Allbinos review of the Canon IS II 10x30 (2 Viewers)

[yarrellii]

Just out of the oven

Canon 10x30 IS II - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Basically the 10x30 follows the trend of the review of its bigger sibling the 12x36. Many scores are nearly identical, as is the transmission curve and the pros/cons. Also some of the comments follow the same lines of the 12x36, including the comment about the effect of IS:

I feel it's justified to ask whether or not you should employ it in a device offering you just 10x magnification. The majority of users of optical instruments won't have any problems with keeping such a magnification steady in their hands. That's also why it is rather difficult to assess the efficiency of such a mechanism. Of course you can notice 'calming down' of images after switching it on but, for a person who uses 10x instruments every day, it's not an effect that provides a huge improvement of your observation comfort.

Just like in the 12x36, I find it puzzling that someone used to stargaze with binoculars says that the effect of IS is not remarkable. Even at 8x I find (as others have) the effect of IS quite noticeable on daylight use (surpassing any 8x handheld non-IS on resolving power), and for stargazing it simply makes a huge difference, both in "comfort/pleasure" as well as in detail/resolution.

I had the 10x30 and compared them directly to the 12x36 and I'd say the 10x30 are a really good allrounder, better close focus, small form factor, more portability. The main reason I kept the 12x36 is that I found since shake is no problem, I'd rather have more magnification with the small compromise of 1º in FOV. At 5º, I think the 12x are still very reasonable.

Anyway, it's great to see that Allbinos keeps making reviews of IS binoculars, let's hope the broaden their scope to other families of IS, like the more recent Canon 32 mm, or the tiny but migthy x20 IS, as well as the new breed of 10/12x30 Kite/Opticron/etc. or the 12/16x42 series which is gathering quite a lot of attention, judging by the threads and comments here on BF.

 

[takitam]

It's been a personal bias of the owner ever since binocular reviews started on optyczne.pl, the mother website for allbinos. In general, he has been saying there is no problem and no difference between stabilized and non-stabilized 10x and 12x, and that compact binoculars are horrible and useless. It just shows one that an experienced user can still fit quite a bit of nonsense among mostly quality information he offers, presenting personal imagination as facts.

One of many reasons anyone with experience usually takes allbinos reviews not just with a grain of salt, but with a handful of salt

Apart from that, 10x30 is the most reasonable buy in the Canon's stabilized line. We have all talked about it more than once. I haven't used my IS Canons as much as you, cause I find them too bulky to carry often. When it comes to detail resolution they dominate every other non-is bino of course, even when lacking certain IQ parameters.

 

[yarrellii]

@takitam Yes, I couldn't agree more. I like Allbinos and have red endless articles of reviews, I'm really grateful for the job they do, but obviously every individual has his own preferences, it's quite surprising to see those slip in such a prominent way when it's quite easy to check. Walk outside on a cloudless night, look up, search for Albireo, watch it with your non-IS 10x, then watch it with your IS 10x. Or else, simply pick a bunch of cars really far away, try to read the furthest license plate you can with your non-IS 10x... now grab the IS 10x, simply check how you can read many, many more that are further away.

Anyway, regarding the Canon, one reassuring thing to notice is the level of optical performance in the main optical categories, the way they deal with astigmatism or coma, the amazing sharpness across the FOV. If we forget about CA for a while, it is true that the Canon, quirky as they are, user-un-friendly as they are, plagued with ergonomics flaws as they are... are really good performers. Over here in the sunny Mediterranean I notice a distinct shift in "perceived performance" during the scarce cloudy/gloomy days, especially when I leave the shores and go inland, in those situations CA is much better controlled, and the level of sharpness and steady view is really remarkable.

 

[Hermann]

One of many reasons anyone with experience usually takes allbinos reviews not just with a grain of salt, but with a handful of salt

Great stuff. That's precisely how I feel. Some useful stuff, and a lot of nonsense, that's how I'd sum it up.

Hermann

 

[exup]

Anyway, regarding the Canon, one reassuring thing to notice is the level of optical performance in the main optical categories, the way they deal with astigmatism or coma, the amazing sharpness across the FOV.

Funny, I was looking at these optical categories and comparing with other 32mm bins. e.g. Conquests don't really better them in the allbinos optical categories and they are praised everyday on BF, despite often reported defects and problems.
Perception is reality for many, irrespective of the facts.

There are not too many good optics flat field bins at this price level (£425).

