• 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.

New Canon 12x36 is lll & 10x30 is ll (1 Viewer)

The Canon-Asia site gives some additional information on the new models here if you use the compare function:-

http://www.canon-asia.com/personal/p...anguageCode=EN

The new models both have improved IS performance and battery life is increased from 4 hours to 9 hours.

The fields of view at 1000 yards have been increased for the 10x30 is ll from 314 ft to 344 ft and for the 12x36 is lll from 262 ft to 287 ft.

There don't appear to be any other changes.

Stan
 
The new models both have improved IS performance and battery life is increased from 4 hours to 9 hours.
The fields of view at 1000 yards have been increased for the 10x30 is ll from 314 ft to 344 ft and for the 12x36 is lll from 262 ft to 287 ft.

There don't appear to be any other changes.

That's bad news, despite the improved IS performance, the better battery life and the increase in the field of view, because some really important improvements are missing, such as better weather resistance and better armouring. A wider dioptre correction range (+/- 3 dioptres isn't really good enough) would also have been nice.

Hermann
 
. Hi Stanbo,
I get error code 404 when I click on that link?

If the field size is really as quoted, then it increases the 10×30 from 6° to about 6.5°. If this is true, it is a major improvement. And if it's true, I wonder how good the edge of the field is, and whether there are extra lens elements in the eyepieces. Also I don't know how they could achieve this improvement at the same weight.

Again, if the battery life is generally more than doubled and the image stabilisation better, then these will be seriously good binoculars.
I understand that birdwatchers need waterproofing et cetera, but Canon has to make these to sell at a price, which the market will buy in sufficient quantity so that they make a profit.

I do wonder whether they have actually changed the stabilisation to the new method of the 2014 model 8×25 IS. Perhaps somebody can report.

I will wait to see reports, but I would seriously consider a Canon 10×30 IS Mark 2 if it does what is claimed.
 
The info on asia site is surely wrong. The USA site shows no change in the optical design comparing the Mk II to MK I and the UK site also shows specs the same in Mk II (though the Mk I is no longer listed).
 
Binastro - I checked the website by clicking on link and it was originally ok, but it now shows an error. Just use the canon-asia.com link and you should get there.

I seem to remember that the baffling? on the 10x42L is was changed in the early staged of manufacture to allow the original restricted objective of 39mm to become 42mm. Maybe that is what they have done this time. We will have to wait and see.

Dipped - I don't see why the US site can be relied on any more than the Asia site, particularly as this one is Canon home territory. They might both be wrong anyway.

Stan
 
Last edited:
The Canon-Asia site gives some additional information on the new models here if you use the compare function:-

http://www.canon-asia.com/personal/p...anguageCode=EN

The new models both have improved IS performance and battery life is increased from 4 hours to 9 hours.

The fields of view at 1000 yards have been increased for the 10x30 is ll from 314 ft to 344 ft and for the 12x36 is lll from 262 ft to 287 ft.

There don't appear to be any other changes.

Stan

OMG, just ordered the old 10x30 is |:(|

But, Im confused: the fov anounced on canon.asia for II 10x30 version is 344ft. That are 105m, are not ??

I thought that 105m is the fov for the old 10x30 is?
On canon spanish web page this is what is stated for old 10x30:

"Campo de visión a 1000 m

105"

Anybody can give more info? I ordered 10x30 version to get more fov than with 12x36 (and more close focus) but if the II version gains those meters it's worth to wait a little...

Thanks a lot
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with the efficiency, IS works great (I would like to experience the improimprovement though) but if the 66 degrees eyepieces is real I would like to experience that. No reason to upgrade the 12x36 II but I could add a 10x30 III.
 
.Hi Oracleman,
344 feet is 115 m at 1000 m, not 105 m.

I think that recently or maybe long-term the Canon USA website has errors. Maybe other Canon websites also have errors.
As far as I remember the Canon 10×30 and 12×36 have single element field flatteners, or at least they did originally. It is possible that they changed to doublet field flatteners, but I doubt it.

