-
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 on the 10x30 IS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Thanks, Henry. It's really interesting that the notion has surfaced on several occasions, but not taken legs on a general basis. Some high-end manufacturer could develop a system that would allow interchanging dioptrix-like lenses within their product line. Thinking big, I also imagine that a universal standard could be developed, but that might be somewhat idealistic.
Ed
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
And I had completely forgotten about the Orniwelt system. I should look into buying one.
Thanks for providing the web site. :t:
Ed
Hermann
Well-known member
As an aside: When I put my 20x60S Mono on my carbon tripod, I can still see a difference in the amount of detail I can see when I use the stabilizer. I've got no idea why that is so. It's quite a stable setup as it is, but I can see a difference (that probably shouldn't be there at all.)
Hermann
Just looking at the Orniwelt system, it could be a great complement to a small scope such as the Nikon ED50 if fitted with a V style fork to hold the scope.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Field flatteners and eye astigmatism
Hi Ed:
Of course the field flatteners (FF) do not correct my eye astigmatism (I wish they did...), but I submit that they help.
In binocs w/o FF my eye astigmatism coupled with binoculars' field curvature lead to a blurring of ,e.g., the lower part of the image, yet I can bring it into focus by turning the wheel towards infinity. I think this is typical for an astigmatic eye. For binocs w/ FF the curvature distortion is eliminated and I can see the full FoV clearly despite my eye astigmatism, as there is no bad combination between the field curvature and eye astigmatism. This is why I suggested that an extra correction lens might not be needed for binocs w/ FF despite user's astigmatism.
Peter
Hi Ed:
Of course the field flatteners (FF) do not correct my eye astigmatism (I wish they did...), but I submit that they help.
In binocs w/o FF my eye astigmatism coupled with binoculars' field curvature lead to a blurring of ,e.g., the lower part of the image, yet I can bring it into focus by turning the wheel towards infinity. I think this is typical for an astigmatic eye. For binocs w/ FF the curvature distortion is eliminated and I can see the full FoV clearly despite my eye astigmatism, as there is no bad combination between the field curvature and eye astigmatism. This is why I suggested that an extra correction lens might not be needed for binocs w/ FF despite user's astigmatism.
Peter
On the subject of monopods, finnsticks, IS and the Orniwelt chest support, one observation. A simple monopod, stick or the chest support gives very good reduction of up and down movement and rotational movement around the optical axis. What it does not do and is even inferior to normal hand-holding is suppression of rotational movements around the vertical axis. For this reason, for many years now I have used a finnstick that has a crosswise handle attached to the lower end. There is a big difference in stability between holding the stick with both hands gripping the stick or one hand holding the handle. Also, when supporting the lower end of the stick against one's waist (or chest like in the Orniwelt design) it helps a lot if there is a transverse part against the body. Yesterday I was out with my binoculars and a finnstick that lacks this handle, and the view was noticeably less stable than what I'm used to unless I had one hand up at the binocular to suppress rotational movement. This means that the amplitude of residual rotational movement when both hands are holding a thin monopod only supported by the hands must have exceeded the 0.7 degree correction angle of the Canons for some amount of the time.
Kimmo
Kimmo
The 10x30 IS has 2 field flatteners.
I wonder if they have changed the specifications, as I recall that the Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular was advertised as having a single element flattener.
The instruction book I have for the second hand one that I bought is dated 1998.
I think that I bought my new one about the year 2000.
The edge of the field is not as good in my 10×30 binoculars as in the 18×50 and 12×36 Mark one. In addition, the 10×30 has a narrower apparent field of view than in the 18×50 or 12×36 Mark one. Again from memory, it is 60° against a measured 69°.
I'm trying to recall whether the 12×36 Mark one was advertised as having a one or two element field flattener.
So maybe they have changed the specifications, or some of the advertisements were or are incorrect or I have a faulty memory.
I don't know if the 8×25 has a field flattener or not.
The instruction book I have for the second hand one that I bought is dated 1998.
I think that I bought my new one about the year 2000.
The edge of the field is not as good in my 10×30 binoculars as in the 18×50 and 12×36 Mark one. In addition, the 10×30 has a narrower apparent field of view than in the 18×50 or 12×36 Mark one. Again from memory, it is 60° against a measured 69°.
I'm trying to recall whether the 12×36 Mark one was advertised as having a one or two element field flattener.
So maybe they have changed the specifications, or some of the advertisements were or are incorrect or I have a faulty memory.
I don't know if the 8×25 has a field flattener or not.
