New Canon 12x36 is lll & 10x30 is ll (1 Viewer)

Doug,

Thanks for a very comprehensive and detailed report. What you tell about the functioning differences for the IS sound very much like what I have experienced with my early production vs. rather recent production 10x42 L IS's.

On the changes or lack thereof in the optical formula of the eyepieces, you could compare reflections patterns between the two, by having a bright light source such as a lamp behind you and studying the relative sizes and shapes of the reflected image of the lamp from the various surfaces of the optical assembly. Henry Link has often posted photos of such comparisons, and they are very informative in telling whether or not two systems are identical.

You can do the same viewing the objective ends of course.

Kimmo

Thank you Kimmo.

I have checked the various internal glass reflections from the eyepiece and objective ends of the II's and III's and there are no differences at all. I suspect that the marginal optical differences that I see are much more likely due to sample variation than any possible lens design changes. I think that any changes in the lenses would certainly show up in the reflection tests. When you look at the various internal diagrams of these binoculars that have appeared over the past 10+ years, there do not appear to be any changes to the lens configurations.

It would appear that the main differences between the II's and III's are the improved image stabilization and battery life and the coatings on the eyepieces. These are all welcome changes as the optics were already very good.

Concerning the eyepiece coatings, they are definitely different and the eyepiece and objective lenses in the III's have the identical combination of 'green and amber' coloured coatings. The reflections off the eyepieces in the III's are also much lower/darker than in the II's that were a different colour and this may support the slightly enhanced view in the III's.

Regarding the use of lithium batteries, I 'googled' Canon and AA lithium batteries and there was an incident in 2013. Apparently, a photographer was using a Canon flash unit and was re-cycling the flash very quickly. He was also using a combination of lithium and rechargeable batteries in the same power pack. It is believed that while the batteries were depleting from heavy use, the lithiums were attempting to 'recharge' the rechargeable batteries (is that even possible?) causing them to overheat. I think that out of an abundance for caution, Canon may now be advising against the use of lithium batteries. This is probably a bit of overkill if this is due to this incident of mixing battery types. It would be interesting to see if Canon has subsequently changed its manuals since 2013/2014 in order to reflect the non use of lithium batteries in any or all of its products.

Doug........

Lithium ion batteries for laptops etc. have spontaneously caught fire, and in at least one case, I think, burnt down a house.
There have been huge recalls by various companies, usually with Chinese made batteries. But I suppose they make everything nowadays.
Carriage of lithium ion batteries is subject to regulations when travelling abroad.

Would Sanyo Eneloop long life rechargeables be O.K. for all Canon IS binoculars? These batteries are now 1,500 cycles, and maybe 75%? after 3 years, or something rather amazing. Beware fakes.

Binastro said:

Lithium ion batteries for laptops etc. have spontaneously caught fire, and in at least one case, I think, burnt down a house.
There have been huge recalls by various companies, usually with Chinese made batteries. But I suppose they make everything nowadays.
Carriage of lithium ion batteries is subject to regulations when travelling abroad.

Would Sanyo Eneloop long life rechargeables be O.K. for all Canon IS binoculars? These batteries are now 1,500 cycles, and maybe 75%? after 3 years, or something rather amazing. Beware fakes.

Click to expand...

Eneloops work very well in my Canon 10x42s. They have replaced the lithium ion AAs two years ago.
Afaik, the lithium ion batteries give a somewhat higher voltage than the alkaline AAs. Maybe that is a reason for Canon discouraging their use in the new Canon 12x36s. The new electronics might be a bit more sensitive.

Eneloop XX with 2,450mAh capacity (black, not white Eneloops) have worked best for me in a 10x42 L IS, along with Energizer Ultimate Lithiums. Lithiums weigh half of the Eneloop weight, and last much longer still, but both are excellent.

Kimmo

I think throwaway Lithium AAs are rated only 1.2V? but maybe have lower resistance or something. Maybe in use they produce a higher voltage than Alkalines.
Or is it the Eneloops? I'll check.

