Canon IS - Value vs. Warranty (1 Viewer)

kellmark · Mar 4, 2011

From My Experience with Canon IS Binos

NDhunter said:
I have been watching the recent threads and excitement over the Canon's.

I must admit I have not tried the IS, but am conservative in nature, and
probably never will.

I do like nice optics, and have noticed the short 3 yr. warranty from Canon,
on the IS styles. That seems very short compared to all of the others, on
regular optics, and that is one thing that would really trouble me.

I do see why many are drawn to the 10x30 selling under $350.00, as if they
do go bad after that time, the repair will be more than value, so just throw
them in the dumpster.

And how about the 10x42 L IS, which lists for $1,599.00, and still
has the 3 yr. warranty, I am wondering who would go for that deal. Also
the 10x42 weighs 37 oz. and that is a heavy load.

A recent post on Cloudy Nites, has some wondering the same, about
the short warranty, all the electronics, and how do these fit in todays,
throw away world.

Jerry

Jerry, your comments are well taken. But I think you should definitely at least try a pair to see how you like them.

I have always been a Leica fan, at least of their compacts. I started around 30 years ago with a 10X25 Trinovid, then got the later 8X20 and 10X25 Ultravids.

But when I saw the Canons with IS, I had to have them. This was after I had acquired a Canon 300MM F4 IS lens for my SLR camera. The IS technology was amazing. Makes a major difference.

Then when the Canon 10X30 IS binos came out, I immediately acquired a pair. It was an incredible experience, to see the view so stable and clear. I felt it was a new world. I have had them for at least 10-12 years, whatever. Never a problem.

Then when the 18X50 IS weather resistant came out, with their high magnification I had to get them as well. Incredible. I sit on the 22nd floor of my apartment and look out to sea at ships and am able to identify them and read the names from miles away, hand held. I can read signs several miles away when I can not even see the sign itself with the naked eye, also hand held. I have had them about 8 years, I would guess. Also, never a problem with them.

And then, when I saw the new 12X36 II come out, I got them too. I like them because they have greater magnification than the 10X30s and are much lighter weight than the 18X50s. I also find their view is extremely clear. The IS is superb. Very stable. They really have become my favorites with their combination of magnification and stabilization and light weight. Also, never a problem. I have had them I guess about 4 years.

Do I still have my Leica binos? Yup. But now I really only use the 8X20s. A perfect combination for me is to have the Leica 8X20 Ultravids and the Canon 12X36 IIs.

Caveats. If high magnification is not your thing then the Canon's may not be for you. If you like a tripod, then why have IS? Or if you like low light, then you should try the 10X42Ls. But I am quite happy with the others. I tend to like less weight these days, as i get older, so the 12X36s do just fine for me. Also, if weather proofs are what you need, then the 10X42s would again be the choice, but they are heavier.

So I have had these three Canon IS binos for many years and never a problem.

I would say not to fear.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 4, 2011

Kevin Purcell said:
Though that is true I'd still consider it. And a bag for toting the bin around (that never goes into the field) is a good thing.

Canon have been shown on this forum to not have the best customer support and estimated repair costs can be quite big. And as NDHunter points out the warranty is short compared to other sport optics (but not the cameras).

But IS makes a big difference. It may be a while but I suspect my next bin might be the 10x42 IS L (or a 10x30 IS L should they every make it). But for now I have the Swarovision

What would be the attraction of a 10x30 L IS besides being smaller? Optically it would never be as good as the 10x42 L IS.

Matt_RTH · Mar 4, 2011

[email protected] said:
What would be the attraction of a 10x30 L IS besides being smaller? Optically it would never be as good as the 10x42 L IS.

Mass. I've done the "drag the 15x50 on the hike" thing. It isn't unbearable and I can certainly handle it, but it just plain doesn't make sense to wear an anchor about your neck when there are plenty of suitable alternatives.

If Canon or one of the several IS bin manufacturers came up with a 10x35 or 10x42 that wasn't sized like a 10x50 and weighed like a 20x80 then it would be a winner. Also, it would be great if Canon would consider making their IS more suitable for boat use.