Just for information the Swarovski SV 8x32 uses 2 field Flatteners and the new Zeiss 8x42 SF only has one. Probably why the Zeiss doesn't have as sharp of edges.
.. If the present day Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0° real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed.
The reasoning why the Zeiss SF has a single element field flattener has been discussed here.
Every binocular is a compromise.
I have not tried any modern Swarovski binoculars so I cannot comment on them.
But I have some second hand Porro prism Swarovski binoculars which have been well used and unfortunately they are a pretty sorry sight and don't perform well at all.
Mind you I also have an abused classic Zeiss 10 x 40 and the view is awful.
It amazes me how badly some people treat their optics. My binoculars that have been bought new are usually optically as new, even if I've used them for years.
The reasoning why the Zeiss SF has a single element field flattener has been discussed here.
Every binocular is a compromise.
I have not tried any modern Swarovski binoculars so I cannot comment on them.
But I have some second hand Porro prism Swarovski binoculars which have been well used and unfortunately they are a pretty sorry sight and don't perform well at all.
Mind you I also have an abused classic Zeiss 10 x 40 and the view is awful.
It amazes me how badly some people treat their optics. My binoculars that have been bought new are usually optically as new, even if I've used them for years.
henry link
Well-known member
If you look at the specifications of the different models you will find three levels of eyepiece complexity: 4 elements, 3 groups (8x25), 5 elements, 4 groups (10x30, 12x36) and 7 elements, 5 groups (10x42, 15x50, 18x50). I'd be willing to bet that only the last three have doublet field flatteners in spite of what is stated under "Features".
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/binoculars/image_stabilizer
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/binoculars/image_stabilizer
Henry,
I think you are right in being suspicious. A five element eyepiece does not have much of an eyepiece left once you count out the supposed doublet field-flattener. I'll see if I can try a 10x30 tomorrow, to check what the edge resolution performance looks like.
This would not be the first time that specifications are misleading or contradictory.
At least the site does not claim any special dispersion glass types for the 10x30 IS.
Another interesting detail was that for the 10x30, the IS correction angle was specified as 1.0 degrees while for the 10x42 it is given as 0.8.
Kimmo
I think you are right in being suspicious. A five element eyepiece does not have much of an eyepiece left once you count out the supposed doublet field-flattener. I'll see if I can try a 10x30 tomorrow, to check what the edge resolution performance looks like.
This would not be the first time that specifications are misleading or contradictory.
At least the site does not claim any special dispersion glass types for the 10x30 IS.
Another interesting detail was that for the 10x30, the IS correction angle was specified as 1.0 degrees while for the 10x42 it is given as 0.8.
Kimmo
"If the present day Canon 10×30 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0° real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed."
The Canon 10x30 IS does have almost perfect star images at the edge. It is probably the best binocular in this respect. That is one reason so many astronomers use the Canon's. The IS system is actually more beneficial on the night sky actually especially at the higher magnifications than it is for terrestrial use.
I can't imagine why Canon would lie about how many doublet field-flatteners they have in their lenses. Plus it is illegal and somebody could report them to the FTC. I don't think they are that stupid! Plus what have they got to gain? I don't think anybody is not going to buy their binoculars because they only use a single flattener lens versus a double. It is not logical.
Exactly as denco says, it is probably just sloppy work.
This is a peripheral product line for Canon, so the documentation for secondary aspects would not get any extraordinary scrutiny. Also, field flattener is a pretty abstruse term, there are probably not that many translators current in binospeak. Most likely they saw the 10x42 had two and concluded that was true for all ten power and up models.
. Dear all,
. Somewhere I have a brochure about 10 years old listing the various Canon image stabilised binoculars and I think that Henry is correct.
The only thing I cannot remember clearly is regarding the 12 x 36 Mark one. I think that it has a single field flattener, but it could be a doublet.
Indeed, the star images in the Canon image stabilised binoculars are very good inasmuch as they are very small and pack all the light energy in a tiny point like disc.
In my experience, the edge performance regarding star images is better in the 12×36 Mark one and 18×50 compared to the 10×30.
The star images at the edge of the field in the 10×30 are quite good but not perfect.
Regarding the 18×50, when I have the stabiliser on I can pick up stars one magnitude or even 1.5 magnitudes fainter than with the stabiliser off. With the stabiliser on the faintist stars are indeed very tiny, much smaller than in any other binocular I have tried. I think that this is due to excellent design by Canon.
However, I was fortunate to catch a magnitude -5 fireball in the 18×50 and it looked enormous because it was so bright and I think this was probably an artefact of the binocular.
Regarding the normal artefacts you see with these image stabilised binoculars, they are mainly due in my opinion to the rainbow or prismatic affects when the variable prisms go away from the centre and especially when they reach the end stops.
