• 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 (2 Viewers)

M

mikefitz6

Active member
I have been looking real hard at a pair of Leica 8x32 non HD. The price was low enough as the store was trying to move them. I went it to buy them and walked out with a pair of Canon 12x36 IS.

Now, a person can rationalize anything, and I am about to do that now.

I thought about the fact I already have 2 pair of 8x30/8x32's (Swaro CL and Nikon SE) as well as a Nikon 10x42.

Although I saw an advantage to the Leica over the CL's, it was not mind blowing. The Leicas had a little better contrast and sharpness. the Leica had more pleasing colors to my eyes. The CL's seemed to be a bit brighter which I did not expect - 8x30 vs 8x32. I think in part it was due to the blue bias the CL's have. Regardless, I thought maybe I need a 12x to round out what I had power wise.

Of course I read more about the Canon IS than I have used them so far. I was real interested in how they would do at night for astronomy. I was pretty sure the Nikon 10x42 would have the edge there. I have really enjoyed the Nikon when I don't want to take out a scope or use the 15x70 Orions on a tripod.

In the daytime.

The big think I notice on the Canon is CA. I am not sure if it is enough to make me want to take them back. I compared the CLs, Nikon 10x42's and the Canon over the last couple of days. I think the CA may be almost as bad on the Nikon, but a lower power and more shaking vs IS makes it more difficult to see. The CL's seemed to have the least amount of CA.

Enough of the negative.

The Canon let me see more. A hawk backlit by the sun showed more detail in the Canon than the other two. The detail was pretty poor, but it was there in the Canon. When I hit the IS I noticed a magpie near the hawk. I just could not see it with any of the binoculars without the IS at first. Once I knew it was there I could see it in the Canon without IS and the Nikon, but not very well.

I could read signs with the Canon but not the other two. More detail on a squirrel as well as birds. Some geese took off as I was looking down on them from above. With the IS there was so much detail. It was just fun to watch them. More detail on the mountains and hills vs the other two. The combination of higher power and IS really make a difference.

It is comfortable to hold. The binos are light enough even for my wife. I don't mind holding the button down to engage the IS. If I ever tried the other models I might like the IS on/off button, but you can't miss what you have not tried.

I just took them out to compare them to my Nikons at night. I was real surprised that the Canon outdid the Nikons! A lot of it has to do with the much steadier view, but I could see deeper. I thought the exit pupil of the Nikon at 4.2 would just beat the Canon at 3.0. Not so.

I was able to see more in the Pleides, easier to see Jupiters moons (too much shaking with the Nikons, but Jupiter is overhead and my arms started to get a little shakey too), M81 and M82 I initially found with the Nikons and could not find them with the Canons. Once I knew where to look it was easy to see them with the Canons too. Orion nebula was about the same except I could see more of the surrounding stars with the Canon. M37, M36, and M38 in Auriga was easier in the Canon binos. This was a reverse of M81 and M82. I could not find M38 in the Nikons until I found it with the Canons and then it was easier to spot with the Nikons. M45 and M44 around Gemini were easy in both binocs. Again easier to see deeper with the Canon however. M41 in Canis Major was easy in both binocs.

At this point I am leaning with keeping the CL's for my compact waterproof 8x30's, skip the Leica 8x32's, and keeping the Canon. I need another week to be sure (30 day return policy). Of course I am talking big and in reality don't dare to get another binocular for a couple of years! I heard a voice say "How many binoculars do you need!" That was my cue to enjoy what I have.

Overall, I am more impressed with them than I thought I would be.

Mike
 
mikefitz6 said:
I have been looking real hard at a pair of Leica 8x32 non HD. The price was low enough as the store was trying to move them. I went it to buy them and walked out with a pair of Canon 12x36 IS.

Now, a person can rationalize anything, and I am about to do that now.

I thought about the fact I already have 2 pair of 8x30/8x32's (Swaro CL and Nikon SE) as well as a Nikon 10x42.