Somewhere in the middle is a very innovative solution which would I think would be very marketable for birders and God forbid, hunters 8-P. I don't buy all this "unserviceable" stuff on electronic components in bins. Make it a good, long warranty, make the components modular and keep enough on hand to supply the market, at a price well below replacement cost of an entire unit. An integrated system like an IS bin should not be like a car that is rendered useless and unserviceable if the water pump goes bad. How do I really feel? We may never know.

brocknroller · Mar 4, 2011

I have a love/hate relationship with Canon IS bins. The 10x30 IS is the best bang for the buck, but even at that price point, there are variations in stability. The correction angle given for each model is not a "given," but what the best sample can do. Not all samples will have this correction angle.

With one sample, I experienced nauseating "swimming," with the other sample, this was much less noticeable, although I still saw "artifacts" with both while following birds in flight and while panning the sky while stargazing.

The guy I bought my 10x30 IS from (and subsequently sold them back to) had five samples, which varied to some degree in terms of their stability, from "swimming" to "rock steady".

So if you do get a sample in which you see the image "swimming," it could be that your eyes/brain are just not compatible with IS technology. Not everybody is suited for it. OR it could be that you need to try another sample.

I would prefer an 8x42 IS so as not to sacrifice DOF and so I wouldn't have to compensate for my poor focus accommodation by continually having to reset the diopter at different distances as I do with 10x bins.

But Canon can't make an 5mm exit pupil 8x42 IS, and if Raging Rick is correct, the jury is still out on whether they can make a bin with a 4.2mm exit pupil work (3.7mm?).

The need for a small exit pupils is the IS Achilles Heel. If a design team could find a way to conquer that barrier, IS technology will be more flexible about which configurations it can accommodate and therefore be more desirable to birders. Birders don't prefer 8x bins only because it's the highest power they can hold steady, they also prefer them for their wider FOV and greater DOF.

The short warranty period will remain an obstacle for IS bins. People have made comparisons with other electronic consumer items that carry similar short warranty periods. However, that was always the case with such consumer items, and given the cheap prices because of being manufactured offshore, few people quibble about it.

But users will compare the IS bins to alphas, not just in optical quality, but in warranty. What put me off was a story on CN where a guy with a 15x50 IS had his electronics fizzle (after the warranty period expired), and the repair cost estimate that Canon gave him was nearly as much as he paid for the bin.

If the IS circuitry goes, and you are willing to mount the bins, they might not work as well. That's another big can 'o worms. Many contend that the IS bins are sharpest when the IS is engaged even when they are mounted. If that is the case, then they are disposable consumer items like other electronic gadgets.

Although I might change my mind if I looked through a Canon 10x42 IS, right now, except for the "L" glass, which I would really like since I'm susceptible to CA, I wouldn't buy one until they got the weight down to 27-28 oz., which is probably impossible with current IS technology. I might also find those large twist-up eyecups hard to fit between my high bridge nose.

Somebody asked if 6 oz. make that big a difference. Canon specs state the 10x42 IS L weighs 36.79 ounces, which we can round off to 36.8.

So comparing them to the current crop of alphas, does 8.8-9.8 ounces make that big a difference? If you are out in the field for long periods lifting the bins to your eyes over and over again, unless you have arms like Arnold (did), you bet your sweet bippy it does!

Like any bin, you're not going to know whether or not it suits you until you have it in your hands and up to your eyes, regardless of the IS tech.

Kevin Purcell · Mar 4, 2011

[email protected] said:
What would be the attraction of a 10x30 L IS besides being smaller? Optically it would never be as good as the 10x42 L IS.

It would be lighter and more compact.

It would be optically just as good (just with a smaller exit pupil) with ED glass.

And waterproof (or at least rainproof) unlike the current 10x30.

I would of course like to see a wider AFOV. That would probably mean a more complex EP which might be the limitation on size but it would be smaller than the 10x42 EP.

I like 30mm-ish bins. I'm sure others do. So an L based 30mm would be a nice complement to the 40mm ish bin. Just as it is in other top end makers bin ranges.

KorHaan · Mar 5, 2011

brocknroller said:
.....

If the IS circuitry goes, and you are willing to mount the bins, they might not work as well. That's another big can 'o worms. Many contend that the IS bins are sharpest when the IS is engaged even when they are mounted. If that is the case, then they are disposable consumer items like other electronic gadgets.

.....

Somebody asked if 6 oz. make that big a difference. Canon specs state the 10x42 IS L weighs 36.79 ounces, which we can round off to 36.8.

.....

Like any bin, you're not going to know whether or not it suits you until you have it in your hands and up to your eyes, regardless of the IS tech.

