• 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.

canon 10x30 IS vs others (1 Viewer)

P

PIER PAOLO

Well-known member
I have the two compact ultravids, the nikon 8x32 se, an I have used a lot of binoculars. Well, since i have bought the canon He is the definitive winner. I know that this is hard to admit, but it is true.
PP
 
I agree Pier. I have the same Nikon and the 8x32HG but can see more detail with the Canon.

How do you find the low light performance? - something I can't check out in a shop.
 
dipped,
also the low light performance is fantastic. Really, i can't use any other binoculars, and i am not happy about this. I have spent a lot of money and......
the only reason for use others binoculars is the size: if i go bike or hiking or walking in rome i choose the little leicas.
pp
 
The other issue is the 10x30 are not sealed (against dust) or even weather resistant. I love mine but they don't go out in the wet (or showery).

They're also not so useful for close in work.

So don't feel too bad. The 10x30 are good bins but they don't fill all the roles but they are good bins.

Now if Canon made a inexpensive 10x30 weatherproof, ED (L glass) and 6.5° FOV it might be my regular carry along bin. Some might say they do the 10x42 (really 10x37 when measured) but the weight and cost (and warranty) are quite the right balance for me ;)
 
Last edited:
How does a bin. with a 3mm exit pupil have ''fantastic'' low-light performance? My wife has a pair of 10 X 36 Legend Ultra's and I find them quite dim.
 
Cannot speak for the 10x30, but my 10x42 has a very bright image.
Might note in passing that there was some comment here on BF that the Canon 10x42 is indeed a 10x42, rather than a 10x37, as suggested.earlier. Do not know if this reflects an actual product change or a different measurement method, but it would be more consistent with the actual image presented.
 
james holdsworth said:
How does a bin. with a 3mm exit pupil have ''fantastic'' low-light performance? My wife has a pair of 10 X 36 Legend Ultra's and I find them quite dim.
Click to expand...

I believe they have reversed porro prisms and that might be the difference when comparing them with Roofs of similar EP. But they still have a 3mm EP and that will only go so far.
Bob
 
I found my 10x30 IS's woefully inadequate after dark. In daylight they are great performers, but in low light situations I make do with my 18x50 IS's which are dim but show detail much better, or preferably my Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 BT*'s, which have a brighter image that is more comfortable.
Perhaps the smallish eyecups of the 10x30's and the fact that I wear glasses may affect the low light performance.

The 10x30 IS lured me into a previously unknown world and wowed me from day one. But the 18x's even more so.

By the way, the 10x30 IS's are not as delicate as they look, with their plasticky appearance. They bounced twice already from a considerable hight, and all is hunky-dory, optically and build-wise. I have taken them out in the rain more than once and nothing's fogged, or worse. They are not waterproof, the objectives slide in and out without a protecting glass plate in front. Exactly like my 10x40 Dialyts.
Still, I prefer my 18x50's in daylight hours, they give me more wow than the 10x30's.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Maybe my eyes or pupils are made for it, but also if i know that it is onli x30 and the glass is entry level quality, well, i have tried versus dozen of binoculars and .... no way, they win, ever. So if it is not raining and i don't need to stay light there is only one solution for me. For the darkness, i have to admit that i have only some try, but i do not use binoculars at night........
 
ceasar said:
I believe they have reversed porro prisms and that might be the difference when comparing them with Roofs of similar EP. But they still have a 3mm EP and that will only go so far.
Bob
Click to expand...

Exit pupil size doesn't affect the brightness of the image: magnification and transmission does.

These are Porro II bins and have rather good transmission. I suspect they're slightly better AR coatings (and no poor reflective coatings) compared to the 10 X 36 Legend Ultra.

Magnification reduces brightness but making the image bigger makes them easier too see and identify. Another of those odd physics versus psychology things. But for the same magnification better transmission wins.
 
Kevin Purcell said:
the 10x42 (really 10x37 when measured)
Click to expand...