The IS is a bonus for free and jumps their performance even higher (handheld the top dogs such as NLs, SFs won't deliver detail to this "cheap" Canon).

Might have to add this to the stable 🙄 after all.

Here are some interesting optical comparisons:

2nd Pair / Upgrade for Birder - Advise Needed

Still, take the Opticron Verano.... assembled in Japan....I would take that over assembled in the US for now. Price wise, better than the Maven..... Optic wise, better than the Maven, the Monarch, etc...as I listed prior. Also, $ wise when compared to the Conquest or the Monarch HG....sure...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Patudo]

If we forget about CA for a while, it is true that the Canon, quirky as they are, user-un-friendly as they are, plagued with ergonomics flaws as they are... are really good performers. Over here in the sunny Mediterranean I notice a distinct shift in "perceived performance" during the scarce cloudy/gloomy days, especially when I leave the shores and go inland, in those situations CA is much better controlled, and the level of sharpness and steady view is really remarkable.

This is actually really interesting because my own perception is that pretty much every binocular I have (especially my older single coated porros) delivers a better looking image, sometimes much better, in bright sunny conditions! It's not a coincidence I think that Birdfair is always held at the height of summer!

This thing about the CA reported in the Canons is pretty interesting because porros (at least external focusing ones) tend to be pretty good in that respect. The Canons are porros (being porro II shouldn't make a difference I would have thought) and ought to deliver serious bang for the buck optically. I wonder is the CA down to the focusing system or, as I noted in the AX thread before a whole bunch of posts disappeared, down to something like the vari-angle prisms?

Canon didn't have the 12x36 IS III at the last Birdfair I was at - a shame because I'd like to have tried it. The 12x32 I thought was average, apart from the IS feature. I actually think even the previous generation IS systems work pretty well - I wish they would improve image quality, and ideally offer a couple of models with a larger exit pupil. I'd be more interested in a 10x36 IS III L using the current 12x36 body, with wider field of view, than the AX.

 

[exup]

This is actually really interesting because my own perception is that pretty much every binocular I have (especially my older single coated porros) delivers a better looking image, sometimes much better, in bright sunny conditions! It's not a coincidence I think that Birdfair is always held at the height of summer!

This thing about the CA reported in the Canons is pretty interesting because porros (at least external focusing ones) tend to be pretty good in that respect. The Canons are porros (being porro II shouldn't make a difference I would have thought) and ought to deliver serious bang for the buck optically. I wonder is the CA down to the focusing system or, as I noted in the AX thread before a whole bunch of posts disappeared, down to something like the vari-angle prisms?

Canon didn't have the 12x36 IS III at the last Birdfair I was at - a shame because I'd like to have tried it. The 12x32 I thought was average, apart from the IS feature. I actually think even the previous generation IS systems work pretty well - I wish they would improve image quality, and ideally offer a couple of models with a larger exit pupil. I'd be more interested in a 10x36 IS III L using the current 12x36 body, with wider field of view, than the AX.

CA has been reported in the Canon 12x36 and 10x30 (I believe).

Personally, I have only really noticed CA once in the 12x36, in an extreme condition.

It must exist, due to the reports, but TBD if it is as major a deficiency as often reported.

If you look at albinos for the 10x42 Conquest HD and MHG, they have worse numbers and reports of CA ( higher better):

12x36 7/10.0 ..... Low in the centre, a bit higher than medium on the edge.

10x42 MHG 6.1/10.0 ..... Slight in the centre but still noticeable in more demanding circumstances. Visible on the edge and a bit higher than medium.

10x42 Conquest HD 6.6/10.0 .... Slight in the centre, a bit higher than medium on the edge.

 

[henry link]

Here are some test photos of the lateral color in a Canon 10x32 IS compared to a Nikon 10x35 EII using the same CA target and identical lighting conditions.

Review of Canon 10x32 IS

I finally just joined the ranks of Canon IS binocular owners. I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for many years, attracted to the idea and by other people’s good opinions, especially Kimmo Absetz’s enthusiasm for the 10x42 L, but also discouraged by my own unhappy, but admittedly brief and...

www.birdforum.net

I haven't seen the Canon 10x30 IS in a long time and never tested it, so I don't know how its lateral color compares to the 10x32.

 

[Paultricounty]

Here are some test photos of the lateral color in a Canon 10x32 IS compared to a Nikon 10x35 EII using the same CA target and identical lighting conditions.

