• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

16x and steady views. Sig Zulu6 16x42 (1 Viewer)

This was true until ~2010. Canon then quietly changed the baffling on the 10x42. In other words: All Canon 10x42s made after ~2010 have a 4.2mm exit pupil.

Dennis, you're out of date.

Hermann
Are you sure, or are you just going by what Canon said? Has anybody measured them after they made the baffling changes? I wonder if opening up the baffling more affected the glare. I would rather have a 37 mm aperture and less glare than a 42 mm and more glare.
 
Last edited:
Hi kimmo,

I agree that the objective lenses have been sliced, but why would they do that rather than just giving the lenses a wider baseline so that there's enough space for them to fit without slicing like in every other binocular?

I think the answer might lie in the design choice to use exactly the same inline Schmidt-Pechan prism and IS mechanism for both the 30mm and the 42mm models. My guess is that the centers of the 30mm and 42mm objectives have the same baseline of perhaps 36-38mm so that they can both align with the fixed baseline of the prisms at the back of the unibox housing. Rotating Rhomboid prisms behind the S-Ps then bring the eyepiece baseline up to match the range of human IPDs. The result is a very short baseline between the objective centers rather like a reverse Porro.

Why didn't they choose a single shared baseline wide enough for the 42s? My guess is that using the narrow baseline kept the 30s from being too large and heavy and allowed the 42s to be unusually small and light.

Henry
"Why didn't they choose a single shared baseline wide enough for the 42s? My guess is that using the narrow baseline kept the 30s from being too large and heavy and allowed the 42s to be unusually small and light."

I think you're exactly correct. It was a design decision and a brilliant one. The Sig's are the smallest and lightest IS binoculars on the market for their aperture size. The Sig 10x30 is only 18 oz. and the Canon 10x20 IS is 16 oz. The Sig has a 33% larger aperture, but it is only 2 oz. heavier and not much bigger. The Sig 10x30 is delightfully small and light compared to some of the brick Canon's.

The Sig Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 weighs 20 oz. and the Canon 10x42 IS-L weighs 40 oz. The Canon is TWICE as heavy and they are the SAME size aperture! What would you rather carry? The Sig Sauer Zulu 6 10x30 is less than 1/2 the weight of the Canon 10x42 IS-L, and it doesn't give much optically outside of a smaller AFOV, and it really isn't that noticeable.
 
Last edited:
Here's another photo taken outside where you can see the flat side of the exit pupil, but with what appears to be a sliver of light inboard of the flat.

Anyone know what that sliver of light might be? A reflection, or the edge of the lens?

View attachment 1515554

I think that could be a metallic reflection coming from the exposed straight edge of of the lens cell on that side.

Henry
 
Are you sure, or are you just going by what Canon said? Has anybody measured them after they made the baffling changes?
The exit pupil has been measured numerous times, including by the guy who discovered the too small exit pupil of the earlier Canons. I also measured the exit pupil of my own 10x42 just for fun.
I wonder if opening up the baffling more affected the glare. I would rather have a 37 mm aperture and less glare than a 42 mm and more glare.
No, it hasn't. At least I couldn't see any difference when comparing both versions. Kimmo, who used the old version before switching to the newer version, never mentioned any difference: 10x42 or 10x50 IS for astro?

Hermann
 
"Why didn't they choose a single shared baseline wide enough for the 42s? My guess is that using the narrow baseline kept the 30s from being too large and heavy and allowed the 42s to be unusually small and light."

I think you're exactly correct. It was a design decision and a brilliant one...

You do realize that design decision requires closely spaced objective lenses that minimize stereopsis. I would probably like that, but I seem to remember that you much prefer the high stereopsis of conventional Porros over inline roofs. The Zulus would have much less stereopsis than any roof. Only compact reverse Porros would compare. Have you noticed that?
 
Last edited:
You do realize that design decision requires closely spaced objective lenses that minimize stereopsis. I would probably like that, but I seem to remember that you much prefer the high stereopsis of conventional Porros over inline roofs. The Zulus would have much less stereopsis than any roof. Only compact reverse Porros would compare. Have you noticed that?
No. Of course, they don't have as much stereopsis as my Nikon SE 8x32, but I really like the view through them. They seem like they have more stereopsis than the NL or SF. Maybe they are using some kind of optical trickery to achieve the good view. When I compared the Sig's to the Canon's I immediately liked the Sig's better. No question.
 
The exit pupil has been measured numerous times, including by the guy who discovered the too small exit pupil of the earlier Canons. I also measured the exit pupil of my own 10x42 just for fun.

No, it hasn't. At least I couldn't see any difference when comparing both versions. Kimmo, who used the old version before switching to the newer version, never mentioned any difference: 10x42 or 10x50 IS for astro?

Hermann
It is kind of funny that Holger pointed out the fact that the Canon 10x42 IS-L had a 37 mm objective, and then Canon must have found out about it and quietly fixed it.
 
Hi kimmo,

I agree that the objective lenses have been sliced, but why would they do that rather than just giving the lenses a wider baseline so that there's enough space for them to fit without slicing, like in every other binocular?