Although I saw an advantage to the Leica over the CL's, it was not mind blowing. The Leicas had a little better contrast and sharpness. the Leica had more pleasing colors to my eyes. The CL's seemed to be a bit brighter which I did not expect - 8x30 vs 8x32. I think in part it was due to the blue bias the CL's have. Regardless, I thought maybe I need a 12x to round out what I had power wise.

Of course I read more about the Canon IS than I have used them so far. I was real interested in how they would do at night for astronomy. I was pretty sure the Nikon 10x42 would have the edge there. I have really enjoyed the Nikon when I don't want to take out a scope or use the 15x70 Orions on a tripod.

In the daytime.

The big think I notice on the Canon is CA. I am not sure if it is enough to make me want to take them back. I compared the CLs, Nikon 10x42's and the Canon over the last couple of days. I think the CA may be almost as bad on the Nikon, but a lower power and more shaking vs IS makes it more difficult to see. The CL's seemed to have the least amount of CA.

Enough of the negative.

The Canon let me see more. A hawk backlit by the sun showed more detail in the Canon than the other two. The detail was pretty poor, but it was there in the Canon. When I hit the IS I noticed a magpie near the hawk. I just could not see it with any of the binoculars without the IS at first. Once I knew it was there I could see it in the Canon without IS and the Nikon, but not very well.

I could read signs with the Canon but not the other two. More detail on a squirrel as well as birds. Some geese took off as I was looking down on them from above. With the IS there was so much detail. It was just fun to watch them. More detail on the mountains and hills vs the other two. The combination of higher power and IS really make a difference.

It is comfortable to hold. The binos are light enough even for my wife. I don't mind holding the button down to engage the IS. If I ever tried the other models I might like the IS on/off button, but you can't miss what you have not tried.

I just took them out to compare them to my Nikons at night. I was real surprised that the Canon outdid the Nikons! A lot of it has to do with the much steadier view, but I could see deeper. I thought the exit pupil of the Nikon at 4.2 would just beat the Canon at 3.0. Not so.

I was able to see more in the Pleides, easier to see Jupiters moons (too much shaking with the Nikons, but Jupiter is overhead and my arms started to get a little shakey too), M81 and M82 I initially found with the Nikons and could not find them with the Canons. Once I knew where to look it was easy to see them with the Canons too. Orion nebula was about the same except I could see more of the surrounding stars with the Canon. M37, M36, and M38 in Auriga was easier in the Canon binos. This was a reverse of M81 and M82. I could not find M38 in the Nikons until I found it with the Canons and then it was easier to spot with the Nikons. M45 and M44 around Gemini were easy in both binocs. Again easier to see deeper with the Canon however. M41 in Canis Major was easy in both binocs.

At this point I am leaning with keeping the CL's for my compact waterproof 8x30's, skip the Leica 8x32's, and keeping the Canon. I need another week to be sure (30 day return policy). Of course I am talking big and in reality don't dare to get another binocular for a couple of years! I heard a voice say "How many binoculars do you need!" That was my cue to enjoy what I have.

Overall, I am more impressed with them than I thought I would be.

Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

The Canon 12x36 are very good bino's I would be happy with them to. I own 14 bino's and use them all. My astro binos are the 8x50 Lecia BA, I had the 15x50 Canon IS years ago when they first came out and love them to, but need money at the time for a astronomy project and sold them. One day I will buy the again.

Best
Mike
 
IMO the Canon 12x36 are the most attractive IS bins currently available. They provide a magnification that is high enough to outperform conventional binoculars regarding visible details, while the weight is quite reasonable. I found their ergonomics very good as well. I can hold them with one hand easier than its little brother, the 10x30 IS. For CA prevention it could help to adjust IPD very carefully.

Steve
 
I agree with Steve. I had the IS 12x36 but unfortunately they had an accident from which they never recovered. I now have the IS 15x50, but to be honest I think the 12x36 is a more versatile instrument that gives up very little in magnification to the bigger version, and wish I'd simply replaced the 12x36 with another of the same model. I do remember significant CA, and fiddling about with the diopter and focussing regularly, but the IS is quite stunning, think it is more stable than in the 15x50, although I never tried them side-by-side. The push-button IS was no problem, and saved battery life. The push once, on for 5 minutes button on the 15x50, as well as the greater power consumption, means I have to take 3 pairs of AA batteries on a long day out. (I also once owned the IS 10x42L, which gives stunning views, but which IMHO is very unfriendly instrument in terms of ergonomics and weight). Enjoy the 12x36, I think it's the most useful of the stable.
 
