Bought the Canon 10x30 IS today - new world opening up (1 Viewer)

Hello all,

Well, finally did it: I fell for Image Stabilisation.

I found a store that claimed to have in stock the 12x36 IS II, 18x50 IS, 10x30IS and 8x25 IS from Canon. I had phoned them the day before, but when I got there the 18x50's just had been sold. Big bummer, these were the ones I went for. 8x25's were out, too, but I didn't mind that. Still, the 12x36's were there so I tried these, inside and after a while, outside the store. The image was impressive, as I had expected. Yet, they gave me feeling of nausea which was not good.
The day I tried Peewee's 12x36's last year, I experienced no nausea at all.
Today the 12x36's went off my wishing list, after I picked up the 10x30's and tried these. The view was bright, nice wide FOV and flawless stabilisation with rock steady images. I have not yet had the time today to do a proper field test, but this weekend I might have.

I compared my new Canon 10x30's with my current bin of choice, Minox 8x32 BL. Strangely enough, the Canons seem brighter. The Minox is a tad bit sharper, but when the Image Stabilisation is on, the Canons perform much better and details are extremely well outlined.

I've put the Minox's in the cupboard, they'll be playing second violin from now on. After just a few hours of playing with the Canons, I'm beginning to see what I have missed over the last decades. A rock steady image in a handheld 10x bin; non-IS bins are obsolete for me now. I'm never going back.

The Canons are quite lightweight, too. Another pro, and they hang flat on the chest so no bouncing when walking. For the moment I use 2 Alkaline AA batteries; there are rechargeables loading up right now for use in the near future.

I have not given up on getting the Canon 18x50's. I want these, too. They'll form a nice combo in the field with the 10x30's.
They'll replace my scope on outings; after considerable thought I decided to sell the scope two weeks ago. The tripod I still have, but it will only be used to mount the Canon 18x50's for seawatching.
A new era has dawned. :t:

Regards,

Ronald

Ronald,

Welcome to the club. I have also found it very hard to be satisfied with non-stabilized binoculars once you give IS a true and extended chance. I have used IS now for nearly a decade, first the 15x50 IS and now the 10x42 IS, and although I regularly test standard binoculars (pretty much all of the alphas as well as some of the less expensive offerings), I'm always relieved and happy getting back together with the Canons.

Once your rechargeables are full, you'll probably also be surprised to see how long they last in field use, too.

Kimmo

Hi Ronald:

congrats on the Canon 30's; you may find IS so addictive that it is difficult to go back to non-IS bins again. Like Mr Kimmo above, i think the key is folks giving them a fair chance, and weighing realistically what you get for what you give up. plus, if you manage to snag a cherry pair of canons, you might not see much in the way of image oscillation or jitter- both my 10X 42 and 30's do, but it is a downside i can live with. things settle down nicely w/in 5 or 6 seconds. by the way, i have recently done a fairly extensive side by side with the 30's and the 42's, nothing fancy, just normal seat of the pants type comparisons, and be hanged if in my mind i can see much of a diff. sometimes i think the 42's have slightly better contrast and color saturation, at other times it's a tossup. of course the 42's have that really immersive apparent FOV. handling is of course much better in the 30's, but they are not waterproof. anyone who just doesnt want to shell out at or near 1K for bins is not missing a lot by going with the 30's over the 42's, at least not based on my samples... which of course may not be representative of the glass as a whole, either one. canons, maybe more than non-IS bins, proabably need to be shopped in person, cognizant of the (reported) variability in the effeciency of the IS mechanism.

you're gonna find it hard to put em down,

kind regards,
UTC

UTC
Thanks for the update. I've been looking for a smaller and lighter glass than my 10x42, which while wonderful optically is sort of heavy for me.
Has not thought that 10x30 would be that satisfactory, but you've persuaded me to give them a serious look

kabsetz said:

Ronald,

Welcome to the club. I have also found it very hard to be satisfied with non-stabilized binoculars once you give IS a true and extended chance. I have used IS now for nearly a decade, first the 15x50 IS and now the 10x42 IS, and although I regularly test standard binoculars (pretty much all of the alphas as well as some of the less expensive offerings), I'm always relieved and happy getting back together with the Canons.