I have used White Eneloops for perhaps 8 years in my compact camera where 2 AAs give 300 exposures. I rarely use flash and only shoot single exposures.
One camera did almost 200,000 exposures.
The only problem is the gap in the battery door increases with use.

I understand that Black Eneloops are slightly longer than White. Is this correct? This would help aging cameras with 10s of thousands of exposures.

I don't like alkalines as if you forget or don't use cameras or binoculars they can and do leak. I have ruined other devices like this and many old cameras with small alkalines. Silver oxide seems better.
I have not had lithium AAs or Eneloops leak.

Black Eneloops I think have less recycling life and self discharge quicker.

In cold weather lithiums are very good.

Is there a difference between throw away lithium and recharcheable lithium ion?

If I use Alkaline AAs it is now Duracell 10 year life, or cheap 5 year batteries for torches.

Up to now I have used throwaway lithium AAs in the Canon binoculars.

Binastro said:

I think throwaway Lithium AAs are rated only 1.2V? but maybe have lower resistance or something. Maybe in use they produce a higher voltage than Alkalines.
Or is it the Eneloops? I'll check.

I have used White Eneloops for perhaps 8 years in my compact camera where 2 AAs give 300 exposures. I rarely use flash and only shoot single exposures.
One camera did almost 200,000 exposures.
The only problem is the gap in the battery door increases with use.

I understand that Black Eneloops are slightly longer than White. Is this correct? This would help aging cameras with 10s of thousands of exposures.

I don't like alkalines as if you forget or don't use cameras or binoculars they can and do leak. I have ruined other devices like this and many old cameras with small alkalines. Silver oxide seems better.
I have not had lithium AAs or Eneloops leak.

Black Eneloops I think have less recycling life and self discharge quicker.

In cold weather lithiums are very good.

Is there a difference between throw away lithium and recharcheable lithium ion?

If I use Alkaline AAs it is now Duracell 10 year life, or cheap 5 year batteries for torches.

Up to now I have used throwaway lithium AAs in the Canon binoculars.

Click to expand...

Great questions, not sure where to go for answers.
If there is an AA battery industry standards association, it is keeping a very low profile.

10x30 IS II clearly marked on smart black/grey box. Made in Japan
Bino10x30IS2 Made in Japan
Similar case and white inner bag to 15 years ago. Same rear caps, no front.
10x30 IS II 6*
12 language instr. book 2015 Japan.
Never look at Sun.
For your safety refrain from using AA lithium batteries.

Eyepiece coatings yellow, green, bluish. all surfaces coated.
Objective end multi, single, uncoated surface?, cemented.
No optical window.
Internally clear except tiny white specks. Clean but not space craft clean. Using very bright torch.

2 AA Panasonic Made in Thailand. alkaline 11/2020

3 tiny pimples on base for table support. To prevent sliding. Very clever.

Stabilizer no click. 2 or 3 steps to damping taking total of 0.5 second to very steady. Resolution with stabilizer on very high, in less than one second, double that of stabilizer off.

Collimation/alignment good.
White pillars white. Some pincushion, some CA.

Binastro said:

I think throwaway Lithium AAs are rated only 1.2V? but maybe have lower resistance or something. Maybe in use they produce a higher voltage than Alkalines.
Or is it the Eneloops? I'll check.

I have used White Eneloops for perhaps 8 years in my compact camera where 2 AAs give 300 exposures. I rarely use flash and only shoot single exposures.
One camera did almost 200,000 exposures.
The only problem is the gap in the battery door increases with use.

I understand that Black Eneloops are slightly longer than White. Is this correct? This would help aging cameras with 10s of thousands of exposures.

I don't like alkalines as if you forget or don't use cameras or binoculars they can and do leak. I have ruined other devices like this and many old cameras with small alkalines. Silver oxide seems better.
I have not had lithium AAs or Eneloops leak.

Black Eneloops I think have less recycling life and self discharge quicker.