Sancho,

When I had a 15x50 IS, I don't recall having needed more than one set of batteries per day ever, except if the spare set was faulty. I mostly used NiMH cells, which tended to last several days even in heavy use. My current 10x42 IS L mostly gets a diet of Lithiums, and these last weeks.

Mikefitz6,

It will be interesting to hear how your friendship with IS develops. I think your choice of the 12x36 IS rather than a third pair of eights was very sensible indeed. Your description of looking at a hawk and only seeing the magpie next to it after engaging the IS tells about exactly the kind of experience which has kept me with IS binoculars in my personal use for years now.

Kimmo
 
kabsetz said:
Sancho,

When I had a 15x50 IS, I don't recall having needed more than one set of batteries per day ever, except if the spare set was faulty. I mostly used NiMH cells, which tended to last several days even in heavy use. My current 10x42 IS L mostly gets a diet of Lithiums, and these last weeks.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

I think I've had to change them a few times, maybe no more than twice, on a long seawatching day. I used normal AA Duracell batteries, not lithium, and probably kept the IS-feature on for most of the time, which is a bit unnecessary....but nice!
 
Mikefitz. I also saw your comments in the Leica forum. I am also a Leica enthusiast, but favor the compacts for their portability and clarity. For more than 20 years I have had the 10X25 Trinovids. They were great for their time. I also have the 8X20 and 10X25 Ultravids. They are also impressive.
I usually take the 8X20s most anywhere and they are great for what they are.

BUT, when Canon came out with their first series of IS binoculars and I looked through them, I was totally amazed. I could just SEE so much more with the image stabilization system. It was like everything was right there in front of me. I bought the 10X30 IS. Wow. I didn't care about CA or whatever. I could just see much better.

Then they came out with the 15X50 and 18X50 IS models. Not cheap. But when I tried the 18, I was again blown away. Almost twice the magnification of the 10X30. I bought it and have been very pleased with them, even though they weigh more and cost a lot more. But they are no more than some of the Alpha brands 8x or 10x binos and have much more magnification. I have had them about 10 years and I still use them sometimes.

But what I found over time is that what I really wanted was a bino with more magnification than the 10X30 but less weight than the 18X50. And along came the 12X36 II. Now I find that this bino is the absolute best combination of magnification, light weight, and clarity that I could possibly want.

What I like to do is travel. So I have come up with a great bino combination for that.

I take the little 8X20 Leica Ultravids if I need to travel very light. But if I have any room at all, I will also take the Canon 12X36 IS. I love the combination of the two.

You are lucky because you have found your way to the 12X36 IS without having to go through what I have done.

Just one more comment. I also still have my 10X25 Ultravids. Sometimes I say, well just take those as a compromise, instead of the other two. But when I look through them, even though they are very clear, the shaking is just so disconcerting after I have used the Canons.

Bottom line, the 12X36 IS is the best all round bino I have ever used. I love them. In fact, I live in Miami, and am taking them down to the Florida Keys tomorrow. They are just a joy to use. Also for my aging eyes, as I am now 65, the IS is very helpful to me.

By the way, as far as reliability, all of my Canon IS have been very good. I just had one problem, and that was I had to have the battery door replaced on the 10X30 IS after more than 10 years of use. I know that a lot of people worry about reliability with these but I have been very happy with all of mine. And I am not exactly wealthy either. I only will get a new bino if I think it is really something special, and that usually happens about every 3 or 4 years. My problem is that I just never sell anything.

Good luck with yours and I hope that you have many good years of use with them.
 