Once your rechargeables are full, you'll probably also be surprised to see how long they last in field use, too.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Hi Kimmo,

Yes, I joined the club! :t:

I spent a few hours in my backyard with the 10x30's today to get familiar with them. Oh my, these things are really unbelievable. The amount of detail is overwhelming, like in a tripod-mounted bin. Only, my "tripod" consists of 2 batteries and weighs 40 grams. I am still searching for the perfect grip, sometimes I press the IS button with my middle finger, sometimes I have a slightly different grip and use my ring finger on the IS button. Any new binocular takes some time getting used to, but it went better and better with practice today. For good measure, I had my non-IS Minox 8x32's on the table and used these every once in a while. Just to compare. Only, there is no comparison. The Minox -even with only 8x magnification and superb grip- is shaky. When I manage to hold them steady, the shake stops but my pulse is then visible in the image. You have to be dead to get a steady image with these!
I had only one minor problem with the Canons: the diopter ring on the right eyepiece has a tendency to shift by itself, it's rather loose. Since I wear specs I have folded down the rubber eyecups of the Canon and they cover up the diopter scale. Every few minutes I had to lift up the rubber eyecup to read the diopter setting, and reset it. I solved this by wrapping a little rubber band around the diopter ring and it stays put where I set it. With the rubber eyecup folded down again it is invisible. I have no complaints about the old-fashioned fold-down rubber eyecups, BTW.
Another good thing of the Canons are the long oculars. I can easily reach the focus wheel and IS button while wearing a cap! That's a bonus point in ergonomics, which I greatly appreciate.
The ocular lenses are slightly convex, and easier to wipe than the flat ocular lenses in my Minox. Another good point of the Canons.

I read in the instruction booklet that duration of the batteries depends on what type you use:

AA Alkaline : 4 hours of continuous use.
AA Lithium : 12 hours
AA rechargeable NI-MH accu's : 4 hours.

Regards,

Ronald

UTCbirder said:

Hi Ronald:

congrats on the Canon 30's; you may find IS so addictive that it is difficult to go back to non-IS bins again. Like Mr Kimmo above, i think the key is folks giving them a fair chance, and weighing realistically what you get for what you give up. plus, if you manage to snag a cherry pair of canons, you might not see much in the way of image oscillation or jitter- both my 10X 42 and 30's do, but it is a downside i can live with. things settle down nicely w/in 5 or 6 seconds. by the way, i have recently done a fairly extensive side by side with the 30's and the 42's, nothing fancy, just normal seat of the pants type comparisons, and be hanged if in my mind i can see much of a diff. sometimes i think the 42's have slightly better contrast and color saturation, at other times it's a tossup. of course the 42's have that really immersive apparent FOV. handling is of course much better in the 30's, but they are not waterproof. anyone who just doesnt want to shell out at or near 1K for bins is not missing a lot by going with the 30's over the 42's, at least not based on my samples... which of course may not be representative of the glass as a whole, either one. canons, maybe more than non-IS bins, proabably need to be shopped in person, cognizant of the (reported) variability in the effeciency of the IS mechanism.

you're gonna find it hard to put em down,

kind regards,
UTC

Click to expand...

Thanks UTC,
They are addictive alright. I wonder why people would spend their money on alpha bins when you can have the perfect picture for an affordable price.

The 10x30's are not waterproof, I know, but I will keep them under my coat to protect them in foul weather. The 10x42's would be the ones to have for all-weather use, but I'll put my money on a 15x50, or still better: a 18x50, to see as much detail as possible. I think I tried a cherry pair 18x50 last year in a shop, liked to have those but they would have cost me 1400 (!) euro's, while in other shops they are under 1K.
If I don't find a cherry pair elsewhere, I may have to reconsider to go for the expensive one.

In the meantime I'm happy enough with the 30's.
I find it hard to put them down, like you said UTC, they're wonderful.