In cold weather lithiums are very good.

Is there a difference between throw away lithium and rechargeable lithium ion?

If I use Alkaline AAs it is now Duracell 10 year life, or cheap 5 year batteries for torches.

Up to now I have used throwaway lithium AAs in the Canon binoculars.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I can add some information on batteries and fittings.

I have a 10x42L and a 10x30 - a 12x36 lll should arrive next week, so I will add to the information then.

The batteries I currently have are:

Energizer Ultimate Lithium. This is the battery I have used up until now without any problem. These are 50mm x 13mm dia. and will fit both binos.

Panasonic white eneloop 1900mAh rechargeable (used to be Sanyo l think). These are 50mm x 14mm diameter and will fit both binoculars. It says on the packet that they will retain a 70% capacity after 10 years.

Panasonic black eneloop pro 2450mAh rechargeable. These are 50mm x 14.1mm diameter and slightly wider than the ordinary white eneloops but the same length. These will fit the 10x42L, but not the 10x30 as they are too wide. It says on the packet that they will retain 85% capacity after 1 year.

I have tried to measure the batteries as accurately as possible, but the battery on the digital caliper has run out (battery problems again!!) so I will update the results when the 12x36 lll arrives.

The difference in diameter between the Panasonic eneloop and eneloop pro is very small at about 0.1mm - about the thickness of 2 sheets of 80/gm2 paper, but it is enough to prevent the higher capacity pros from being used in the 10x30.

Hope this helps,

Stan

doug el10x32 said:

Hi,

I received my 12x36 III's several days ago and have now had several opportunities to test them and more importantly, compare them to my 12x36 II's that I have had for the past six years.

Externally, the III's are pretty much identical to the IIs. A little darker colouring of the rubber coating and a different Canon logo on the body and the cap on the focuser are the only real differences. The rubber coating feels exactly the same in texture to my II's and I have had no problems at all with a tacky feel or peeling etc that others have reported upon.

Doug.......

Click to expand...

Great review Doug. From other reviews I gathered that the skin peels if handled with insect repellent or other such chemicals in the hands. There are some gruesome pics of 12x36ii skin peeling on Amazon in the reviews section. If Canon has fixed that with the 12x36iii it will be an awesome bin to use.

Hi Subzero,

I don't know how many incidences there have actually been of peeling rubber on Canon binoculars, but I wouldn't let this stop you from getting some new III's. Deet or similar chemicals seem to be the issue and indeed, if they come in contact with any plastic and rubber materials there will be problems.

Whenever I do use insect repellants or sunscreen I always wash my palms as I do not want either of these products to come in contact with anything that I touch. I have always been particularly concerned about these products from coming in contact with binoculars, cameras, iPhones etc etc and especially, lens coatings.

Doug.........

2.
10x30 IS II
When looking into the front, the front reflections move and continue to move when the stabilizer is engaged.
However, the rear image steadies in steps and in about 0.8 seconds the rear image is steady, while the front still moves.

The stabilizing method is completely different to the 2014 8x25 IS, which uses, I think, a tilt system on a front lens element.

The c.1999 case is very little different to 2016 case.
2016 close focus about 13 ft for long sighted.

Sunlit view at 120 yards.
More false colour on c.1999, but well used secondhand sample.
Edge performance better on 2016.
Field probably flatter 2016? Must verify.
2016 much steadier but c.1999 well used and I don't think working well.
FOV seems the same.

2016 much brighter, but mainly because c.1999 has internal haze.

the c.1999 not a fair comparison, although some conclusions can be made.

Thanks Stanbo for measuring the batteries.

I have weighed them before.
I'll try to measure Panasonic and Duracell alkalines.
Alkalines left for a time can swell and wreck devices.
I don't know if other types swell also.
Mercury cells were great for meters but mostly long gone now.

3.
10x30 IS II.

Noise.
The 18x50 makes quite a noise when I put my ear to it. That is how I check it is off when I put it to bed.

The c.1999 10x30 makes about half as much noise.