Hello Brock,

I've mounted my 18x50 IS's now and again, on a big carbon fibre tripod, and used them without IS. The image is definitely sharper than when handholding them with IS on. So they're not totally worthless should the electronics fail. You'll have a perfectly useable tripod-mounted pair of high-mag bins.

.....

Jan Meijerink weighed the Canon 10x42 L IS at 1110 grams, or 38.94 oz.
This is with batteries included. A pair of AA alkalines weighs around 43 grams, so the net weight of the 10x42's is about 1067 grams or 37.4 oz.
This is more realistic than what Canon states, as Jan also weighed the 12x36IS II at 704 grams, and the 15x50 IS at 1217 grams, batteries included.
My 18x50 IS is about the same weight as the 15x50.

6 oz makes a big difference, to me anyway. I notice a difference in weight in my 18x50 already when I take the batteries out. ( 1.5 oz. )

.....

The IS tech is what makes these bins unique; they're not like any bin, meaning that if the IS works for you, things like balance and feel in the hands can be easily set aside.

I've got more trouble with the slow focus action of the 10x42 L, 2 and 1/4 turns from here to eternity. That's 1 and 1/2 turns on my 18x50.
But anything else seems fine in the 10x42 L, so I might acquire one anyway. I'd really like to try one out a little longer than the first time I did.

Best regards,

Ronald

denco@comcast.n · Mar 5, 2011

Kevin Purcell said:
It would be lighter and more compact.

It would be optically just as good (just with a smaller exit pupil) with ED glass.

And waterproof (or at least rainproof) unlike the current 10x30.

I would of course like to see a wider AFOV. That would probably mean a more complex EP which might be the limitation on size but it would be smaller than the 10x42 EP.

I like 30mm-ish bins. I'm sure others do. So an L based 30mm would be a nice complement to the 40mm ish bin. Just as it is in other top end makers bin ranges.

To get that superb IS image it just takes alot of glass and components which means the price you pay is weight. I think Canon made the 10x42 L IS to be an all around binocular not necessarily a birding binocular. It's good for hunting, boating, wildlife observation, cruises, surveillance, and birding and I will use it for all these activities. A 10x30 wouldn't be as versatile and in fact like the 10x30 IS L would be pretty dim at twilight just like the regular 10x30 IS and as you mentioned would have a smaller exit pupil with all the discomforts and possible blackouts that that can bring. Bigger AFOV means more complex eyepieces with more heavy glass. Just hard to get around it. The Canon 10x42 L IS binocular maybe heavy but they provide an awesome view! Best view I have ever seen through binoculars.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 5, 2011

brocknroller said:
I have a love/hate relationship with Canon IS bins. The 10x30 IS is the best bang for the buck, but even at that price point, there are variations in stability. The correction angle given for each model is not a "given," but what the best sample can do. Not all samples will have this correction angle.

With one sample, I experienced nauseating "swimming," with the other sample, this was much less noticeable, although I still saw "artifacts" with both while following birds in flight and while panning the sky while stargazing.

The guy I bought my 10x30 IS from (and subsequently sold them back to) had five samples, which varied to some degree in terms of their stability, from "swimming" to "rock steady".

So if you do get a sample in which you see the image "swimming," it could be that your eyes/brain are just not compatible with IS technology. Not everybody is suited for it. OR it could be that you need to try another sample.

I would prefer an 8x42 IS so as not to sacrifice DOF and so I wouldn't have to compensate for my poor focus accommodation by continually having to reset the diopter at different distances as I do with 10x bins.

But Canon can't make an 5mm exit pupil 8x42 IS, and if Raging Rick is correct, the jury is still out on whether they can make a bin with a 4.2mm exit pupil work (3.7mm?).

The need for a small exit pupils is the IS Achilles Heel. If a design team could find a way to conquer that barrier, IS technology will be more flexible about which configurations it can accommodate and therefore be more desirable to birders. Birders don't prefer 8x bins only because it's the highest power they can hold steady, they also prefer them for their wider FOV and greater DOF.

The short warranty period will remain an obstacle for IS bins. People have made comparisons with other electronic consumer items that carry similar short warranty periods. However, that was always the case with such consumer items, and given the cheap prices because of being manufactured offshore, few people quibble about it.

But users will compare the IS bins to alphas, not just in optical quality, but in warranty. What put me off was a story on CN where a guy with a 15x50 IS had his electronics fizzle (after the warranty period expired), and the repair cost estimate that Canon gave him was nearly as much as he paid for the bin.