I am coming back to the Canon IS myself. I bought the Canon 10x30 IS and I am very impressed with it. It may not be quite equal to the alphas optically but it is still excellent AND you can see more DETAIL with it. I could read a sign on my neighbors porch that I couldn't read with any of my binoculars and I have an SE 8x32, EII 8x30, Habicht 8x30 and Swaro 8x32 EL. I couldn't read the sign until I engaged the IS. I like the fact that you can see more detail. Whatever you look at you see a little more detail. I too ordered the 12x36 IS and I get it Friday so I will report on it when I get it.
 
Tantien said:
Hi Dennis! Did you ever get them and what did you think about them?
Click to expand...

OK, I'm not Dennis either, but since this thread was resurrected, I thought I would put up a reply.

I've had one for about 1.5 years. It is one of my favorite binos, despite the fact that it is a bit on the bulky side, and it does not have ED glass. As the OP mentioned, what sets these apart is how much small detail the IS allows one to easily see. Heck, sometimes I just look at tree bark because it just amazes me to see what it can do. I believe that the view is pretty sharp. Not as sharp as ED binos that are so plentiful these days, but certainly sharp enough to make them worthwhile. Sweet spot is very wide. There is a bit of curvature with straight lines while panning, but not to a great or bothersome level. I do not experience RB.

Even though it is a bit on the bulky side, it's not enough to be off-putting. I actually like the way it is shaped, and the spacing between the focus knob and IS button is perfect for simultaneous use w/my right 2nd and 3rd fingertips. I do not find the weight to be objectionable at all. In fact, they only weigh about 24.5 oz., which is very close to the weight of my 3rd gen. Razors. I am still on the original set of lithium batteries.

I don't think negatively of the small FOV. It is after all a 12x. The small EP is fine, and in fact I can use them comfortably during the bright Texas summer days without the need for sunglasses. For me at least, this is a plus. However, I wouldn't recommend these to someone who will be constantly glassing under heavy cloud cover or thick woods/jungle canopy.

The case is more or less a slightly padded slipcover with strap. I don't use it. Two things that I personally don't care for are the thin and un-padded neckstrap, and the two ocular covers. I would prefer a one-piece rainguard, but that's just me. I do think the neckstrap could have been a nicer affair given what is found on many other less expensive binos, but like the case, it suffices. These do not come with objective covers. This doesn't bother me, as they are kept inside a hardshell camera case when not in use, and I don't typically keep objective covers on when the binos are in use (they are very hard to see through).

While typing all of this, I've also been going back and forth to the back patio, where the hummingbirds are active around our feeders. Once again, I am amazed at the detail these bring out once the IS button is pressed.....
 
edwincjones said:
I am not Dennis but I did
get a pair in June and am happy with then

pros
-high quality glass
-IS very helpful
cons
-small FOV
-3mm exit pupil
-harder to aim (always over the bird)

edj
Click to expand...

PhilR. said:
OK, I'm not Dennis either, but since this thread was resurrected, I thought I would put up a reply.

I've had one for about 1.5 years. It is one of my favorite binos, despite the fact that it is a bit on the bulky side, and it does not have ED glass. As the OP mentioned, what sets these apart is how much small detail the IS allows one to easily see. Heck, sometimes I just look at tree bark because it just amazes me to see what it can do. I believe that the view is pretty sharp. Not as sharp as ED binos that are so plentiful these days, but certainly sharp enough to make them worthwhile. Sweet spot is very wide. There is a bit of curvature with straight lines while panning, but not to a great or bothersome level. I do not experience RB.

Even though it is a bit on the bulky side, it's not enough to be off-putting. I actually like the way it is shaped, and the spacing between the focus knob and IS button is perfect for simultaneous use w/my right 2nd and 3rd fingertips. I do not find the weight to be objectionable at all. In fact, they only weigh about 24.5 oz., which is very close to the weight of my 3rd gen. Razors. I am still on the original set of lithium batteries.

I don't think negatively of the small FOV. It is after all a 12x. The small EP is fine, and in fact I can use them comfortably during the bright Texas summer days without the need for sunglasses. For me at least, this is a plus. However, I wouldn't recommend these to someone who will be constantly glassing under heavy cloud cover or thick woods/jungle canopy.

