• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Canon ISIII 12x36 First impressions: amateurs vs professionals (1 Viewer)

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
NOTE: This is a completely unscientific opinion and lacks any aspiration of technical knowledge: simply what my eyes see explained the best I can in simple terms. I hope to be able to help other users sharing my first impressions as well as gaining other insights and better understanding of these binoculars thanks to the more experienced opinions of other users and, as always, spark discussion and have a good time.

I'm still looking for a powerful device for long range (shore birds, waders, etc.) and backyard astronomy. I've tried several flavours of 10x42, 10x50, 12x42, 12x50, both Porro and roof, but I'm still not convinced by what I've seen, so I've decided to buy the Canon IS III 12x36 with great hopes. These get a lot of praise, are small and light and can be found for reasonable prices (now that the new IS series is the current and most modern offer by Canon).

First impressions
Took them out of the box: “Oh, wow, these are smaller than I thought… and lighter”.
Put them to my eyes: “Oh, my god. What on earth is this?”

I’ve made a simple visual riddle in order to help you understand the first impression regarding the ergonomics of the Canon ISIII.
In the following image you have two devices with lots in common:
  • Both are dark grey
  • Both have been produced in Asia
  • Both have soft surfaces
  • Both have somewhat rounded forms
  • Both have been tested and fine-tuned through the years and deliver solid performance
  • Both share more or less the same ergonomics when you put them to your eyes

To honour the truth, one has an edge when it comes to optical performance: see if you can guess which one is it in less than 10 seconds.

Captura de pantalla 2021-06-08 a las 17.59.28.png

Hobbyist, professionals and their use of tools
I’m not sure whether it was here or somewhere else, but I recently read that a big difference between hobbyist/amateurs and professionals is that the former pay way more attention to the tool they use (i. e. invest/waste more time researching, comparing, etc.). For the professional, the tool has to get the job done (and many times there’s an important cost factor), while for the amateur the tool itself can become an object of study/pleasure beyond the function it fulfills, be it binoculars, cars or the small razor that bakers use to score their loaves before baking them. When using the Canon ISIII 12x36 for the first time I couldn’t help thinking about this idea.

On my balcony I started testing the ISIII together with other two well known binoculars, both Porro and roof, the Nikon SE 10x42 (that the Canon is bound to replace as a long range/astro tool in my stable) and the Swarovski EL SV 8x32, that have been my main everyday choice for the last year. Both the Nikon and the Swarovski produce really pleasurable images full of detail, addictive, bright and sharp views of the world around you that give you a bigger sense of perfection, with less flaws than the Canon ISIII.

On a bright June day under the Mediterranean Sun at noon (this is actually quite bright), the view through the Canon shows worrying levels of CA. The first swallow passing by could as well have been a bee-eater, since the fast-paced bird shows reflections of green, pink and other flashy colours on the contour of the wings. This was a bit of a shock, a really disappointing performance.

Then there’s the image quality as “texture” (let me explain). When IS is off, the image is actually pretty sharp and contrasty, full of live, this is very nice, but when IS kicks in there is a very subtle “veil” (for lack of a better term) that steals part of the sharpness, that makes the image softer, it’s like if you were watching through the thinnest ever layer of water. It’s hard to describe, but it’s not nice, it makes the objects look less sparkly, less alive. It’s like there was a nano-microscopic-nylon filter on the objectives that didn’t allow for the very fine contrast.
Then there’s the eye position: a complete mess. To begin with, the position of the eyes is really critical (probably due to the limited EP), and kidney bean-effect is easy to induce. And then those eyecups. I don’t know if the awkward position comes from the fact that the body of the binoculars is solid and lacks a central hinge, so what moves to get the correct IPD are the eyepieces in a radial motion (and being of Porro prism design, the axis is off-set somehow on the vertical axis, as well as the horizontal, as it’s usually the case with Porros), this makes for a weird eye placement, where I have to really stuff the eyecups with my eyeballs. Pretty terrible.

So: soft image with unacceptable amount of CA for the price (mind you these retail for around 800 € when new), awful ergonomics, terrible eyecups and strange viewing position. Really promising.
But then, you press the button* and suddenly you are able to see more. More detail, simple as that. And I guess this is what binoculars were invented for in the first place.
Everything is a mess, but you can see more. But... is it worth it?
Undoubtedly for a professional who needs to do a survey or identify an object really far away, certainly it is the tool of choice, but for the amateur who also looks for the sense of pleasure while using the tool itself, I have my doubts (the same way you can use a car for years to go from A to B, and then there are people who enjoy the act of driving and collect cars). And I’m not even starting with the compromises of using a battery-powered device.