If the IS circuitry goes, and you are willing to mount the bins, they might not work as well. That's another big can 'o worms. Many contend that the IS bins are sharpest when the IS is engaged even when they are mounted. If that is the case, then they are disposable consumer items like other electronic gadgets.

Although I might change my mind if I looked through a Canon 10x42 IS, right now, except for the "L" glass, which I would really like since I'm susceptible to CA, I wouldn't buy one until they got the weight down to 27-28 oz., which is probably impossible with current IS technology. I might also find those large twist-up eyecups hard to fit between my high bridge nose.

Somebody asked if 6 oz. make that big a difference. Canon specs state the 10x42 IS L weighs 36.79 ounces, which we can round off to 36.8.

So comparing them to the current crop of alphas, does 8.8-9.8 ounces make that big a difference? If you are out in the field for long periods lifting the bins to your eyes over and over again, unless you have arms like Arnold (did), you bet your sweet bippy it does!

Like any bin, you're not going to know whether or not it suits you until you have it in your hands and up to your eyes, regardless of the IS tech.

The thing about the Canon IS series is they are totally unique! There is no other binocular quite like them. I am telling you I have had alot of binoculars and the view with the IS system engaged is awesome and better than anything I have seen including my Zeiss FL's or EII's. They work for me so I will put up with their shortcomings to get that view. I don't care if they have a twenty year warranty, or if they are 6oz. heavier than a Zeiss, or if they are disposable. I never liked 10x magnification before IS but know I prefer it because I can see so much more detail. Before you bash them you should try them. Without the IS on I can't make out the words on a sign 200 yds. away but with the IS engaged I can READ the words. As far as I an concerned they are the only way to go but definitely not for the birding purist.

ceasar · Mar 5, 2011

[email protected] said:
...............I think Canon made the 10x42 L IS to be an all around binocular not necessarily a birding binocular. It's good for hunting, boating, wildlife observation, cruises, surveillance, and birding and I will use it for all these activities. A 10x30 wouldn't be as versatile .......................

Who are you surveilling Dennis? Or is this only on a need to know basis?

Bob

denco@comcast.n · Mar 5, 2011

ceasar said:
Who are you surveilling Dennis? Or is this only on a need to know basis?

Bob

I am surveilling the neighborhood birds. Another use for the Canon 10x42 L IS is astronomy. I have been amateur astronomer for many years and have had many different telescopes, as well as, binoculars for that use. Last night I aimed the Canons up at the sky and frankly I was amazed how good they were for that purpose. Outside of some huge aperture tripod mounted binoculars I have had in past these were the best astronomical binoculars I have ever used. The stars were pinpoint against a velvety black backround just like a high end Apochromatic Refractor Scope like a Takahashi. The star tests produced amazingly good diffraction rings which were almost perfectly concentric in and out of focus. I have never seen anything like it through binoculars. These Canon's definitely have some great glass on them. The Zeiss FL's or Nikon EII's I had didn't even come close in this application. These are going to be great at a dark sky site. Had them out this morning and again I was amazed at the view. I would say they are as sharp at the edge as the Swarovision and sharper on-axis. Just tack sharp all the way to the edge. What a view. Saw some birds and the color and contrast were fantastic. The weight didn't bother me to much. I am learning to hold them a little closer to my body. Rested my elbows on the deck and with the IS on it was like I had a tripod. Awesome.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 7, 2011

[email protected] said:
I am surveilling the neighborhood birds. Another use for the Canon 10x42 L IS is astronomy. I have been amateur astronomer for many years and have had many different telescopes, as well as, binoculars for that use. Last night I aimed the Canons up at the sky and frankly I was amazed how good they were for that purpose. Outside of some huge aperture tripod mounted binoculars I have had in past these were the best astronomical binoculars I have ever used. The stars were pinpoint against a velvety black backround just like a high end Apochromatic Refractor Scope like a Takahashi. The star tests produced amazingly good diffraction rings which were almost perfectly concentric in and out of focus. I have never seen anything like it through binoculars. These Canon's definitely have some great glass on them. The Zeiss FL's or Nikon EII's I had didn't even come close in this application. These are going to be great at a dark sky site. Had them out this morning and again I was amazed at the view. I would say they are as sharp at the edge as the Swarovision and sharper on-axis. Just tack sharp all the way to the edge. What a view. Saw some birds and the color and contrast were fantastic. The weight didn't bother me to much. I am learning to hold them a little closer to my body. Rested my elbows on the deck and with the IS on it was like I had a tripod. Awesome.

