canon warranty is shorter and the 12x36's are not water proof, you can purchase a lot of ISB binoculars for the price of one pair of the Alphas !!
In a word Galih, you will not regret buying the 10x30 ISB's.........
Doug.........
gwsudiro
Well-known member
hello Doug...^_^
this is my first (almost) purchase an IS bins...
and I have placed an sale ad, in case it doesn't suit me, so I don't have to wait any longer to release it...crazy isn't it??? khekhekhekhekhe....^_^¡
I'm a little worry about the image quality though...so, I just have to wait for now....^^
best regards
Galih
this is my first (almost) purchase an IS bins...
and I have placed an sale ad, in case it doesn't suit me, so I don't have to wait any longer to release it...crazy isn't it??? khekhekhekhekhe....^_^¡
I'm a little worry about the image quality though...so, I just have to wait for now....^^
best regards
Galih
Last edited:
doug el10x32
Well-known member
Hi Galih,
You will not be disappointed with the 10x30's even if they did not have IS !!
Doug........
You will not be disappointed with the 10x30's even if they did not have IS !!
Doug........
I have had all the Canon IS series and IMO they are not near the optical quality of say a Zeiss FL. The IS is nice but I sold mine because none of them gave me that superb optical image that the Alpha's do. I found most of them to have alot of glare when looking towards the sun also. Everytime I look through my Zeiss FL I think "WOW" these are awesome. Never had that with the Canon's. Just something to think about. They are a step down optically even though you can hold them steadier. If you shake alot you might consider them for that reason but you will never get that absolute best image of the bird like you will with a top alpha binocular.
KorHaan
Well-known member
Hi Dennis,
Good to see you on the Canon subforum, I bet you're still happy with your 8x32 FL's.
Good on you, but you've left me a bit confused now.
When you say you had all the Canon IS series, did that include the 10x42 L IS?
I don't own them, but maybe will in the future, and from reading reviews I got the impression these represent the best of the IS Canons, optical quality being not far behind the alpha glass.
My problem ( or blessing) is that I'm stuck on IS, since I got the 10x30's; I want to upgrade to the 10x42 L IS's because of WP and better optics, brighter in low light etc.
I have the 18x50 IS's as well, and the 10x and 18x make a useful combo.
I can't see myself go back to non-IS bins, that is, not fullsized or midsized, because of intolerable handshake. Only possible exception being the Zeiss 8x56 ClassiC for its exceedingly long housing, which would make for a steadier handheld viewing, at least if you hold them asymmetrically with hands wide apart. That may just do the trick, but apart from that there's nothing else.
The 10x42 L IS is on top of my shortlist for a while now, though I'm still completely satisfied with the 10x30's.
Best regards,
Ronald
Good to see you on the Canon subforum, I bet you're still happy with your 8x32 FL's.
Good on you, but you've left me a bit confused now.
When you say you had all the Canon IS series, did that include the 10x42 L IS?
I don't own them, but maybe will in the future, and from reading reviews I got the impression these represent the best of the IS Canons, optical quality being not far behind the alpha glass.
My problem ( or blessing) is that I'm stuck on IS, since I got the 10x30's; I want to upgrade to the 10x42 L IS's because of WP and better optics, brighter in low light etc.
I have the 18x50 IS's as well, and the 10x and 18x make a useful combo.
I can't see myself go back to non-IS bins, that is, not fullsized or midsized, because of intolerable handshake. Only possible exception being the Zeiss 8x56 ClassiC for its exceedingly long housing, which would make for a steadier handheld viewing, at least if you hold them asymmetrically with hands wide apart. That may just do the trick, but apart from that there's nothing else.
The 10x42 L IS is on top of my shortlist for a while now, though I'm still completely satisfied with the 10x30's.
Best regards,
Ronald
I had the Canon 10x42 L IS and I don't feel it has quite the overall optics of the top alpha's but if you have intolerable handshake the IS feature might make up for the difference. I have never had the Zeiss 8x56 Classic but I have heard the Classics are wonderful binoculars and optically a Zeiss with a 56mm aperture would have to be truly incredible. I am sure it would be superior to the Canon 10x42 L IS optically and if you can handle the weight and you want the best view I would go with the Zeiss especially in the long term because of the durability of the traditional roof prism design.