*Regarding the pressing of buttons.
This is something I’ve never read anywhere, but... Really? Seriously? Do I have to keep my finger pressed all the time? I mean, seriously?
I’ve always found bemusing that for some users the sense of rotation of the focus wheel can be a deal-breaker when choosing a pair of binoculars. I’ve read in countless threads how some forum members state that binoculars X would be great, but the fact that they focus CCW to infinity is a no-no. I come from mainland Europe but have lived several years in the UK where I had to drive on "the wrong” side of the road 😉 Yes, it was a bit confusing at first, but after doing it for a while it became second nature, just like switching from manual to automatic. But… having to press a button every single second I want to use my binoculars? I really can’t believe it, I find it utterly annoying. I don’t know if maybe I’m a special user who likes to stare for long periods of time non-stop… or maybe I’m just weird, but I find the fact of pressing a button without a pause a true pain in the neck. Seriously. I find it unbelievable that I’ve never read anyone commenting on this. The focus wheel of the ISIII is quite small, which requires a finer fingerplay than with other binoculars that have thicker focus wheels… but in this case then you have to press a button simultaneously with another finger. If done with the same hand… oh, well, I was never very good at my piano lessons. If done with the other hand, it creates a feeling of unnecessary clutter on the top part of the binoculars. I’m really quite surprised no one mentioned this. Please, long term IS-users, tell me this becomes second nature (I know there are other IS models where you can lock the ON position, even other that engage-disengage automatically).

But yes, you can read fine print and number plates that you simply cannot read with a non-IS unsupported 8x or 10x (let alone an 12x, at least in my case with my hands).
I had read that the ergonomics were that of a toaster. I couldn’t agree more.
I had read that the view was a revelation: I couldn’t agree more. Seriously. It's just another level.

What I hadn’t read is how annoying it can be the fact of having to press a button all the time, how terrible eye position and eye comfort are.
I had read that some users seem to perceive a certain level of softness when the IS is on, but I couldn’t imagine just how much and how soft the image is compared to similarly priced binoculars. Mind you I’m not talking about the very beginning of the IS action. In fact, it works surprisingly fast and kicks in without hardly any noise (which was one of my concerns), this I find remarkable, outstanding. And then there’s CA, which I find simply surprising (-ly unacceptable) given the price.

Wrapping up: so far, it's a miss.

Next: astro performance. Still have to find a series of clear nights to get a real feeling of how these perform. My intended use for these is mixed, bot long range birding and astro. Just as Roger Vine points out in his review, the former might be a bit compromised (over and over again I find myself having the very same impressions/opinions about binoculars as Roger).
To be continued.
 
Last edited:

kellmark

Active member
Good and fair review. I had the earlier version of the 12X36s. They did the "melting thing" on the cover. Now I have the 12X36IIIs like you. (They have not "melted").Also have the original 10X30 IS (no longer used), and after, got the 18X50 IS.

My comments of the 12X36 IS III are as follows, in some ways similar,but also with a somewhat different take.

The ergonomics do suck. The eye piece cups have caused me any amount of frustration. You have two positions. Folded in or out. If you wear glasses, you have to use the folded position. In my case, for a number of years, I had to hold the bins just a bit of a distance away from the the eyeglasses. It wasn't very satisfying. Then, I had my cataract operations on both eyes and got new glasses, whose lenses protrude a bit more, and now oddly enough, they work well for me. I can hold the eyepieces right up against them. What a difference. But why, oh why couldn't Canon have put adjustable twist eye pieces instead of just two position ones? Very cheap bins have them. But not these. The eyepiece cups when extended out work fine for those who do not wear glasses in my experience, including me when I take my glasses off. But you should try them before you buy.

The interpupilary has adjustment not been a problem for me.

The activation button for the IS must be held down. I don't really have a problem with it. My 18X50 has the other type where you just click it and the IS stays on. But I don't view for long periods of time, so the 12X36s button is ok for me.

The close focus is not close focus at all. This is really my biggest complaint. We have birds and other critters in our back yard, and I often have to back up to see them in focus with these. Thats not the case with other bins that I use.