Regards,

Ronald

Over on another thread

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1391066&postcount=14

I said:

Kevin Purcell said:

Interesting point: I was watching the recent BBC Natural World on the Gharial Indian freshwater crocodile and it was interesting to see Romulus Whitaker using Canon IS bins (12x36? or perhaps the waterproof 10x40 ... he was out in the monsoon though undercover) when surveying the crocs. One of the few times I've seen them on TV.

http://www.iconfilms.co.uk/gharial/blues

Click to expand...

I recently did another search and found that Romulus Whitaker was probably using Canon IS 10x30 bins in this show (they seem to be his standard bins) using them from boats (and in the rain though undercover). He has used them in croc survey's in Africa

We used the African Parks metal boat of about 6.5 meters with an Evinrude 40 hp OBM.The boat driver was African Parks Scout, Meaza Messele, croc observer was R.Whitaker, data recorder was Habtamu Assaye and GPS recorder was N. Whitaker. Equipment used was a Canon 10X30 image-stabilizing binocular and Garmin, EtrexVista GPS.

Click to expand...

So clearly they work even in pretty extreme environments if you keep them out of the direct rain.

So it seems that some naturalists are starting to use them.

It looks like the "Cult of IS" may yet claim another victim. I'd kind of dismissed the 10x30 as too small a magnification and too small an exit pupil but the specs look rather good (for any small bin).

Length 6 in
Width 5 in
Height 2.8 in
Weight 21.2 oz

Magnification 10 x
Objective Lens Diameter 30 mm
Prism System Porro
Exit Pupil 3 mm
Eye Relief 14.5 mm
Eye Width Range 55-75 mm
Focus System Center focus
Lens Coating Super Spectra coating
Lens Construction 5 group(s) / 7 element(s)
Min Focus Range 14 ft

Max View Angle 6 degrees
Field of View 315 ft / 1000 yds

Any of you using glasses with your Canon IS bins? An ER of 14.5 mm is about just on the edge for me (from previous experience but rather depending upon how they measure it). Same ER as the 12x36.

Ronald,

For the diopter drift, I find that you can make very neat and functional rubber bands out of a bicycle inner tube. This way you get a band you can cut to just the right width, the tubes come in several diameters, and they are black, i.e. almost unnoticeable.

NiMH batteries have improved a lot over the past few years, and I suspect that the 4 hour estimate is based on older, low-capacity models that used to be specified at around 1200 mAh. Nowadays, you can get much better. My current batteries are 2700 mAh (Varta, very dependable), and last for so long that I cannot be bothered to even keep a log about when they were changed.

For a grip to use, I tend to favor the one where the binocular rests on my palms, with my thumbs pointing to my face under the eyepiece barrels, tips of thumbs pressed lightly against my cheekbones. With IS, you don't need to really grip the binocular at all, just let it rest and float on your hands. But, with the 10x30 you need to keep the IS button depressed, and that may change things a bit and require a little more forceful grip.

Kevin,

I have not measured the E-R of the 10x30 (I could if you want me to, but not in the next week or so due to a very busy schedule) but the 10x42 has a bit more than Leica and Swaro EL 8x32's and a bit less than the Zeiss FL 8x32, after a quick check of my notes. If you want more precise info, go check Twentse Vogelwerkgroep site for Jan Meijerink's tests. He has measured the eye-relief of dozens of binocuars and scopes, and he does very reliable and repeatable tests. In general, I would say that the Canons work with glasses rather well.

Kimmo

There was a picture last June in one of NYC's tabloid papers (Post or Daily News?) of the man who calls the Races at Belmont Racetrack. In his hands he was holding either a 15 x 50 Canon IS or an 18 x 50. There also was a spare one visible on a shelf in the background.
Bob

kabsetz said:

NiMH batteries have improved a lot over the past few years, and I suspect that the 4 hour estimate is based on older, low-capacity models that used to be specified at around 1200 mAh. Nowadays, you can get much better. My current batteries are 2700 mAh (Varta, very dependable), and last for so long that I cannot be bothered to even keep a log about when they were changed.