The case is more or less a slightly padded slipcover with strap. I don't use it. Two things that I personally don't care for are the thin and un-padded neckstrap, and the two ocular covers. I would prefer a one-piece rainguard, but that's just me. I do think the neckstrap could have been a nicer affair given what is found on many other less expensive binos, but like the case, it suffices. These do not come with objective covers. This doesn't bother me, as they are kept inside a hardshell camera case when not in use, and I don't typically keep objective covers on when the binos are in use (they are very hard to see through).

While typing all of this, I've also been going back and forth to the back patio, where the hummingbirds are active around our feeders. Once again, I am amazed at the detail these bring out once the IS button is pressed.....
Click to expand...

Thanks Ed and Phil for the great feedback and review!:t:

You both should even post yours in the equipment review area as well for reference. ;)

The more I think about it the better I like these for cruising, looking for both whales/wildlife and pelagic birds. I see so many birders with their scopes on the ship promenade and I can see how these would be so much more packable and practical.

I'm almost wondering if the detail that we so desire is actually there but obscured by our image never being rock steady unless you have a tripod or solid surface. :smoke:

I'm close to pulling the trigger for these before my next cruise in November so thank you for sharing your experiences here.
 
Tantien said:
The more I think about it the better I like these for cruising, looking for both whales/wildlife and pelagic birds. I see so many birders with their scopes on the ship promenade and I can see how these would be so much more packable and practical.

I'm close to pulling the trigger for these before my next cruise in November so thank you for sharing your experiences here.
Click to expand...

You are right on the money. The Canon 10x42ISL was just excellent on a recent pelagic off Monterey CA.
Outstanding views of the various Skuas, Auks, Shearwaters and Whales, helped admittedly by brilliant sunshine.
Two points to keep in mind: first that it is a big glass and yet it must be held one handed, because you also should hang on to the boat. A smaller model such as the 12x36 might be more comfortable to work with (or a bigger boat;) ).
Second, the inevitable salt spray must be rinsed off quickly after the trip. The 10x42 is fully waterproof and will accept that cheerfully, some of the other models are more vulnerable, so best to check first.
 
etudiant said:
You are right on the money. The Canon 10x42ISL was just excellent on a recent pelagic off Monterey CA.
Outstanding views of the various Skuas, Auks, Shearwaters and Whales, helped admittedly by brilliant sunshine.
Two points to keep in mind: first that it is a big glass and yet it must be held one handed, because you also should hang on to the boat. A smaller model such as the 12x36 might be more comfortable to work with (or a bigger boat;) ).
Second, the inevitable salt spray must be rinsed off quickly after the trip. The 10x42 is fully waterproof and will accept that cheerfully, some of the other models are more vulnerable, so best to check first.
Click to expand...

Excellent etudiant! Thank you.

A very small detail that may not make any difference: are these considered porros?

If they are, do they produce 3D images or the images we are used to with standard roofs? I'm asking because even in an upcoming optics festival next month, Canon won't be there so I won't be able to see for myself.

And thanks for the cautions about being in a boat with these.
 
Tantien said:
Excellent etudiant! Thank you.

A very small detail that may not make any difference: are these considered porros?

If they are, do they produce 3D images or the images we are used to with standard roofs? I'm asking because even in an upcoming optics festival next month, Canon won't be there so I won't be able to see for myself.

And thanks for the cautions about being in a boat with these.
Click to expand...

The 10x42s are very much porros, as indeed are all of the Canon IS family.
There is a 3D effect, but it is not very pronounced.
It is worth noting that the Canons are designed to eliminate the jitter inherent in hand holding, not the larger rocking motions that are inherent in boating or motor travel. Fuji makes a 14x40 Stabil-Eye glass which is explicitly aimed at marine users. It has a much wider range of compensation, but is also considerably more expensive and bulkier.
Fwiw, the Canon served very well on a 55 ft boat despite a 5-6 foot swell.
This user would fade out before the Canons, so the Fujis would be overkill.
 
The 3D effect that is so pronounced in most porros is not due to the prisms being porro as such. It comes from the typical porroprism binocular having objective spacing considerably larger than interpupillary distance, or eyepiece spacing.