It is very simple to overcome this. You just release the button for one or two seconds and reapply after centring the object. If you pan smoothly or look at something carefully it is possible to keep the variable prisms more or less centre and then the star images, or in the daytime, terrestrial images look very good.
All this is now automatic for me, but it did require a learning curve to use these binoculars to their best ability.
As to the notion that Canon may be lying etc. etc. In my opinion, somebody just made a mistake, and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous.
. Somewhere I have a brochure about 10 years old listing the various Canon image stabilised binoculars and I think that Henry is correct.
The only thing I cannot remember clearly is regarding the 12 x 36 Mark one. I think that it has a single field flattener, but it could be a doublet.
Indeed, the star images in the Canon image stabilised binoculars are very good inasmuch as they are very small and pack all the light energy in a tiny point like disc.
In my experience, the edge performance regarding star images is better in the 12×36 Mark one and 18×50 compared to the 10×30.
The star images at the edge of the field in the 10×30 are quite good but not perfect.
Regarding the 18×50, when I have the stabiliser on I can pick up stars one magnitude or even 1.5 magnitudes fainter than with the stabiliser off. With the stabiliser on the faintist stars are indeed very tiny, much smaller than in any other binocular I have tried. I think that this is due to excellent design by Canon.
However, I was fortunate to catch a magnitude -5 fireball in the 18×50 and it looked enormous because it was so bright and I think this was probably an artefact of the binocular.
Regarding the normal artefacts you see with these image stabilised binoculars, they are mainly due in my opinion to the rainbow or prismatic affects when the variable prisms go away from the centre and especially when they reach the end stops.
It is very simple to overcome this. You just release the button for one or two seconds and reapply after centring the object. If you pan smoothly or look at something carefully it is possible to keep the variable prisms more or less centre and then the star images, or in the daytime, terrestrial images look very good.
All this is now automatic for me, but it did require a learning curve to use these binoculars to their best ability.
As to the notion that Canon may be lying etc. etc. In my opinion, somebody just made a mistake, and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous.
Last edited:
"and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous."
The point is Canon has it circulated all over the internet that the 10x30 IS has doublet field flatteners and if it is untrue it is a blatant case of what they call "false advertising" which is serious and the Federal Trade Commission would be very interested and concerned about it if it was true. It is a common and serious advertising offense and the FTC would issue Canon a written warning and probably pursue litigation if they didn't correct their advertising. I actually contacted Canon and asked them if in fact they do use doublet field flatteners on the 10x30 IS and they said it was confidential information or they wouldn't tell me and I find that weird like they are trying to protect some patent secret or something. I think Henry could be correct though in his assumption. Personally though I have found the edge sharpness equally sharp among the Canon models except for the 8x25 IS which doesn't advertise a doublet field flattener and I have tried them all including the 18x50 IS. I have the 10x30 IS now and it's edges are as sharp if not sharper than my Swarovski 8x32 SV which does have doublet field flatteners. I notice no RB either on the 10x30 IS. That is a good tip on using the IS system to remove artifacts though and I use it quite often but your explanation of why it happens I think is accurate.
I had a brief indoor look with a 10x30 IS Canon today. The edge sharpness was very good, but not nearly as good as in the 10x42 IS L or the Swarovisions. There is a little bit of field curvature, so the edges of a centrally focused image could be made sharper still by focusing a bit more towards the infinity. But, even when the focus was set for optimum center sharpness, it was possible to resolve the largest patterns of the Edmund USAF card at the very edge. This was done at a distance of some 6-8 meters, don't know the exact distance.
Obviously, I cannot say anything definite about the optical construction of the eyepiece, but comparing it to other binoculars I have used with various types of eyepieces, the image looks like that of a singlet field flattener design such as those used by Nikon. The view is easy and natural, but not particularly bright.
The stabilizer engages in about a second, and stabilized very well. Bar code numbers on binocular boxes that could only be seen as numbers, but not read, with a 8x30 E II Nikon could easily and quickly be read with the Canon once the IS was depressed.
Kimmo
Obviously, I cannot say anything definite about the optical construction of the eyepiece, but comparing it to other binoculars I have used with various types of eyepieces, the image looks like that of a singlet field flattener design such as those used by Nikon. The view is easy and natural, but not particularly bright.
The stabilizer engages in about a second, and stabilized very well. Bar code numbers on binocular boxes that could only be seen as numbers, but not read, with a 8x30 E II Nikon could easily and quickly be read with the Canon once the IS was depressed.
Kimmo