There is also the CA. Yup, it does have it, as others have noted. But it doesn't bother me much. There is a reason for that. When you press that IS button, magic happens. I can read and see things with this bin that I simply can't see with others, except for the 18X50. But the 12x36 is much, much lighter in weight. And it has a much better stabilization system. And the view is incredible. Thats why I still keep them. I just took a major trip through the western US, and I took them, along with my usual very compact Leica Ultravid 8X20s. Those two together are my perfect match for travel. I can scan for subjects with the 8X20s and then focus in for a good look with the Canon 12X36s. Even with their faults they are quite valuable to me in that role.

And that's where I am. Its kind of like a friend that you can get very frustrated with, but know that they still are your friend in the end.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
Thank you for your insight and experienced view. One of the reasons that sparkled my interest in IS binoculars is that people who used them seem to value them highly and the proof is that in your case you mention owning or having owned 4 different Canon IS models, that has to mean somehing. This is my first ever contact with IS binoculars and of all the things probably the one that shocked me the most was the simple fact that you must have your finger on a particular point all the time. I can't help feeling is such a ludicrous idea.

In the following image I've made a simple parallelism. Here you have a great device, able to provide you with stunning views, but if and only if your finger is continuously located on the pink spot. Otherwise, it doesn't work. The contrast, the sharpness, the brightness, the level of detail... all will be there, but if and only if your finger is on the pink spot.

Captura de pantalla 2021-06-09 a las 17.36.08.png

If someone would have tried to sell me the Nikon SE stunning performance with this rationale I would have declined this ludicrous offer. Well, it just happens that I might want to have my fingers somewhere else, or I might want to hold the binoculars in changing fashion in order to get better grip or simply having my hands more relaxed. I knew the IS III worked like this, but I wasn't aware of what it feels like (and I'm beyond surprised to never have read anyone commenting on this). Did you not notice it at the beginning? What did you do to get used to it? (well, besides using them obviously).

I don't know, the more I use them, the less interested I seem to be in what they have to offer. Maybe the 10x42 L can deliver something better, but as it stands, I find that in order to get:

- An 8x like calm and full of detail view of 12x, which is simply incredible, like a superpower

I have to put up with:

  • Terrible ergonomics, little joy of use
  • Levels of CA that make watching birds on a bright sky a pain (a 300 € contemporary roof with ED does better than this)
  • An image which shows more detail, but which is soft and "veiled"
  • The "slavery of batteries": no battery, no game. OK, rechargeable batteries then: don't ever forget to recharge them
  • A meager 2 year warranty and the possibility that these won't be able to be repaired like a quality conventional binocular
  • The possibility of the soft rubber coating melting
  • Lack of waterproofing

At this point, I'm not sure if these maths add up for me.

I really like your comment about the IS being like and old friend you know well, and you know it's weak points and strengths (an when he/she can really get on your nerves). I feel the same about other devices or places and it's something I've learned to live with over time, but in this case maybe the mistake were my expectations.

On the other hand, it's just funny how people are. I've read a lot about the close focus on these and, while I do appreciate short focus I can personally accept that a 12x (which I'll be using for long distance, because I have other 8x for shorter range) doesn't have a good close focus performance. And the same goes for the field of view. I had read that it's on the narrow side, but (maybe because of the terrible eyecups and viewing experience) I haven't thought much about it, I found it OK.
 
Last edited:

Binastro

Well-known member
There was a device that held the button down on early Canon IS binoculars.

Like a certain British food spread. Canon IS, you love it or hate it.

I use Canon IS binoculars when I want IS.
Otherwise I use standard binoculars.

Regards,
B.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
Binastro, thanks for your advise. I've just done a new test with the IS III 12x36 upside down and... funny enough, ergonomics-wise it makes hardly any difference: by this I mean that it is not worse (well, how could it be?), and actually, because the binoculars rest on your hands gravity is your ally in keeping the IS button on. So, in a way, they actually work better upside down, I wonder how many binoculars work better in a way they were not intended. I'm afraid I'm in the "hate" half of users (I do love Marmite, on the other hand, especially on toast with tons of melted butter).

Out of curiosity, Binastro. I know you are a long-term user of binoculars with a wealth of experience with all types of devices. I'm curious about how you define the times when you "want IS". Is it astronomy? Some other activty? Thanks your views are much appreciated.

I've been watching some spotted flycatchers (well, Mediterranean flycatchers) on some distance branches, watching them perform their acrobatics: jump, catch a fly on the wing and come back to the original position and I just can't understand how on earth these binoculars are the III iteration of anything, given the notorious flaws they have. Beyond the appalling user experience, the image is really disappointing: dull, soft, full of CA and anything but pleasant. I don't know if I got a lemon (I bought them at retail price from a trustworthy seller that apparently sells many of them). If this is the price for getting things closer and offering more detail, then it's not for me. I've wanted to like them, but I think I'm sending these back.