Click to expand...

The trick today is to get "low self-discharge" NiMH if you are an infrequent user of that hardware that has the charged NiMH batteries. Otherwise you get into the field and find you have a dead or barely charged set of batteries that have self-discharged.

Sanyo eneloop are one such and work well (in other applications). There are other low self-discharge brands from the other makers.

kabsetz said:

I have not measured the E-R of the 10x30 (I could if you want me to, but not in the next week or so due to a very busy schedule) but the 10x42 has a bit more than Leica and Swaro EL 8x32's and a bit less than the Zeiss FL 8x32, after a quick check of my notes. If you want more precise info, go check Twentse Vogelwerkgroep site for Jan Meijerink's tests. He has measured the eye-relief of dozens of binocuars and scopes, and he does very reliable and repeatable tests. In general, I would say that the Canons work with glasses rather well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have a Zeiss FL 8x32 and for my most corrected eye it has (just) too much ER(!) when clicked in the fully-in position. I susually use them in the "not locked fully in position" which pushes my eye back by a 2 to 3mm. So I suspect they should be close enough for me.

I'm assuming the 10x42 and the 10x30 have similar ER ... so check specs ... which they don't. 10x42 ER is 1.5mm more than the 10x30 at 16 mm. Different EP design, I assume.

So perhaps a bit less than the Zeiss. Sounds close enough to try!

I shall try the Twentse Vogelwerkgroep site but the Dutch language put me off but I see Google do Dutch in the translation system ... I should browse the site.

Thanks kimmo.

Hello to all:

yep i use the 30's with specs, cant see a thing w/out them, and they are, well, just right, at least for me, not too long or short in the ER dep't. however i wear rather small metal twistoflex, or some sort, frame that fit close to the face and even had a little give to boot, so big uns that stick way out to the sides and out from the eyes might not give a full view. like KP i have to use my 7X FL's with the eyecup twisted up, between full in and first click, or i experience some blackouts. in fact the most comfy position is first click but i do lose a bit of field. i am thinking the 30's might also work well for you.

had to chuckle out loud when i read some of the above comments; i as well had to sneak a look every so often at that pesky drifting diopter by rolling the eyecup up a bit, and in a pinch just taped the rascal down, so thanks for the tips on the rubber bands.

this glass has a very nice sharp focus, right out to the edge of the field. basically an object will pass out of the edge of the field if the bin is moved, completely in focus. way cool. just a minor amt of geometric distortion (pincushion?) on straight lines, but really quite minor. better than the 7X FL; maybe best of the nocs i own, but havent tested them head to head against the 8X or 10X SE's. by the way, i thing these compare favorably with the 8X32 SE's; when things settle down in the local migrant traps i am going to do a shootout.

i purchased these after i got the 42's, and really wasnt in the market for another IS, but picked these up in a local camera shop just on a whim, and got hooked by the handling, and view, right there in the store. CA is well controlled, in a direct face off with my copy of the 42 L's, it's a dead heat. little to none on axis, increasing some at the extreme edges of the field, objects being outlined in lime on one side, violet on the other, again just at the edges, and really only noticed if you look for it and then only on high contrast objects.

been watching scarlet tans today munching mulberries down low; and with the IS engaged it really is like watching a Discovery Channel
special! also really windy today, and as i mentioned, this is where the elimination of hand shake, while tracking foraging warblers, is particularly useful for the ticker in me.

Kevin Purcell said:

I recently did another search and found that Romulus Whitaker was probably using Canon IS 10x30 bins in this show (they seem to be his standard bins) using them from boats (and in the rain though undercover). He has used them in croc survey's in Africa




Any of you using glasses with your Canon IS bins? An ER of 14.5 mm is about just on the edge for me (from previous experience but rather depending upon how they measure it). Same ER as the 12x36.

Click to expand...