The Canon IS models use a porro II type prism configuration, where the prism clusters are a part of the moveable eyepiece assemblies, and are turned in order to adjust the IPD.

The objective lenses in the Canon IS series do not move, and are actually very closely spaced. Therefore the 3D effect in these binoculars is like in a roof-prism binocular used by a person with a normal IPD. I measured the distance between the optical axes of the objective lenses of the 10x42 IS L, and it is roughly 68 mm. This would be typical for a roof-prism model also. By comparison, the optical axes of a 10x42 Nikon SE porro are 128 mm apart when set for my IPD, for almost double the "stereo base" that creates the 3D effect our brain creates from the two eyes seeing the same image from slightly different vantage points.

Does this matter to me when I'm viewing? Not really, but your mileage may vary.

Kimmo
 
kabsetz said:
The 3D effect that is so pronounced in most porros is not due to the prisms being porro as such. It comes from the typical porroprism binocular having objective spacing considerably larger than interpupillary distance, or eyepiece spacing.

The Canon IS models use a porro II type prism configuration, where the prism clusters are a part of the moveable eyepiece assemblies, and are turned in order to adjust the IPD.

The objective lenses in the Canon IS series do not move, and are actually very closely spaced. Therefore the 3D effect in these binoculars is like in a roof-prism binocular used by a person with a normal IPD. I measured the distance between the optical axes of the objective lenses of the 10x42 IS L, and it is roughly 68 mm. This would be typical for a roof-prism model also. By comparison, the optical axes of a 10x42 Nikon SE porro are 128 mm apart when set for my IPD, for almost double the "stereo base" that creates the 3D effect our brain creates from the two eyes seeing the same image from slightly different vantage points.

Does this matter to me when I'm viewing? Not really, but your mileage may vary.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

etudiant said:
The 10x42s are very much porros, as indeed are all of the Canon IS family.
There is a 3D effect, but it is not very pronounced.
It is worth noting that the Canons are designed to eliminate the jitter inherent in hand holding, not the larger rocking motions that are inherent in boating or motor travel. Fuji makes a 14x40 Stabil-Eye glass which is explicitly aimed at marine users. It has a much wider range of compensation, but is also considerably more expensive and bulkier.
Fwiw, the Canon served very well on a 55 ft boat despite a 5-6 foot swell.
This user would fade out before the Canons, so the Fujis would be overkill.
Click to expand...

Again, more good feedback. Thanks all. Ordered today after they went down $10 in my Amazon basket AND a fellow birder (who was the first one I saw these with) lent me his first generation Canon 12x36s to take a look at last night.

The I.S. IS quite remarkable and I am now convinced this is going to be a great addition to my, now shrinking collection. I've now decided to buy binos for what I use them for instead of getting them for the sake of specs and status, etc. So I'm paring down my collection to match.

I think my Atlas Intrepid ED's (10x42s) are going up for sale shortly after I get these, since I see these easily displacing them on my next cruise.

Thanks for helping me think this one through. I swear that this forum makes me keep second guessing everything I thought I knew about or wanted in binos.
 
edwincjones said:
I am not Dennis but I did
get a pair in June and am happy with then

pros
-high quality glass
-IS very helpful
cons
-small FOV
-3mm exit pupil
-harder to aim (always over the bird)

edj
Click to expand...

Lightweight would be a pro, I would think.

No "chromatic aberration" on your cons list? Even the 10x30 seemed to have more CA than average.

I'd like to see Canon add 1/2 degree to the FOV and "L" glass to the optics.

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Similar threads

yarrellii
Canon vs Kite stabilized binoculars
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
DRodrigues
D
yarrellii
Is the 15x50 IS worth it if you already have a 12x36 IS?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
yarrellii
yarrellii
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the Canon IS II 10x30
Replies
16
Views
2K
henry link
H
truculenter aspicientis
Decided on 10x30 is II against alpha non stabilised
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
PatR
P
rdnzl
Canon 8 x 20 IS Decision
Replies
16
Views
2K
rdnzl
rdnzl

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top