I can't help but remember Canip's words:
As I wrote somewhere some time ago, Swarovski / Zeiss / Leica / Nikon all should send a case of champagne every year to Canon with a letter, thanking Canon for putting their excellent optics and IS mechanism into an ugly brick-shape body the ergonomics of which I consider appalling, with eyecups that are impossible for people with narrow IPD like me.

Just imagine Canon coming out with a bino that combines the wonderful optics and IS of the 10x42 L with the ergonomic body of an NL ....

In my case, I must add that having not tried the 10x42 L, I have to say that the optical performance of the IS III 12x36 has left me all but impressed when it comes to "general" birding. Maybe they're gorgeous for professional use when you must get the id of something or you must count an X number of individuals or things like that, or maybe they're amazing for astronomy, but as far as daytime use for "hobby birding" goes... not for me.
 
Last edited:

Binastro

Well-known member
Hi,

For looking at Jupiter's moons any Canon IS is almost miraculous.
Moons close to the limb or almost touching each other pop into view.

In addition, faint stars appear that are totally invisible with the IS off.
I reckon 1.5 magnitudes are gained, although others suggest 0.25 magnitudes, which I don't understand at all.

For aircraft, words written on the side, even the colour of letters appear where no marking was seen at all with the IS off.

So basically, where high resolution is needed or tripod steadiness a benefit, I use IS binoculars.

But one does not always need high resolution, just a quick gain from a binocular compared to unaided eyes.
Here I use all manner of non IS binoculars.

For real high magnification gain, I use a telescope, although I mostly don't bother to set up tripods now.
Although the PST H alpha solar scope was set up permanently on a Slik 88 tripod for about 15 years, although I don't use it much lately.
Bright light can set off migraine, although I did not get this when younger.
My eyes are aged 1000 lunations and show wear now.

Regards,
B.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
Binastro, thanks for your advise. I've just done a new test with the IS III 12x36 upside down and... funny enough, ergonomics-wise it makes hardly any difference: by this I mean that it is not worse (well, how could it be?), and actually, because the binoculars rest on your hands gravity is your ally in keeping the IS button on. So, in a way, they actually work better upside down, I wonder how many binoculars work better in a way they were not intended. I'm afraid I'm in the "hate" half of users (I do love Marmite, on the other hand, especially on toast with tons of melted butter).

Out of curiosity, Binastro. I know you are a long-term user of binoculars with a wealth of experience with all types of devices. I'm curious about how you define the times when you "want IS". Is it astronomy? Some other activty? Thanks your views are much appreciated.

I've been watching some spotted flycatchers (well, Mediterranean flycatchers) on some distance branches, watching them perform their acrobatics: jump, catch a fly on the wing and come back to the original position and I just can't understand how on earth these binoculars are the III iteration of anything, given the notorious flaws they have. Beyond the appalling user experience, the image is really disappointing: dull, soft, full of CA and anything but pleasant. I don't know if I got a lemon (I bought them at retail price from a trustworthy seller that apparently sells many of them). If this is the price for getting things closer and offering more detail, then it's not for me. I've wanted to like them, but I think I'm sending these back.

I can't help but remember Canip's words:


In my case, I must add that having not tried the 10x42 L, I have to say that the optical performance of the IS III 12x36 has left me all but impressed when it comes to "general" birding. Maybe they're gorgeous for professional use when you must get the id of something or you must count an X number of individuals or things like that, or maybe they're amazing for astronomy, but as far as daytime use for "hobby birding" goes... not for me.
The 10x42L would remove two of your issues, the CA correction is excellent and the IS button is one push and it stays on as long as you don't let the glass hang down.
However, it is a very heavy glass, 2 pounds 9 ounces on my kitchen scale. (It does include the 52mm metal lens hoods that I added).
I found a shoulder belt was needed to carry the glass comfortably, but it fully satisfies optically. Looking for a peregrine perched far away or trying to get a clear look at a warbler hopping among the leaves up high, the IS makes the difference between really seeing and guessing.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
The 10x42L would remove two of your issues, the CA correction is excellent and the IS button is one push and it stays on as long as you don't let the glass hang down.
However, it is a very heavy glass, 2 pounds 9 ounces on my kitchen scale. (It does include the 52mm metal lens hoods that I added).
I have read everyone raving about the 10x42L image quality. I guess some weight gain is to be expected. At the end of the day, if you take a very good 10x42 and you put some electronic/mechanical bits in it to make the whole IS thingy work, and then try to make it all waterproof, I think it's only natural that the thing will be on the heavy side. I think I can understand/forgive that. In fact, the weight of the IS III 12x36 is really impressive. No batteries and it's around 650 g which is a very very light 8x42 or a hefty 8x32, so really something. Even at 700 g loaded with batteries seem really lightweight for something surpassing the performance of a conventional 10x42, so quite a remarkable feat from Canon (I wonder if that weight was possible by trimming in other departments, especially shock/water resistance.

