Visited earlier today from about 11.30 to 16.00. Troub is right on the mud - bring either boots or proper outdoor shoes.
Since my last visit two years ago I'd been doing more and more observation from longer distances. When you are trying to follow a tiny black speck more than a mile away, even with braced elbows, wobble can be a problem (for me anyway). First port of call was therefore the Canon stand. I had tried the 10x42IS L on my previous visit and wanted to revisit it with the benefit of having done a lot more observation at long distance. My memory of the IS L was a binocular with very good, yet not quite alpha optical quality, but with truly unique qualities thanks to the image stabilization.
Unfortunately the viewing point did not have as sweeping a view as the main optics marque, but I was still able to test sharpness at distance on the branches/foliage of a stand of trees that were fairly far off. First thing to do was to see how it performed without IS. Tweaking focus and diopter produced a good sharp image. I had my old faithful Dialyt 10x40 P model to serve as a reference point and the Canon was slightly, but definitely sharper at distance, a little brighter, and generally showed more detail at distance. Sharpness at distance and detail at distance are the two most important things I look for in judging a binocular's optical properties. Most decent binoculars are more than sharp enough when your targets are within say 500m, and if you don't need to look much further out, lucky you. Observing at long distance, however, really makes apparent the differences between older binoculars and the modern stuff, and to a lesser extent, between sub-alphas and the top dogs.
The Canon image is objectively very good - I was able to have a good look through the Meostar 10x42 HD, Conquest 10x42 HD, and Monarch HG 10x42 later, and when returning to the 10x42 IS L later definitely felt that this was in more or less that ball park. Field of view seemed (and was, at 115m vs 110m) a little more generous than the Dialyt and edge performance was very good. Handling wise, the Canon felt distinctly different in the hand than a normal binocular, but I found no real difficulty adapting to it and finding a solid grip. It is heavier than my Dialyt and seemed a little less shaky.
Now to find some targets. Rutland isn't exactly a peregrine hot spot so distant house/sand martins over the lake had to serve as a proxy. Found a group of them, singled out the most distant, pressed the magic button, and just as it had the last time I'd tried this unique product, the magic happened. The tiny image steadied, the level of concentration needed to follow it dropped right off. Just an amazing, effortless view. Switched off the magic button to compare and contrast. Was fortunate enough to do this for nearly 20 minutes the first time (people were swarming all over the big white lenses but no one seemed interested in binoculars!) and about 10 minutes or so the second time.
This thing is unique. IS does things that no traditional binocular can. This binocular, while optically very good, does not have the kind of superlative optical quality that the top products from Swarovski/Leica/Zeiss do - but I am pretty convinced that in actual use it is almost certain to be a better instrument for observation.
Having gone on about its genuinely impressive qualities, I feel compelled to mention a couple of things that I was less impressed with. The focus knob is awkwardly located (at least in relation to hand position on the most comfortable/steady grip I found), and although I am sure it is waterproof and would withstand harder use than I would ever put it through, pantywaist urban birder that I am, its overall build quality reminds one more of a modern digital camera or similar high-end consumer item than a top-class, or even high-quality traditional binocular. But that, I suppose, is what comes with the technology.
Next: Meopta...