Here is a good review on the Canon 10x42 L IS comparing it to a Swarovsky EL 10X42 binoculars .

Canon 10X42L IS WP Image StabilizedLast updated January 8, 2010

Canon 10X42L IS, 16mm eye relief
Click to see price at B&H The Canon IS line binoculars offer a key advantage over conventional binoculars: image stabilization for shaky hands, use on a moving boat or vehicle, etc.

This review is of the 10X42L IS WP model:

■WP = waterproof (but not specified as to submerions);
■IS = image stabilization;
■L is noted by a red ring on the binoculars themselves, denoting a particular attention to optical quality.
The 42mm objectives yield a very bright image, even approaching dusk.

Based on my experience with the Zeiss Victory 8X32 model with 16mm eye relief, I was concerned that that Canon 10X42L IS WP would also suffer from too little eye relief for ease of viewing. And indeed the eye relief does demand attention to eye placement to get a view that doesn’t black out (an issue with any binocular with 16mm eye relief).

The 16mm eye relief is mitigated by two factors: first, the 42mm objectives yield a 4.2mm exit pupil which mitigates the eye relief somewhat, and second, the image stabilization locks a stable image in place, which makes it a lot easier to keep the eyes where they need to be.

Canon’s specs say “prism binocular”, but the shape strongly suggests that these are a porro prism variant, which makes them bulkier and heavier than a roof prism design, but also yields better depth of view and slightly higher brightness than a roof prism design.

Image stabilization — a killer feature

Ordinary AA batteries (two) are used for the image stabilization feature.

Image stabilization works, and it works incredibly well.
That’s not just my opinion; I engaged two friends, both familiar with binoculars, to try my top pick Swarovsky EL 10X42 binoculars (without image stabilization) to the Canon 10X42L IS WP model.

Guess what? Both of them preferred the image stabilized view. No question about it. And considering that the Canon 10X42L IS WP costs about $1199 and the Swarovsky EL 10X42 costs about $2339, it’s an easy call. It was a clear-cut done-deal for these two.

One friend commented that he’d love to try the image stabilization feature on a boat.

Image stabilization in practice
Here’s the “problem”: first try the conventional Swarovsky EL 10X42 binoculars (which I preferred over Leica 8X42 and Zeiss 8X32 offerings).

Pick out a small bird, or text on a sign— anything with detail. Notice how long it takes to achieve crisp focus (try several targets, especially under dim lighting). Observe as much detail as you can.

Then try the same thing with the Canon image stabilized 10X42L IS.

With IS, your task suddenly becomes vastly easier: achieving sharp focus is faster because the image stays put. Observing detail is much easier, because the image stays puts. Without image stabilization, the image jiggles around, including (literally) with each heartbeat. With image stabilization all that nonsense disappears and your visual world quiets down, allowing concentration on the subject at hand.

This behavioral difference is so pronounced that you’ll question why anyone would want to work without image stabilization, but there are some downsides, read on for more.

Remember also that this is with 10X magnification; at 7X or 8X, the “jiggle” issue is notably less. But even when I braced my arms over my knees, the jiggles still persist at 10X, and image stabilization is still a big win.

Image stabilization is not perfect
Image stabilization was not perfect: while observing the moon, I noticed a slight “jitter” effect. Disabling image stabilization shows just how effective and useful it is when it’s enabled, but it does not render absolute stillness. Still, in daylight hours I didn’t notice this effect at all.

Optics
After comparing the Swarovsky EL 10X42 to the Canon 10X42L IS WP, I must say that the Canon optics are first rate. Canon’s experience with advanced ED glass and image stabilization clearly shows, such that any differences that might exist are more than outweighed by the value of image stabilization. I did feel that the Swarovsky EL 10X42 might be a little better in color or contrast, but I couldn’t nail down any obvious advantage, and with the rock-solid Canon image, the point is largely moot.

Flare control was outstanding, on par with the Swarovsky EL, even into the most difficult backlighting conditions. However, the lesser eye relief tends to generate more of what I’ll call a “flare effect”, which results when the eye is moved off-center even slightly, causing not a blackout, but a bright area over part of the image circle.

Ergonomics and design
A stable image is your #1 ergonomic issue. Image stabilization wins that battle, no contest. The 16mm eye relief is inferior to the 20mm eye relief of the Swarovsky EL 10X42, but (and it’s a big “but”), the image stabilization outweighs that consideration.