The optical performance of the 10x42 is outstanding, imo.
While I have not done A to B comparisons versus the Zeiss FL glass, which may be even better, it compares favorably to my Zeiss 8x30 BT*P* Classic in terms of brightness and glare resistance. More important, the stabilization feature substantially improves my view of the bird, whether in flight or flitting around the tree tops.
That is an improvement that even a superior big 8x56 Zeiss will not provide, although it is a prettier and lighter glass than the lumpy Canon.
While I have not done A to B comparisons versus the Zeiss FL glass, which may be even better, it compares favorably to my Zeiss 8x30 BT*P* Classic in terms of brightness and glare resistance. More important, the stabilization feature substantially improves my view of the bird, whether in flight or flitting around the tree tops.
That is an improvement that even a superior big 8x56 Zeiss will not provide, although it is a prettier and lighter glass than the lumpy Canon.
gwsudiro
Well-known member
hello Dennis..^_^
actually I had the same experience like you, i've sold my 10x30 is and prefer my 10x32FL....but not like you, I think 10x30is is better when handling difficult light situation (near direct sunlight)....but that just MHO...ehehehehehe....
Really! It must be your closer to the equator or something! My Canon 12x36 IS II's had terrible glare when viewing towards the sun. It kind of surprised me actually. Maybe it's because your in that rain forest and the sun is not as direct. HeHe!
It kind of comes down to how steady you can hold your binoculars. With a steady hand the big Zeiss would win optically hands down.That big aperture is just too much advantage. Alot of birders carry the 50mm Swarovski or the 56mm Zeiss FL just for that reason even though they are heavy as an elephant.
Interesting difference in approach, lower power versus stabilization.
Use the small 8x for casual birding but prefer the extra reach of a 12x.
Sold a Zeiss 7x42T*P* for that reason.
Main glass was a Docter 12x50BGA, outstandingly sharp optics, love the extra stability of the Canon 10x42IS, , would happily pay extra for a Canon 12x50IS L.
Don't think a big 8x56 glass would serve me as well, but clearly they have their advocates.
.
KorHaan
Well-known member
About the optics of the Canon 10x30 IS: they're good. The 10x30's give me the most satisfying views I've ever experienced in any bin I've owned, including alpha's ( Zeiss 7x42 FL, Leica 10x32 BN, Swarovski 8x30 SLC ). That's what makes it hard to upgrade to the 10x42 L IS; considerably more weight, and quite expensive.
The big Zeiss ClassiC 8x56 shouldn't be on my list, for multiple reasons, price tag for instance. But I looked through them on the Dutch Bird festival ( never a moment interested in the complete FL line-up that Zeiss had ) and boy, did I fall in love again.
Anyway, today I was on my local patch, 10x30 IS's around my neck and 18x50 IS's mounted on my tripod, a clear sunny day and lots of birds. I couldn't help thinking: why on earth would I ever want new bins with these two doing so well?
It's the image stabilization that makes all the difference. The 18x50's were extremely sharp and bright, tripod mounted, no IS on. Much better for long distance viewing than any scope I've owned, that's for sure. Handheld with IS on, on occasion tracking birds flying high, it's even more amazing how functional these bins are.
The two bins have the same kind of image sweetness, and complement each other very well. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself in an optics shop to try out the 10x42 L IS one of these days. Maybe I should see a psychiatrist.
Best regards,
Ronald
The big Zeiss ClassiC 8x56 shouldn't be on my list, for multiple reasons, price tag for instance. But I looked through them on the Dutch Bird festival ( never a moment interested in the complete FL line-up that Zeiss had ) and boy, did I fall in love again.
Anyway, today I was on my local patch, 10x30 IS's around my neck and 18x50 IS's mounted on my tripod, a clear sunny day and lots of birds. I couldn't help thinking: why on earth would I ever want new bins with these two doing so well?
It's the image stabilization that makes all the difference. The 18x50's were extremely sharp and bright, tripod mounted, no IS on. Much better for long distance viewing than any scope I've owned, that's for sure. Handheld with IS on, on occasion tracking birds flying high, it's even more amazing how functional these bins are.
The two bins have the same kind of image sweetness, and complement each other very well. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself in an optics shop to try out the 10x42 L IS one of these days. Maybe I should see a psychiatrist.
Best regards,
Ronald