The fact that the 10×42 clear aperture was increased from 39 mm to 42 mm does not increase the field of view, which depends on the eyepiece.
If the 10×30 was less than 30 mm and has now increased to 30 mm the field of view would remain the same. I suppose it's brightness might alter?

My guess is that, and this is pure speculation, if the field of view is genuinely increased from 6.0° to 6.5° then maybe they have indeed switched to a doublet field flattener which would allow for a wider field eyepiece with the same edge performance as currently, or even perhaps better. This would increase the number of lens elements by one. Or they could have increased the actual eyepiece number of elements by one or used perhaps more exotic glass.
What one needs is to actually see the 10×30 Mark II binocular and see what is written on it. Whether it says 6.0° or 6.5°.
It would be nice to know that the real situation is.

My comment about the weight being the same, was because I wonder if the prisms need to be increased in size if there is indeed a wider field of view.
 
. Thanks Stanbo, I finally managed to get to the Canon Asia website.

They've also got their knickers in a twist.

They state that the real field of view is 6°. And the apparent field of view 55.3° (wide), which is I suppose using the iso-standard.
But they also state that the field of view at 1000 yards (feet) is 344.5.
One of these statements is wrong as 344.5 feet is about 6.5°.

They also say 2 AA alkaline batteries or two AA nickel metal hydride batteries. The 10×30 used to also specify lithium AA batteries?

The weight is given as 21.16 ounces, but 22.2 ounces with a 10×30 Mark one, in both cases without batteries.
I suspect that something is wrong here also.
The measurements also seem to be a bit odd with the two binoculars. I will have another look at this.

I suppose that the people who write this stuff, don't actually weigh the binoculars or measure the field of view.

Also the photographs of the new and old 10×30 look the same, but they state that the photograph is for illustration purposes only.

I suspect that in fact the changes to the 10×30 are not that great, but one can only hope that perhaps the field of view is 6.5° with excellent performance.

We will have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:
344.5 feet at 1000 yards is 6.58°.
But I suspect that the field of view is unchanged in the Canon 10×30 Mark II, and is actually 6.0°
 
.Hi Oracleman,
344 feet is 115 m at 1000 m, not 105 m.

I think that recently or maybe long-term the Canon USA website has errors. Maybe other Canon websites also have errors.
As far as I remember the Canon 10×30 and 12×36 have single element field flatteners, or at least they did originally. It is possible that they changed to doublet field flatteners, but I doubt it.

The fact that the 10×42 clear aperture was increased from 39 mm to 42 mm does not increase the field of view, which depends on the eyepiece.
If the 10×30 was less than 30 mm and has now increased to 30 mm the field of view would remain the same. I suppose it's brightness might alter?

My guess is that, and this is pure speculation, if the field of view is genuinely increased from 6.0° to 6.5° then maybe they have indeed switched to a doublet field flattener which would allow for a wider field eyepiece with the same edge performance as currently, or even perhaps better. This would increase the number of lens elements by one. Or they could have increased the actual eyepiece number of elements by one or used perhaps more exotic glass.
What one needs is to actually see the 10×30 Mark II binocular and see what is written on it. Whether it says 6.0° or 6.5°.
It would be nice to know that the real situation is.

My comment about the weight being the same, was because I wonder if the prisms need to be increased in size if there is indeed a wider field of view.

Damn! I simple used a web converter to change from ft>m. I suspect its not so easy.

Just to add confusion: on canon spanish web page is stated that fov is the same (105m). The same goes for rfov (6º). But the afov is different on both models...

What to do? I maybe wait to get the 10x30 this friday and test it.
Maybe the II version price start from >500€ and finally the fov will not change a lot (but thats is only a supposition)

Thanks in advance
 
. Hi oracleman,
I think that the wizard in Canon Asia did the same as you.
I think he multiplied 1.0936 x 6.0°, but using feet, yards and metres all mixed up.
This actually gives 6.56°. But the 344.5 feet at 1000 yards gives 6.58°.

1.0936 is the number of yards in 1 m.

He should have use fathoms and cubits.