At first I disliked the bulky design of the 10X42L IS binocular. But after using it, I found that the design affords a more ergonomic grip for stability than the Swarovsky (or Leica or Zeiss) designs. A friend of mine came to the same conclusion. So all is not what is seems: while the design of the 10X42L IS looks ungainly, it actually works darn well for holding them while viewing!

No question the Swarovsky EL 10X42 is elegant and sleek looking, and lighter weight—beautiful. The Canon’s are pedestrian looking, not ugly, but not attractive either. But the goal is to see, presumably.

Unlike other brands, I found that keeping the eye-cups mostly retracted worked the best for me. Extending them fully was a non-starter, a black-out issue.

The lens caps over the front elements are poorly designed: they tend to fall off due to the minimal recessing of the front elements, and they cannot be affixed to the binocular itself.

Eyecups and diopter
The Canon 10X42L IS WP binocular does have one notable design flaw.

Adjusting the right eye-cup tends to also move the diopter setting. This is a serious nuisance that happens over and over; it adds an extra step of fixing the diopter adjustment every time the eye-cup is adjusted.

Lens coating and smudges
The lens coatings on the 10X42L IS WP smudge easily. Exacerbating this issue, the lenses are recessed only a token amount, which makes them prone to smudges and/or physical damage. I would have preferred 5mm or so more protection extending beyond the front elements. The front element is apparently a protective glass, so presumably repairing a scratch is not a huge expense.

However, the design allows the use of 52mm screw-in filters or lens hoods, so mounting a pair of multicoated filters solves the protection issue easily enough (not tested).

denco@comcast.n · Mar 7, 2011

[email protected] said:
Here is a good review on the Canon 10x42 L IS comparing it to a Swarovsky EL 10X42 binoculars .

Canon 10X42L IS WP Image StabilizedLast updated January 8, 2010

Canon 10X42L IS, 16mm eye relief
Click to see price at B&H The Canon IS line binoculars offer a key advantage over conventional binoculars: image stabilization for shaky hands, use on a moving boat or vehicle, etc.

This review is of the 10X42L IS WP model:

■WP = waterproof (but not specified as to submerions);
■IS = image stabilization;
■L is noted by a red ring on the binoculars themselves, denoting a particular attention to optical quality.
The 42mm objectives yield a very bright image, even approaching dusk.

Based on my experience with the Zeiss Victory 8X32 model with 16mm eye relief, I was concerned that that Canon 10X42L IS WP would also suffer from too little eye relief for ease of viewing. And indeed the eye relief does demand attention to eye placement to get a view that doesn’t black out (an issue with any binocular with 16mm eye relief).

The 16mm eye relief is mitigated by two factors: first, the 42mm objectives yield a 4.2mm exit pupil which mitigates the eye relief somewhat, and second, the image stabilization locks a stable image in place, which makes it a lot easier to keep the eyes where they need to be.

Canon’s specs say “prism binocular”, but the shape strongly suggests that these are a porro prism variant, which makes them bulkier and heavier than a roof prism design, but also yields better depth of view and slightly higher brightness than a roof prism design.

Image stabilization — a killer feature

Ordinary AA batteries (two) are used for the image stabilization feature.

Image stabilization works, and it works incredibly well.
That’s not just my opinion; I engaged two friends, both familiar with binoculars, to try my top pick Swarovsky EL 10X42 binoculars (without image stabilization) to the Canon 10X42L IS WP model.

Guess what? Both of them preferred the image stabilized view. No question about it. And considering that the Canon 10X42L IS WP costs about $1199 and the Swarovsky EL 10X42 costs about $2339, it’s an easy call. It was a clear-cut done-deal for these two.

One friend commented that he’d love to try the image stabilization feature on a boat.

Image stabilization in practice
Here’s the “problem”: first try the conventional Swarovsky EL 10X42 binoculars (which I preferred over Leica 8X42 and Zeiss 8X32 offerings).

Pick out a small bird, or text on a sign— anything with detail. Notice how long it takes to achieve crisp focus (try several targets, especially under dim lighting). Observe as much detail as you can.

Then try the same thing with the Canon image stabilized 10X42L IS.

With IS, your task suddenly becomes vastly easier: achieving sharp focus is faster because the image stays put. Observing detail is much easier, because the image stays puts. Without image stabilization, the image jiggles around, including (literally) with each heartbeat. With image stabilization all that nonsense disappears and your visual world quiets down, allowing concentration on the subject at hand.