Kevin,

I saw some pictures somewhere on a German forum of early and late versions of the 10x42 L IS WP and there has been a change to the baffling.
The recent "Vögel" test measured the exit pupils L & R as 4,10 and 4,15 mm.
Magnification, BTW, was 9,90.

John
 
KorHaan said:
The 10x30 IS lured me into a previously unknown world and wowed me from day one.
Click to expand...

The same thing happened with me Ronald.:t:

I have only dropped mine once in just over three years, and that was from about 3 feet fortunately onto a carpet with a thick pile.
If ever I broke mine I would replace them as soon as I could ... I think they are SUPERB.

... I wish I could convince myself that I could afford the 18x50 IS or even the 15X50 IS.
My heart says I can and my head says I can't.

Pfft, what does my head know anyway.
 
John Russell said:
Kevin,

I saw some pictures somewhere on a German forum of early and late versions of the 10x42 L IS WP and there has been a change to the baffling.
The recent "Vögel" test measured the exit pupils L & R as 4,10 and 4,15 mm.
Magnification, BTW, was 9,90.

John
Click to expand...

Very interesting, John. I really hope that's the case.

Any other details? How late is late? Any links?

I notice the Amazon blurb explicitly claims "Bright field-of-view from a 4.2mm exit pupil diameter, the largest of any Canon IS Binocular."

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-10x42-Stabilization-Waterproof-Binoculars/dp/B0007W4IW2
 
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell said:
Very interesting, John. I really hope that's the case. Any other details? How late is late? Any links?
Click to expand...

Kevin,

Here is a comparison of two Canon 10x42 IS, one bought in 2006, the other in 2010. Both were measured when focussed at infinity as the moving objectives reduce exit pupil size (and increase magnification) at close distances.
http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?4,349936,349936#msg-349936
Click on the "Anhänge" at the bottom of the post.

Regards, John
 
Thank you, John Russell, for the update on the Canon 10x42.
It seems, from the article, that the baffling of the optics was improved and the fittings shaved down enough to reduce the truncation of the exit light cone.
Presumably no substantial redesign was needed, so the changes could be slipstreamed into the production line. Would be nice to know when that took place.
 
kabsetz said:
Thanks for this link. I suddenly know what the binocular to replace my 10x42 IS L might be.
Click to expand...

Do you think the difference in the size of the exit pupil of 0.3mm makes a noticeable difference?

I simply don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Hermann
 
John Russell said:
Kevin,

Here is a comparison of two Canon 10x42 IS, one bought in 2006, the other in 2010. Both were measured when focussed at infinity as the moving objectives reduce exit pupil size (and increase magnification) at close distances.
http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/read.php?4,349936,349936#msg-349936
Click on the "Anhänge" at the bottom of the post.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the link, John.

You can see the 59600233 serial on the new bin (bin 233 of this model).

The older bin has an 051008xx serial.

So presume all the older bins had the 051 prefix and the new ones have the 596 prefix.

I see there are some external differences too e.g. the eyepiece ocular beveling seems to have changed too (added in the 2010 model).

See this image

http://www.juelich-bonn.com/jForum/file.php?4,file=467

Were those ocular covers original equipment on this bin? I though they had a more conventional rainguard?

Even the 2010 has measured 4.05mm exit pupils rather than the expected 4.20 (at 10x) or 4.24mm (at 9.90x). So there is still some baffling but they've improved it most of the way.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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
Allbinos review of the Canon IS II 10x30
Replies
16
Views
2K
henry link
H
yarrellii
Canon vs Kite stabilized binoculars
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
DRodrigues
D
D
Canon 18x50 IS: improving usability for eye-glass users and others
Replies
1
Views
947
Steve222
Steve222
truculenter aspicientis
Decided on 10x30 is II against alpha non stabilised
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
PatR
P
yarrellii
Is the 15x50 IS worth it if you already have a 12x36 IS?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
yarrellii
yarrellii

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top