Hi Kevin,

I saw a documentary a while back where some crazy character ( crazy in the good sense of dedicated! :t: ) did a search for 20+ foot crocodiles in Africa and Australia, from a helicopter and from a boat. He was using IS bins, leaning out of the helicopter, and I recognised them immediately as such.
The method he used BTW was to take pictures of big crocs lying on sandbanks, then later after the croc had gone lie down himself on the very spot and have his picture made from the helicopter. By comparing the two pictures he could calculate the length of the croc. He got some 18 or 19 footers, but not the 25 footer he'd hoped for.

I wear specs with a rather big frame and find the eyerelief of the 10x30's is sufficient to let me see the whole FOV of 105m/1000m. The IPD setting is rather delicate, I sometimes experience minor blackouts when the IPD is not accurate.

When it's dark I struggle to get the 10x30's in the right way against my glasses; the 3mm exit pupils are not very forgiving.
I was out this afternoon with them on my local patch and they performed very well. The place was packed with birds, many ducks and geese, waders big and small, and the views were wonderful. I could make ID's that I couldn't have made with my 8x32 non-IS roofs.
The optics are surprisingly good, even without IS they are sharp and bright. The IS feature just acts like a turbo boost on the image.
Do I sound happy? You bet.
Next month I'm going shopping for a big Canon.
O joy!

Regards,

Ronald

kabsetz said:

Ronald,

For the diopter drift, I find that you can make very neat and functional rubber bands out of a bicycle inner tube. This way you get a band you can cut to just the right width, the tubes come in several diameters, and they are black, i.e. almost unnoticeable.

NiMH batteries have improved a lot over the past few years, and I suspect that the 4 hour estimate is based on older, low-capacity models that used to be specified at around 1200 mAh. Nowadays, you can get much better. My current batteries are 2700 mAh (Varta, very dependable), and last for so long that I cannot be bothered to even keep a log about when they were changed.

For a grip to use, I tend to favor the one where the binocular rests on my palms, with my thumbs pointing to my face under the eyepiece barrels, tips of thumbs pressed lightly against my cheekbones. With IS, you don't need to really grip the binocular at all, just let it rest and float on your hands. But, with the 10x30 you need to keep the IS button depressed, and that may change things a bit and require a little more forceful grip.

Kevin,

I have not measured the E-R of the 10x30 (I could if you want me to, but not in the next week or so due to a very busy schedule) but the 10x42 has a bit more than Leica and Swaro EL 8x32's and a bit less than the Zeiss FL 8x32, after a quick check of my notes. If you want more precise info, go check Twentse Vogelwerkgroep site for Jan Meijerink's tests. He has measured the eye-relief of dozens of binocuars and scopes, and he does very reliable and repeatable tests. In general, I would say that the Canons work with glasses rather well.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

Thanks, that's good advice.
I thought about a rubber band made out of an inner bicycle tube but this would cover the diopter setting scale, and make it very hard to move the diopter ring. I could solve this by cutting out with a sharp knife a little rectangular window in the rubber and install the band so the diopter setting can still be read. I might give this a try, but the narrow rubber band I use now is just doing fine holding the diopter setting, and I can still see the scale.
Though it's not black, it is invisible under the folded down rubber eyecup.

For a grip to use, I tend to rest the bins on the palm of my right hand, thumb pointing at my face and middle finger on the IS button, and a full grip with my left hand, left index finger on the focus wheel. This grip is the best for easy viewing, with the least force needed.
A second favourite grip that works well is with my left hand firmly around the housing, middle finger on the IS button and index finger on the focus, and using the fingertips of my right hand for extra support. In a normal binocular this would be too shaky for me, in the Canons it works great.

I know Varta batteries are good, I'll try to find the right ones.

Regards,

Ronald

Off topic completely, but did anyone see the documentary about the giant Nile crocodile called "Gustave" ? By the looks of it, it had to be at least 7 meters in length.
Impressive beast, made the hippo's wary, notorious maneater, too.

Ronald

ceasar said:

There was a picture last June in one of NYC's tabloid papers (Post or Daily News?) of the man who calls the Races at Belmont Racetrack. In his hands he was holding either a 15 x 50 Canon IS or an 18 x 50. There also was a spare one visible on a shelf in the background.
Bob

Click to expand...