I think the answer might lie in the design choice to use exactly the same inline Schmidt-Pechan prism and IS mechanism for both the 30mm and the 42mm models. My guess is that the centers of the 30mm and 42mm objectives have the same baseline of perhaps 36-38mm so that they can both align with the fixed baseline of the prism/IS unit at the back of the unibox housing. Rotating rhomboid prisms behind the S-Ps then bring the eyepiece baseline up to match the range of human IPDs. The result is a very short baseline between the objective centers rather like a reverse Porro.

Why didn't they choose a single shared baseline wide enough for the 42s? My guess is that using the narrow baseline had the advantage of keeping the 30s from being too large and heavy and allowed the 42s to be unusually small and light. And, as you said, lopping off the edge of the objective lens is probably not going to do much optical damage at 16x.

Henry
Interesting observation and thoughts, Henry.

I wish I had access to the 10x30 format, as I want to say that the exit pupil on that model had an octagon shaped exit pupil and not just the one flat side of the 16x42. My local store doesn't have the 10x30, and I sold my sample.

Do you think that it would it even be possible to see those numerous flat edges with the 10x30? I don't know enough about optical design but can see those flat edges when peering into binoculars.

Jason
 
Did you notice Holger's post dates back to 2007?

Hermann
Yes. I remembered hearing about the Canon 10x42 IS-L having a 37 mm objective, but I never knew that Canon fixed it. Thanks for the update. Interesting that they fixed it. Canon is not too responsive to complaints or customer feed back. Their binoculars have been melting for years, and they have never done anything about it or tried to correct it. That is another big advantage of the Sig. At least you know the armour won't melt!Binoculars.jpg
 
Interesting observation and thoughts, Henry.

I wish I had access to the 10x30 format, as I want to say that the exit pupil on that model had an octagon shaped exit pupil and not just the one flat side of the 16x42. My local store doesn't have the 10x30, and I sold my sample.

Do you think that it would it even be possible to see those numerous flat edges with the 10x30? I don't know enough about optical design but can see those flat edges when peering into binoculars.

Jason
Between the S-P and rhomboid prisms in the Zulus there are many straight prism edges at various angles that could add together in series to form a hexagon or maybe an octagon shaped aperture, but most of those edges should be well clear of the edge of the exit pupil. I can't recall ever seeing more than one straight prism edge intruding into an exit pupil, but given the uniqueness of the prism configuration in the ZULUs and the possibility of intrusions from the IS mechanism maybe it's possible.

The projected shape of the aperture in the flashlight test will correspond to the shape of the exit pupil and reveal whatever intrusions are there.

Henry
 
Last edited:
I had my SIG Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 and 10x30 out last night looking at the moon, and they were awesome. Both gave me a better view than my Nikon SE 8x32 or Zeiss FL 8x42. I saw incredible detail with both Sigs along the terminator. They gave me a much sharper view than any Canon IS I have ever used, even the 10x42 IS-L.! These are the best IS binoculars I have ever used.
 
We have no evidence that in a decade or so the Sig won’t start to melt… that picture looks like my 12x canon before I “cleaned” the worst of the sticky off.

Peter
 
I had my SIG Sauer Zulu 6 16x42 and 10x30 out last night looking at the moon, and they were awesome. Both gave me a better view than my Nikon SE 8x32 or Zeiss FL 8x42. I saw incredible detail with both Sigs along the terminator. They gave me a much sharper view than any Canon IS I have ever used, even the 10x42 IS-L.! These are the best IS binoculars I have ever used.
So, what you are actually saying is that you have just yet to find all the flaws in these binoculars, but you will, in a month or so.
 
I've had mine for a month longer than he has. I have no complaints. Only. praise. And yes, they are fantastic on the moon.

And we have no evidence that in a decade or so, monkeys won't fly out of my butt.
 
We have no evidence that in a decade or so the Sig won’t start to melt… that picture looks like my 12x canon before I “cleaned” the worst of the sticky off.

Peter
You can tell the Sig Sauer's armour is a much tougher, durable armour than the Canon's. It feels much better to the touch than the Canon's. The Canon's armour is soft and cushy and almost feels like it is a spray on coating instead of being molded to the binocular. I highly doubt the Sig Sauer will melt like the Canon's. I have had every IS binocular and overall these are the best I have seen. The adjustable eye cups on the Sig Sauer are way superior to the old fashioned rubber ones on the Canon's or the tortuous huge ones on the Canon 10x42 IS-L.

What is especially nice is the small size and light weight. I had the 16x42's out this morning watching soaring Bald Eagles, and it is amazing how much detail you can see. It is pretty cool to be using a 16x42 IS binocular that weighs only 20 oz. Your arms don't even get tired, even when looking overhead. These are going to Yellowstone with me. I should be able to spot Grizzlies in the Hayden Valley, a mile away! At 16x, it's like looking at a bear from 330 feet away. My Zeiss FL 8x42 and Nikon SE 8x32 are both superb binoculars, but the Sig's beat them both easily for seeing detail.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top