Review of Canon 10x32 IS

I finally just joined the ranks of Canon IS binocular owners. I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for many years, attracted to the idea and by other people’s good opinions, especially Kimmo Absetz’s enthusiasm for the 10x42 L, but also discouraged by my own unhappy, but admittedly brief and...

www.birdforum.net

I haven't seen the Canon 10x30 IS in a long time and never tested it, so I don't know how its lateral color compares to the 10x32.

The 10x32 is a better binocular, it’s sharper, brighter and has less CA than the 30. This might have a lot to do with the seven element, six group objective lens compared to the 30 with two element, one group. The 32 also has two IS settings. Of all the Canons (other than the 10x42L) this is the best imo.

Paul

 

[Hermann]

If you look at albinos ...

Looking at Allbinos is the first mistake, I'm afraid.

Hermann

 

[exup]

Looking at Allbinos is the first mistake, I'm afraid.

Hermann

Please offer another alternative?

If the absolute evaluations from albinos are not accurate, at least the comparisons should offer a method to rank individual bins on each criteria.

 

[Richard D]

Please offer another alternative?

If the absolute evaluations from albinos are not accurate, at least the comparisons should offer a method to rank individual bins on each criteria.

The problem with Allbinos is many of their 'tests' are subjective, just given a score. The binoculars tested can also be tested years apart.

Their tests aren't significantly worse than most others, but you can't use them to rank binoculars against each other in any meaningful way.

 

[exup]

The problem with Allbinos is many of their 'tests' are subjective, just given a score. The binoculars tested can also be tested years apart.

Their tests aren't significantly worse than most others, but you can't use them to rank binoculars against each other in any meaningful way.

Yes, I do fully appreciate that some assessments by their very nature must carry a degree of subjectivity. I was hoping that at least they would be normalised and the relative values would carry some merit.

I place higher value in the assessments that are grounded in good robust testing or research. Kimmo, Roger Vine, Neill English, Holger, Yoder/Vokbratovich and other Uni based works are invaluable, IMO.

Although less 'scientific', contributions by some such as Lee (RIP), yarrelli and some others are also very useful and without doubt contribute to the collective knowledgebase.

 

[Owlbarred]

Please offer another alternative?

If the absolute evaluations from albinos are not accurate, at least the comparisons should offer a method to rank individual bins on each criteria.

Well said. Albinos is a great starting point and a valuable resource.

 

[Patudo]

Thanks for the link you provided, Henry - very interesting. I'm impressed by many aspects of what you found with the 10x32 - off-axis performance, resolution, light transmission and colour accuracy. It seems an altogether superior binocular than the 12x32 I tried, which was unimpressive image-wise (other than the stability provided by IS). I don't think they had the 10x32 at the last Birdfair I was at, as I'm sure I'd have tried it over the 12x32. Canon seem to think that IS allows a smaller exit pupil to be comfortably used than otherwise might be the case - and there probably is some truth in it, but I instinctively prefer larger exit pupils whenever possible.

I'm wondering how often you've used the 10x32 since your tests (I'd imagine quite a lot, given your comment that "I would still prefer it to any conventional 10x binocular for daylight birding"?) and if you might have more observations to add re: its performance as a birding tool after longer-term field use.

Best,
Patudo

 

[etudiant]

Here are some test photos of the lateral color in a Canon 10x32 IS compared to a Nikon 10x35 EII using the same CA target and identical lighting conditions.

Review of Canon 10x32 IS

I finally just joined the ranks of Canon IS binocular owners. I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for many years, attracted to the idea and by other people’s good opinions, especially Kimmo Absetz’s enthusiasm for the 10x42 L, but also discouraged by my own unhappy, but admittedly brief and...

www.birdforum.net

I haven't seen the Canon 10x30 IS in a long time and never tested it, so I don't know how its lateral color compares to the 10x32.

Henry:
Off topic, but if ever you have the inclination to scrutinize the Canon 10x42 ISL, I'd be happy to ship you my old one.

 

[henry link]

Hi Patudo and etudiant,

Sorry for the late reply. I haven't been able to access Birdforum for the last few days.

Despite all its good optical characteristics when tested I almost never use the 10x32. No one could like the clunky handling, but my main complaints are the tiny fidgety exit pupil and narrow DOF from the 10x32 specification and the high level of lateral color near the field center.

Thanks for the offer, etudiant. I'll let you know, but I'd be a bit worried about something happening to it either in shipping or while I had it.

Henry