The 2016 10x30 II is silent. Well I thought so when putting my ear to it.
Actually it isn't and I can just hear a faint noise of the stabilizer working if I listen carefully with either ear. It is perhaps 1/20 intensity of 18x50. I may put a sound meter on it. A young person could hear it more easily.

Noise equals energy. The almost silent working probably helps battery life.

Star images.
The 10x30 II are good but not exceptional centrally. With stabilizer on maybe slightly ragged, not circular.
75% to edge slight change and only fair at edge.
The 18x50 has better star images, and considerably better at the edge of a wider AFOV.

Stabilizer.
Strangely stabilization is better with the 15year? old 18x50.
I think this is because it is much heavier, and the button is locked, so I can hold it properly in two hands. Also, I have used the 18x50 thousands of times and know it well.
The 10x30 II is light weight and moves around more.

Jupiter and moons good in 10x30 II, but much better in 18x50 as expected.
Star colours good in 10x30 II.

1998 7 language instr. book, same specifications as 2015 book, But lithium batteries and NiCads recommended. NiCads are very good at minus 10C. Also Alkalines are recommended, but short life when cold particularly.

4.
10x30 II.

c.1999 10x30 weight 638g.
2016 10x30 II weight 628g.
Both with Panasonic alkalines.

2 AA Panasonic alkalines 45g.
2 AA Philips alkalines 46g.

2 AA Eneloops 52.5g (52g).
White Eneloop made 3/2014. Up to 2,100 cycles. Up to 70% 5 years.
1.2 volt.
Ni-MH minimum 1,900 mAh. Work at minus 20C.

Changing new alkaline to 2014 made Eneloops out of packet. The stabilization time increases to 0.8 to 1.3 seconds, from 0.8 sec with alkalines. Also not quite as precisely steady. So batteries make a difference, I think.

With stabilizer on 10x30 II gains 1 magnitude in faintest star visible, and it is constantly visible, not sometimes.
That is a 2.5 times gain.

There is a slight focus change in c.1999 10x30 when stabilizer engaged. Perhaps 1/6th dioptre change. Well worn binocular. I need to refocus, many wouldn't.

1998 instr. book. Never look at Sun. Never mix different types of battery.
NiCad 4 hours 25C. 3 hours at minus 10C.

These binoculars, despite the 3 pimples on their base, slide on a slippery work surface at about 5 degree tilt. Maybe most binoculars slide.
Which binoculars resist sliding and what is steepest slope angle where they stay put?
A slippery slope indeed.

P.S.
Weight 10x30 II with Eneloops 1900 mAh 634g.

doug el10x32 said:

Hi Subzero,

I don't know how many incidences there have actually been of peeling rubber on Canon binoculars, but I wouldn't let this stop you from getting some new III's. Deet or similar chemicals seem to be the issue and indeed, if they come in contact with any plastic and rubber materials there will be problems.

Whenever I do use insect repellants or sunscreen I always wash my palms as I do not want either of these products to come in contact with anything that I touch. I have always been particularly concerned about these products from coming in contact with binoculars, cameras, iPhones etc etc and especially, lens coatings.

Doug.........

Click to expand...

My understanding is that DEET is a plasticizer, and therefore degrades any rubber it comes into contact with. I've also read that picaridin is an effective alternative to DEET as an insect repellent, and also isn't a plasticizer, so it won't degrade any rubber coatings.

I'll put this to the test in July when I head out to the Galapagos with picaridin repellent. Before then, I might test it out on some sacrificial rubber grip (possibly rubbing a bit on an old Nikon F100 SLR that I have; parts of its grip are sticky, but I'll see if picaridin makes the non-sticky parts become sticky with contact).

5.
10x30 II.

I am pleased to report that after charging the 3/2014 Eneloops, the stabilizer performance is similar to that with fresh Panasonic alkalines.
It may be that the Eneloops are charged 50% when new for storage, and that they were down to 30%.
It would seem that freshly charged Eneloops are best. If you notice poorer stabilizer function change the batteries, carrying some spares.