What I find really disappointing on the 12x36 IS III is the quality of the view. Yes, the object is there very close to you and thanks to the lack of shake you can observe an incredible amount of detail, but the soft image full of chromatic aberration reminds me of entry level 150 € roof binoculars. But then, I guess this is Canon entry level. So you get a (very close and stable image) sort of 150 - 200 € roof view. If I was to do a (simplistic, I know) exercise of splitting cost, it would be something like: 150 - 200 € for the view and 600 - 650 € for the IS... and we forget about ergonomics and ease of use.

I'm curious about other brands IS offerings. I've always read that Canon has a lead over the rest, in particular the new breed of Fuji/Kite/Opticron. I wonder about the small Nikon 10x25. A 2,5 exit pupil doesn't sound very promising, but at least it looks like that could have a more reasonable ergonomics and ease of use.
 
Last edited:

wllmspd

Well-known member
The benefit for me is to get the detail for something handheld. Now you mention the CA I am going to have a look for it against other optics I have since acquired, see how they compare.

Peter
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
... Now you mention the CA I am going to have a look for it against other optics I have since acquired, see how they compare.
Peter, please, pleas, please, don't even dare doing that!!! :D :D :D

If you are OK with the performance of the IS III stay happy with it. I'm afraid there is nothing worse than looking for flaws in binoculars, because you would find them in any, no matter the price point. So if CA has never bothered you, please do yourself a favour and don't look for it, it's like opening Pandora's box.

I was suprised by the level of CA mainly because it interferes with the fact of watching (like watching a fully colored bird cross the field of view... and it turns out it's a swallow, or watching a group of pigeons fly in full harmony, like if they were a single entity... but having the tight spaces in between filled with purple, green, blue and yellow. I felt it was obviously annoying. On the other hand, I have not been bothered by the FOV, that by many other accounts it's narrow to the point of becoming an issue, and the same goes for close focus in my case. So if you are OK with a particular aspect, don't go "looking for trouble", because you'll find it.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
I'm curious about other brands IS offerings. I've always read that Canon has a lead over the rest, in particular the new breed of Fuji/Kite/Opticron. I wonder about the small Nikon 10x25. A 2,5 exit pupil doesn't sound very promising, but at least it looks like that could have a more reasonable ergonomics and ease of use.
The Nikon has good optics, clean and well corrected for CA, plus it is wonderfully light and compact, a pleasure to handle, just not waterproof.
It does require getting used to though, as the glass offers only a monocular view until the IS is engaged, which is marginal given the 2.5mm exit pupil.
Unfortunately the IS takes an irritating second to engage, so really the IS needs to be on pretty much full time in the field.
That is hard on the battery, a somewhat specialized type, the CR2. Sadly, I only get a few hours life even from the best lithium CR2s available.
That is is inconvenient, because CR2s are not mainstream batteries, so hard to find on travels, plus they are relatively expensive.
 

pluton

Well-known member
Hello,
I have used some models, the 8x25, which I think was not worth stabilizing an 8x also the case looked like an egg carton ... it had an impressive image jump, that is, it almost went out of the visual field when clicking .
The 10x30 model was better for me, more stable but with an ergonomics that seemed to hold a shoe box, two 18x50 ... very heavy and with very marked artifacts ... now it had something special and the image without click was very good ... now the one I use is a first generation 12x36, very little artifact, good image, ergonomically the same as the rest of Canon that if after years my hands have taken the shape of binos .. heavy and with the passage of years outer skin deteriorates ... that if seeing a falcon neatly perched on a perch is priceless, although if I put the zeiss victory 10x42 on a tripod it surpasses Canon in image quality, it is a fact.
It has its pros and cons...
best regards.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
Hi Pluton, thank you for all the details.
I have to agree that the ergonomy of the Canon IS binoculars is very much like a shoe box or a toaster, terrible. I can see you have covered quite a long journey through different Canon IS models. Regarding the 12x36 IS III activation time I was really pleased. I didn't know what to expect, and I was concerned about the waiting time or lag that I've read about some models, but in the IS III the response is just immediate, instant, it's quite remarkable. No jitter, no noises, really nice. It's only when you release the button that the image goes "blonk!" and you can see it shake as it returns to non-IS.