P. S.
He might have used Grads or mils, but the most suitable measurement would have been 1 hexacontade, which is exactly 6.0°. This is probably the real field of view of the Canon 10×30 Mark II.
 
Last edited:
On the spanish wep page there is a pdf with the specfications of 10x30 II (in english). No idea if they are also mistaken.

Again 105m, the same fov of old 10x30.
 
.Dear oracleman,
. Thank you very much for the PDF link.
If this is accurate, then it indicates that the stabilisation method has not substantially changed to the method of the 2014 8×25 image stabilised binocular.
It says that it has a doublet field flattener. I don't know if this is in addition to a five element eyepiece. If it was then I would expect the edge performance to be better than my older 10×30, where the edge performance is not as good as the better Canon image stabilised binoculars. However, I'm always suspicious of manufacturer's written specifications and the only way to check really would be to dismantle a 10×30 II, which of course I wouldn't do.

Your query earlier about different apparent fields of view is only because the simple 6° times 10 gives a 60° apparent field of view and the iso-standard uses the tangent of the half angle to give a smaller number, even though both are the same.
I think that Holger Merlitz, I hope I have the spelling correct, suggests that the correct apparent field of view may depend on the distortion of the binocular eyepieces, but that is a complication we don't have to go into here.

I can't remember if the 10×30 also has optical windows in the front of the objectives. I'll have a look later.
 
Binastro

.......If this is accurate, then it indicates that the stabilisation method has not substantially changed to the method of the 2014 8×25 image stabilised binocular.........

Please can you advise me if it is possible to differentiate between 2014 models and earlier versions either by markings on the binos or serial numbers?

Many thanks

Stan
 
. Hi Stan,
Canon undoubtably know from serial numbers what their binoculars are, at least Canon in Japan. But having had dealings with Canon, it may be that they won't tell you. Nor are you likely to find out how many different variations there have been with the 10×30. I think there have been many.

I have only handled two 8×25 IS Canon binoculars, one about eight years old which I think had variable prisms and the other a 2014 model which had a tilting mechanism. You can see by looking in the front of the binocular with a torch, which method is employed. I don't know when they changed the stabilisation method, probably sometime in the last eight years, maybe quite recently?

Looking at a 15-year-old Canon 10×30, there is no optical window and no filter thread. I don't know if all the 10×30s that have been made are the same.

Looking at a 12-year-old 18×50 there are optical windows and filter threads. Again, I don't know if all the 18×50s are the same.

An eight-year-old 8×25 has optical windows. Again I don't know if all the 8×25s are the same.

These ages are approximate.

Perhaps owners of various Canon image stabilised binoculars can say whether their binoculars have optical windows and filter threads or not.

I don't know if anyone has written a history of these Canon image stabilised binoculars, in a way they stay the same, but there are probably many variations only known to the factory.
 
Hi,

This topic is becoming quite interesting. I have a pair of the 12x36 II's from 2010. I also have a Canon IS USA catalogue dated February 2005 that I obtained at the same time in 2010. It clearly indicates that the 12x36 II's use 'doublet field flatter lenses, super spectra multi coatings and enhanced power saving technology for up to 12 hours of use with lithiums'. The field of view is shown as 5 degrees or 262 ft. at one thousand yards. Other than the '262 ft.' spec, I am wondering what has actually been changed in the new 12x36 III's ? We all know how often the specs given by manufacturers concerning field of views are often mixed up concerning conversions from feet, yards and meters and I am wondering whether the 287 ft. is perhaps a 'typo error' in the new specs. Coincidently, 262 ft. converted incorrectly comes up extremely close to the 287 ft. noted above.

Only time will tell what the actual upgrades if any, might be in the new 12x36 III's. I use mine almost daily and change the batteries every 12 months whether needed or not. I think that I prefer the more simple hold down button on these for the IS operation rather than the dual operating on/off switches on my 10x42 L's and 15x50 AW's.

Doug........

PS The February 2005 catalogue also shows the 10x30 IS's with the doublet field flatteners, super spectra coatings etc. It almost seems as if the 2015 specs were already available back in 2005 !!
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top