2 throwaway AA lithiums weigh 30g.
They are rated 1.5 volts.
Not recommended for Mk II 10x30.

Initial reflection tests show some differences between c.1999 10x30 and 2016 10x30 II.
The eyepiece reflections are complex, but there may be one uncoated surface in the old binocular but a multicoated surface in the new. Possibly prism??
There is also a blue or purple coat in old, multicoated in new.
I must adapt an old torch with an old type bulb.

The crunch test is the possible field flatener, maybe difficult.

I recall, maybe wrongly, that old 10x30 no flatener, 12x36 Mk I single, 50mm doublet.
Or 10x30 single, others doublets.

But makers claims and specifications are frequently wrong, even from Zeiss. Leica seem to be correct usually.

6.
10x30 II

Using a small faint single bulb torch and a large bright single lens torch. Bulbs old type, not LED.

10x30 II
New front. Green,yellow,pink,white, cemented. (Really does seem to be a white front reflection).

Back. Many green, yellow, amber.

c.1999 10x30
Front. 3 green, blue, mauve. (No white front reflection).

Back. Green, purple, white.

Older maybe overall brighter reflections.

I can't tell whether field flateners or not, or even which has more elements or cemented surfaces.

So, for the time being I'll stop testing and start using new binocular.

Conclusion.
A well developed Japanese made binocular.
Good value except for limited warranty period.
Light weight, easy to use.
Superb resolution and stability with fresh batteries.

Consumer binocular.

Some faullts. I.e. field edge not the best. FOV average. Not waterproof, but maybe not too bad if protected from rain, but not for tropics?
Hand held I don't think any 8x or 10x unstabilized binocular comes near in resolution. And this steady superb resolution carries on for as long as you press the button.

Hi Binastro,

Great review and comments. As you said, now you will stop testing and start using them.

One small observation I did make last night and would not have even thought about it or even noticed it if I did not have both the II's and III's in my hand. It is to do with the eyepiece/prism housing attachment to the main body housing. On the III's you can sense a small amount of movement between the two housings. The friction when changing the IPD is as firm/stiff as the II's and there is nothing lose at all. You can just sense a slight difference in the connection between the eyepiece/prism housings and the main body when you have your fingers at the junction point. I have never had any fear of the eyepiece housings separating from the main body even though the neck strap is directly connected to them.

I did wonder whether there is now some 'flexibility' being built into the connection between the housing mountings in the newer models to ensure that there is no chance of any separation. This is far less movement compared to the objectives that can actually be moved slightly from side to side due to the way that they are attached to the internal focusing mount.

Perhaps just an observation when you start to compare two similar items too closely.

Doug........

At night it is easier to hear the stabilizer working on the 10x30 II. A more or less steady humming.
In the day this a busy street, traffic, building work etc.

At 6.40 a.m. A crow,
maybe Fred, was pruning and I watched for several minutes. Because the view is so steady with the button pressed I could see colour fringing, purple or yellow less obviously. The black crow against a bright cloudless sky.

Wind 210deg 3 kn. visibility 35km cloud few 25,000ft 5CTDP3C 1024.5 hPa.

The chimney pot is actually 118m or 129 yards. The 7x Leica optics are also good on the rangefinder. Chimney pot 80ft up. Elevation from me 10 deg. Azimuth 045 deg. So building in shade against bright sky.

Another crow, perhaps Ted, a bit later stayed only a minute at 123m, 134 yds. chimney pot. Azimuth 035 deg. Less visible, maybe smaller bird.

Usually crows, but sometimes pigeons or blackbirds on the chimneys, some magpies and on the steeple gulls sometimes.

7.15 a.m. and 7.20 a.m. two nice young ladies going to work. Tall, slim. They walk beautifully. Nice to be young and fit.
They are regularly seen.

So colour fringing is seen on 10x30 IS II.
For better optics the 10x42L. But this is heavier and 3 times the price.