He got the right tools!
I remember our Dutch reporter Hans Eijsvogel who'd called the races at Duijndigt near The Hague using big heavy roofs, by the looks of them at least 63 mm objectives. And conventional non-IS, that is. But Hans was a big man.
I believe he passed away recently; I will miss his voice.

Regards,

Ronald

UTCbirder said:

Hello to all:

yep i use the 30's with specs, cant see a thing w/out them, and they are, well, just right, at least for me, not too long or short in the ER dep't. however i wear rather small metal twistoflex, or some sort, frame that fit close to the face and even had a little give to boot, so big uns that stick way out to the sides and out from the eyes might not give a full view. like KP i have to use my 7X FL's with the eyecup twisted up, between full in and first click, or i experience some blackouts. in fact the most comfy position is first click but i do lose a bit of field. i am thinking the 30's might also work well for you.

had to chuckle out loud when i read some of the above comments; i as well had to sneak a look every so often at that pesky drifting diopter by rolling the eyecup up a bit, and in a pinch just taped the rascal down, so thanks for the tips on the rubber bands.

this glass has a very nice sharp focus, right out to the edge of the field. basically an object will pass out of the edge of the field if the bin is moved, completely in focus. way cool. just a minor amt of geometric distortion (pincushion?) on straight lines, but really quite minor. better than the 7X FL; maybe best of the nocs i own, but havent tested them head to head against the 8X or 10X SE's. by the way, i thing these compare favorably with the 8X32 SE's; when things settle down in the local migrant traps i am going to do a shootout.

i purchased these after i got the 42's, and really wasnt in the market for another IS, but picked these up in a local camera shop just on a whim, and got hooked by the handling, and view, right there in the store. CA is well controlled, in a direct face off with my copy of the 42 L's, it's a dead heat. little to none on axis, increasing some at the extreme edges of the field, objects being outlined in lime on one side, violet on the other, again just at the edges, and really only noticed if you look for it and then only on high contrast objects.

been watching scarlet tans today munching mulberries down low; and with the IS engaged it really is like watching a Discovery Channel
special! also really windy today, and as i mentioned, this is where the elimination of hand shake, while tracking foraging warblers, is particularly useful for the ticker in me.

Click to expand...

UTCbirder,

Since you own both the 10x42 and the 10x30, would you say they perform equally well on a windy day, due to the IS, or has the 10x42 the edge due to the extra weight?
Today there was a force 5 North wind blowing on my patch, and though the IS did well I had to brace myself a bit against the wind. I could imagine the heavier 10x42 has more inertia and would be steadier even with IS on.

Ronald

KorHaan said:

I saw a documentary a while back where some crazy character ( crazy in the good sense of dedicated! :t: ) did a search for 20+ foot crocodiles in Africa and Australia, from a helicopter and from a boat. He was using IS bins, leaning out of the helicopter, and I recognised them immediately as such.

Click to expand...

Well, Australia is full of daredevils but the guy I'm thinking of is a rather soft spoken somewhat hippyish 60-something who's half American and half Indian and lives in India. He has worked in crocodile and herpitological conservation in India and Africa (at least) so Australia is not a stretch. I first saw him conserving snakes by taking them away from the locals they were annoying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Whitaker

Annoyingly there is no photo of him in his article (!).

But you can see him here

http://rolexawards.com/en/the-laureates/romuluswhitaker-the-project.jsp

I wear specs with a rather big frame and find the eyerelief of the 10x30's is sufficient to let me see the whole FOV of 105m/1000m. The IPD setting is rather delicate, I sometimes experience minor blackouts when the IPD is not accurate.

When it's dark I struggle to get the 10x30's in the right way against my glasses; the 3mm exit pupils are not very forgiving.

Click to expand...

Blackouts (kidney bean or hole in the middle shaped) are usually from too much ER as opposed to vignetting. Though you may mean the vignetting from not aligning exit pupils.

That is of course the peril of a small exit pupil. I guess bright days work best! Or moving up to the 10x42. I suspect that's also why they have both a 15x50 and an 18x50 to given some choice in the size of the exit pupil.