I've been using the IS III more and I continue to be amazed by:
  • The incredible stabilization, it's like using a tripod, when used for astronomy it's like a seamless travel through the stars in a quiet spacecraft, no noise, no feeling of drag, effortlessly gliding through the stars and constelations
  • The appalling eye comfort during the day, which makes me wonder if not using glasses is actually a disadvantage for these bincoculars.
A question for any Canon IS user, if you don't mind me asking: do you use glasses while using the binoculars? I'm trying to get used to these but during the day the using comfort is soooooo poor, really appalling, it makes using them a bit of a pain which spoils the view or any optical advantage these might provide.

So, are the Canon IS III 12x36 better suited for spectacle wearers?
 

Binastro

Well-known member
I don't use glasses with any binoculars.

All Canon IS binoculars I have used are fine.

But it depends on a individual's eye prescription.
Also facial features.

I find that most new binoculars have far too much eye relief for me.

Regards,
B.
 

Hermann

Well-known member
The Nikon has good optics, clean and well corrected for CA, plus it is wonderfully light and compact, a pleasure to handle, just not waterproof.
It does require getting used to though, as the glass offers only a monocular view until the IS is engaged, which is marginal given the 2.5mm exit pupil.
Unfortunately the IS takes an irritating second to engage, so really the IS needs to be on pretty much full time in the field.
That is hard on the battery, a somewhat specialized type, the CR2. Sadly, I only get a few hours life even from the best lithium CR2s available.
That is is inconvenient, because CR2s are not mainstream batteries, so hard to find on travels, plus they are relatively expensive.
Try to buy a bunch of CR2s from amazon. They're quite a bit cheaper if you buy 10 at a time.

BTW, I prefer the newish Canon 8x20 IS over the Nikon. Works nicely. Canip's review is spot on.

Hermann
 

Hermann

Well-known member
... now the one I use is a first generation 12x36, very little artifact, good image, ergonomically the same as the rest of Canon that if after years my hands have taken the shape of binos .. heavy and with the passage of years outer skin deteriorates ... that if seeing a falcon neatly perched on a perch is priceless, although if I put the zeiss victory 10x42 on a tripod it surpasses Canon in image quality, it is a fact.
Not surprised the Zeiss ON A TRIPOD surpasses the Canon in image quality. But then you need to carry a tripod as well ...

BTW, a fairer comparison would be comparing the Zeiss on a tripod with the Canon 10x42 ... :)

Hermann
 

Hermann

Well-known member
A question for any Canon IS user, if you don't mind me asking: do you use glasses while using the binoculars? I'm trying to get used to these but during the day the using comfort is soooooo poor, really appalling, it makes using them a bit of a pain which spoils the view or any optical advantage these might provide.
Well, make your own eyecups. That's a simple solution. Or take them off and put better fitting eyecups to the eyepieces. If necessary just tape them to the eyepieces. That's even simpler.

Hermann
(who has got a bunch of different eyecups from
long sold or discarded binoculars for just that
purpose)
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
A question for any Canon IS user, if you don't mind me asking: do you use glasses while using the binoculars? I'm trying to get used to these but during the day the using comfort is soooooo poor, really appalling, it makes using them a bit of a pain which spoils the view or any optical advantage these might provide.
Imho, the massive oculars of the Canon 10x42ISL work best when people are wearing glasses.
The eye relief is sufficient and there is no need to dig the hard edged rubber eye cups into the physiognomy. If you don't need prescription glasses, just use them while wearing polarized sun glasses .
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
I don't use glasses with the Canons, and both with my current 10x42 and my former 15x50 I mostly use/d the eyecups fully twisted in or folded down, and then just tilt my head ever so slightly down and lean the flat eyecup upper edge against my brow. With little practice this makes it easy to get proper placement and eye relief distance, and I don't have to worry about pain on my nose or IPD.

More stray light does come in form the sides between my face and the binocular, though, but this is not a problem for me.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top