This behavioral difference is so pronounced that you’ll question why anyone would want to work without image stabilization, but there are some downsides, read on for more.

Remember also that this is with 10X magnification; at 7X or 8X, the “jiggle” issue is notably less. But even when I braced my arms over my knees, the jiggles still persist at 10X, and image stabilization is still a big win.

Image stabilization is not perfect
Image stabilization was not perfect: while observing the moon, I noticed a slight “jitter” effect. Disabling image stabilization shows just how effective and useful it is when it’s enabled, but it does not render absolute stillness. Still, in daylight hours I didn’t notice this effect at all.

Optics
After comparing the Swarovsky EL 10X42 to the Canon 10X42L IS WP, I must say that the Canon optics are first rate. Canon’s experience with advanced ED glass and image stabilization clearly shows, such that any differences that might exist are more than outweighed by the value of image stabilization. I did feel that the Swarovsky EL 10X42 might be a little better in color or contrast, but I couldn’t nail down any obvious advantage, and with the rock-solid Canon image, the point is largely moot.

Flare control was outstanding, on par with the Swarovsky EL, even into the most difficult backlighting conditions. However, the lesser eye relief tends to generate more of what I’ll call a “flare effect”, which results when the eye is moved off-center even slightly, causing not a blackout, but a bright area over part of the image circle.

Ergonomics and design
A stable image is your #1 ergonomic issue. Image stabilization wins that battle, no contest. The 16mm eye relief is inferior to the 20mm eye relief of the Swarovsky EL 10X42, but (and it’s a big “but”), the image stabilization outweighs that consideration.

At first I disliked the bulky design of the 10X42L IS binocular. But after using it, I found that the design affords a more ergonomic grip for stability than the Swarovsky (or Leica or Zeiss) designs. A friend of mine came to the same conclusion. So all is not what is seems: while the design of the 10X42L IS looks ungainly, it actually works darn well for holding them while viewing!

No question the Swarovsky EL 10X42 is elegant and sleek looking, and lighter weight—beautiful. The Canon’s are pedestrian looking, not ugly, but not attractive either. But the goal is to see, presumably.

Unlike other brands, I found that keeping the eye-cups mostly retracted worked the best for me. Extending them fully was a non-starter, a black-out issue.

The lens caps over the front elements are poorly designed: they tend to fall off due to the minimal recessing of the front elements, and they cannot be affixed to the binocular itself.

Eyecups and diopter
The Canon 10X42L IS WP binocular does have one notable design flaw.

Adjusting the right eye-cup tends to also move the diopter setting. This is a serious nuisance that happens over and over; it adds an extra step of fixing the diopter adjustment every time the eye-cup is adjusted.

Lens coating and smudges
The lens coatings on the 10X42L IS WP smudge easily. Exacerbating this issue, the lenses are recessed only a token amount, which makes them prone to smudges and/or physical damage. I would have preferred 5mm or so more protection extending beyond the front elements. The front element is apparently a protective glass, so presumably repairing a scratch is not a huge expense.

However, the design allows the use of 52mm screw-in filters or lens hoods, so mounting a pair of multicoated filters solves the protection issue easily enough (not tested).

Here is another interesting post on a more astronomy oriented website concerning the Canon 10x42 L IS's.

Well, I recently posted about acquiring the 8.X42 EL's after an exhausting side-by-side comparo with comparable models from Leitz,
Zeiss and Nikon.
My goal was simply to buy the BEST binocular in the world!

Th Swariovski won the "shootout" and I remarked that they exhibited the finest optics presently avaiable. As near-perfect as it was possible for the hand of man to craft.

That is STILL my contention; HOWEVER the impeccable sharpness, resolution and contrast are seriously compromised when using he binoculars in real-world situations. And the culprit is body-shake (mine) hen using them.
Braced on a solid support the Swarovskis deliver clearly superior images to the Leitz, Zeiss and Nikon. Once in 'hand-held' mode, however, there's no real difference between the test binoculars and any of several "good, but not great" models!
Suddenly, my glee and gloating were severely dimished.

(Here comes the part that will probably get me accused of heresy)

I asked for a pair of Canon 10X42 L, (image stabilized) to be added to the test.
First order of business was to evaluate the Canon glass...withOUT the IS.
To my pleasant surprise, the Canon L's were at least equal to the Leitz and Zeiss. The Nikons were slightly LESSER performers. The Swarovski (Non-Swarovision) were virtually the same. The Swarovision models were clearly superior.