Is there any formal dress for the budding IS Cult member?

Thanks again for the info.

Hi KorHaan:

at least for me the 30 is quite a comfy fit, and quite steady; not sure in my case there is a great deal of diff, but i do prefer the 30. due to it's small size, my hands almost completely encapsulate the glass, and with it jammed against my specs the glass is quite stable, probably the most stable of my, um, stable of bins, save for maybe the 10X SE, which is the only other 10X glass i have been able to use long-term. one thing that contributes to the 30's ergos is that because of the shape, i am able to place the hands in such a manner that they are directly over the elbows instead of splayed out to the sides; kinda like a good roof would grip. the 40's are like that too, but of course are just a bigger glass all the way around, so my hands dont cradle them as well. like i mentioned earlier, i use them mostly with IS off.

the placement of hand/fingers detailed above is quite like what i seem to fall naturally into, with first finger on the focus, and middle one used exclusively for the IS button.

i was able to spend a few minutes relaxing in the back yard this afternoon A/B-ing the 8X SE's and the 30 Canons. They are very close in optical performance overall, verifying my initial impression. Coatings on the Nikon are much superior, but cant really say what effect this might have overall. Pointed at an open sky, with some overhanging leaves, the surface of the Nikon objective is very dark, barely an outline of my face showing, and no hint of sky reflection or reflected leaf images. In the Canon, the sky basically illiminates the surface of the objective (reflected color is bright green), with a good amount of detail in my face, and clear outlines of the leaves showing above that. CA is well controlled in both; i felt all along that the Canon 30 was decent in this regard, and in a head to head the Canon displays a bit more green or purple outlining on very high contrast targets. I get the impression that the Canon is ever so slightly tilted toward the warm end of neutral; pointed at an open blue sky the tint is maybe just a tad shifted toward green, while the Nikon is quite true-blue, as it were. Young spring leaves really pop in the Canon, a bit more subdued, but true to tone, in the SE. Contrast is also marginally better in the Nikon, but just barely. Black voids between the stems and leaves of a bank of cane seem blacker in the SE.

These are all subtle differences, and most likely would not be noticed in anything less than a near real time back and forth comparison- several times in trying to quantify contrast and tone differences it took me several quick A/B shifts between bins to convince myself what i was seeing was really there. Both nocs have about the same quality of unity of focus clarity, center to edge.

resolution of fine detail, considering the power spread, seems to me to be a dead heat. i was unable to generate any veiling glare, i think some have referred to it, in either glass.

we rarely get full breeding plumage goldfinches in these parts, but i have kept the thistle feeder stocked this year, and for the first time in many years i one or two males coming in at this late date. YOWZAH! man are these birds gorgeous! Anyway, i much prefer lookingat birds to leaves, stop signs and such, and i can say i also much prefer the 30 Canon to the SE. i really can hardly believe i just typed that- i have been a staunch supporter of the
8X SE for many years. from a pure optical standpoint they are so close, and the image scale quite a bit different from 8 to 10X (bigger!) add in the IS there is no contest, even though it does take a few seconds for the image to return to critical clarity. one thing i have to remember is not to refocus, after it's reached before engaging IS. just count to 5,6 or 8 and wait.

for KP: no special garb, except for a ball cap with an embroidered prism, with a wave inside it, and lettering all around: "WET PRISMS ROCK!!"

kind regards to all,
UTC

I've never used an IS. It always intrigued me.

You brought up something no one else has mentioned when you noted that it takes several seconds for the binocular to focus. I never knew that.
Bob

Caesar,

It is actually not an issue of focus, but rather the IS settling. While the system looks for its footing, so to speak, the image can look like it is slightly pumping in and out of focus. With some models, you can reduce the initial delay by a quick on-off-on again procedure, but I'm not sure of the 10x30. And, although this is very hard to verify or quantify, I'm pretty certain after several years of using these things that if the IS has been used within the last few minutes, the delay is significantly shorter and is often under a second.

Kimmo