HOWEVER, once you take the Swaros, Leitz and Zeiss OFF a bracing pedestal, nearly all of their wonderful attributes disappear with the jitters and shakes of merely hand-holding them.
At that point, engaging the IS on the Canon's suddenly makes THEM the clear-cut, no-argument-from-anyone- who-was-there WINNER!

Truly remarkable. *Note, while the 8X25, 10X30 and 12X36 IS II Canon's are also good performers...the L glass in the 10X42's is in a "whole 'nuther
class"! The 15 and 18X50's are also nice...but too bulky for my taste. They also do not have the L glass.

OK....FF to tonight: The 10X42 L vs the 16X70 Fujinons.
The ONLY performance areas that the Fujis won was "image scale" (due to 60% more power). and overall brightness.

Mounted on a tripod, the 7X50's were nice but suffered from field curvature and coma over the outer 30% or so of the f.o.v. (not acceptable).
The 16X70's were better at the edges (out to about 80%) and, of course the image scale was much greater and this enhanced some objects. BUT (there's that word again) the IS feature of the 10X42's allowed MUCH more detail to be observed in all binocular DSO's and revealed EVEN FAINTER STARS! The Fuji's larger aperture delivers fainter stars, but your hand shake blurs them out.

Cut to the chase: The Swarovskis went back to the store and the Canon 10X42 L's came home with me.
I've been outside wit them for serveral hours and an totally pleased.

If you've been sneering at the concept of IS. Try a pair of these Canon 42 L's. Open your mind and you just might be in for an exciting surprise.

Mike Harvey

james holdsworth · Mar 7, 2011

It seems a lot of folks have difficulty with holding binoculars. I have been doing it for 40 of my 46 years and have never had a problem, apart from boats and windstorms.

Different strokes. Someday, I may be reaching for the IS bins too but not just yet.

henry link · Mar 7, 2011

Dennis,

We need links to other people's work, not unattributed quotes.

KorHaan · Mar 7, 2011

Wow,

He's even more enthusiastic than me discovering IS.

What I'd like to see is a Canon 10x42 L IS vs. Swarovision 10x42 comparison, on an objective basis.
The Canons are bl**dy heavy. I'd be inclined to choose Swarovisions 8,5x42 instead.
My Canon 18x50 IS's are wonderful, but cumbersome for allround use.

Best regards,

Ronald

Kevin Purcell · Mar 7, 2011

The review is from here

http://diglloyd.com/articles/Binoculars/Binoculars-Canon10_42L_IS.html

Dennis please post links not big unquoted quotes

Diglloyd's reviews are OK but it's not at all technical (some sort of porros, eh, because they're bulky? They're porro II but that's not why they're bulky).

RJM · Mar 7, 2011

The most technical review of this bino was done by EdZ on Cloudy Nights. Not quite as glowing.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

KorHaan said:
Wow,

He's even more enthusiastic than me discovering IS.

What I'd like to see is a Canon 10x42 L IS vs. Swarovision 10x42 comparison, on an objective basis.
The Canons are bl**dy heavy. I'd be inclined to choose Swarovisions 8,5x42 instead.
My Canon 18x50 IS's are wonderful, but cumbersome for allround use.

Best regards,

Ronald

Here is a "Kind-of" comparison review on the Swarovision 10x42 and the Canon 10x42 L IS. They are seperate reviews but they do compare the two. The Canon came out Highly-Recommended and the Swarovision is Recommended. They thought the Swarovision had slightly better optics but because of the IS stabilization on the Canon they preferred it especially with difference in price.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=105407196166823

http://www.neutralday.com/canon-10x42-l-is-wp-binoculars-in-depth-review/

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

henry link said:
Dennis,

We need links to other people's work, not unattributed quotes.

I thought it would be easier reading for people instead of having to click on a link. I would really be interested in hearing your opinion on the Canon IS series of binoculars since you are so knowledgeable about binoculars and optics. I know they probably don't appeal to people who prefer to keep their optics simple but I have sure enjoyed the view through mine for birding and astronomy.

denco@comcast.n · Mar 8, 2011

RJM said:
The most technical review of this bino was done by EdZ on Cloudy Nights. Not quite as glowing.

Do you have the link for that review?

Canon IS - Value vs. Warranty (1 Viewer)

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread