Durability and reliability of Canon IS binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

42za wrote in another thread, summarizing some of the reservations many people have about Canon IS binoculars:

I have however had numerous electronic equipment failures over the years.

The problem arises with usage while out in the middle of "nowhere".

Batteries fail at the most inconvenient times and replacements are frequently not readily available , you also have to carry spares with you , (more items to worry about).

Electronics , likewise fail at the most inconvenient times , and for the most trivial reasons , good luck with getting these repaired at all.

Batteries can leak , particularly in hostile environments , this will destroy electronics very quickly.

Electronic spares are frequently not available because of rapid "advancement" in technology , older electronic spare parts are simply not made anymore.

There is much to be said for the K.I.S.S. principle (keep it simple stupid)

Now, I don't think the need to carry some spare batteries should keep people from using binoculars that rely on batteries (after all, carrying a spare set isn't that difficult ... ). I also think the risk of "exploding batteries" is negligible in this case, and modern batteries or rechargeables (like the Sanyo Eneloops) don't leak.

But reliability and durability of stabilised binoculars that are by definition more complex than "muggle binoculars" (to borrow Kimmo's term for conventional binoculars) are of course legitimate concerns.

So, what is the reliability and durability of Canon IS binoculars like? And if there are failures - when do they occur? In what conditions? What exactly fails - does the stabiliser fail to work? Or is there - in the case of the cheaper models like the 10x30 - some sort of mechanical failure? Do they fog up?

I'd quite like to know what users' experiences with these binoculars are, both good and bad.

Hermann

 

[Binastro]

I've had about ten Canon IS binoculars.

A secondhand old 10x30 Mk 1 has bad moisture condensation inside.
I should never have bought it.
Don't buy optics unseen from British seaside towns.

A new 8x25 IS has jiggling stabiliser but great optics. I should have returned it but didn't,

Two other 8x25s had an optical window fall out.
It is true the cricket watcher stuffs everything in a bag, including sandwiches etc.
A camera screen was also kaput.
But now he uses Nikon Travelite 10x25 EX. The first one out of collimation. So now a new one.
But his optics get a hard life.

A Canon 12x36 IS Mk1 is not reparable, no spare parts, although mine is fine.

The 10x42L IS had a strange IS when new. It just moved upwards slowly being possessed by a Goblin maybe? I didn't panic.
I left it horizontal for a week. It works fine.

Some Canon IS binoculars have too small battery chambers. Eneloop Pros don't fit. I think Canon fixed this, but some small chamber Canon ISs are out there.

The 18x50 IS has worked for about 18 years with perhaps two hiccups. Maybe low batteries.

The stabilised Bushnell 10x35 I have is junk.

A very well used secondhand 14x40 Fujinon works probably as new, but has the jiggles and I don't like it.
I had to clean off the white rubber deposit.

The Russian military thing is crazy. It sounds like something demented as the giro/s spins up to warp speed.

B

 

[etudiant]

The one year warranty Canon offers for their cameras and lenses also applies to their IS binoculars. That is however an inadequate indicator of durability. Rather it reflects the reality that defective electronics usually fail very early, so once past the infant mortality stage, the gear just works.
Simultaneously, most Canon products are in ongoing development, so a 10 year old camera will be technically superseded and is more likely to be replaced than repaired.
Binoculars don't really fit the same product cycle, but they are such a tiny part of the Canon portfolio that Canon will not change their warranty policy just for them. Still, the warranty for the 10x42ISL, their flagship model, has been extended to 3 years, uniquely so I believe.
My sample of 1 experience with a 10x42 was trouble free performance for about a decade of hard service, followed by IS failure. Repair was attempted, but I eventually just bought a replacement unit.

 

[cottonbase]

It's not only the electronics, see https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=4029516&postcount=14

 

[etudiant]

It's not only the electronics, see https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=4029516&postcount=14

Seriously not good, but not surprising.
Canon is far behind Swarovski in their customer service. Unfortunately, binoculars are only a minute part of Canon's business and not very profitable at that, so there is no likelihood of improvement.
I seem to remember a BF thread dealing with Kowa scope coverings turning sticky, some members found ways to deal with it without help from Kowa.

 

[18000bph]

The 14x32 is great. Decent optics and amazing IS. That being said, one look at the eye cups and it's clear the total package is not a well refined product.

 

[Kevin Conville]

The accounts of sticky degradation of the rubber armor, eyecups that aren't compatible with the human face, ergonomics of a toaster oven, stories of unresponsive customer service from Canon, lack of water resistance, awkward placement and actuation of the IS button, small focus wheel, and maybe some things I'd forgotten, have kept me from buying Canon IS binoculars over the years in spite of their glowing reviews by their advocates. And all that doesn't even consider the potential long term fragility of the things, being electronic devices after all, as compared to the elegant simplicity of conventional bins.

I'm revisiting the idea of buying them now as I've little doubt the views they provide are great. But I'll likely pass again for the reasons already mentioned.

 

[etudiant]

The accounts of sticky degradation of the rubber armor, eyecups that aren't compatible with the human face, ergonomics of a toaster oven, stories of unresponsive customer service from Canon, lack of water resistance, awkward placement and actuation of the IS button, small focus wheel, and maybe some things I'd forgotten, have kept me from buying Canon IS binoculars over the years in spite of their glowing reviews by their advocates. And all that doesn't even consider the potential long term fragility of the things, being electronic devices after all, as compared to the elegant simplicity of conventional bins.

I'm revisiting the idea of buying them now as I've little doubt the views they provide are great. But I'll likely pass again for the reasons already mentioned.

Kevin, just buy a 10x42ISL, totally waterproof, superb optics and non sticky coatings, if my 12 years with them are any indication.
Admittedly, brick like ergonomics and niggardly warranty are downsides, but my first one endured about 10 years of hard service before it went wonky, so I got value for money, especially considering they sell now for half the price of Zeiss or Swaro.

 

[Kevin Conville]

Kevin, just buy a 10x42ISL, totally waterproof, superb optics and non sticky coatings, if my 12 years with them are any indication.
Admittedly, brick like ergonomics and niggardly warranty are downsides, but my first one endured about 10 years of hard service before it went wonky, so I got value for money, especially considering they sell now for half the price of Zeiss or Swaro.

The 10x42L IS does tick certain boxes that make it more appealing than (maybe) the rest, and I have looked at them and seriously considered them before.
But, they don't quite add up for me either.

They are large and heavy. And they are but 10x. Now 10x is pretty good magnification for a hand held bin but considering the price of carrying something that size and weight, for an IS bin, I'd be much more enticed if they were 14x. That would still allow a 3mm EP and 14x would give it quite a bit more horse power, so to speak.

They are also getting long in the tooth, being one of Canon's oldest still being made. It kind of begs the question(s) why Canon hasn't incorporated waterproofness and L optics into one of their much smaller, sleeker new designs like the 32mm models. A 10x32L IS WP if you will. That very bin, with sticky-proof hide and much improved eyecups would be a hit I'm guessing and they'd likely get my cash for it.

I have waited for years for the Canon IS bin that makes sense for me and it just hasn't happened. FWIW I've also waited years for Canon to come up with an APS bodied DSLR that allows much better high ISO performance than what the 7DII does, for wildlife photography, and that doesn't look like that will ever happen. Before that I was waiting on Canon to update their fixed focal length wide angle lenses which finally happened but years too late IMO as they were woefully overdue.

I seem to "wait" on Canon quite a lot. I'm at an age now where I just don't care that much anymore.

 

[etudiant]

The 10x42L IS does tick certain boxes that make it more appealing than (maybe) the rest, and I have looked at them and seriously considered them before.
But, they don't quite add up for me either.

They are large and heavy. And they are but 10x. Now 10x is pretty good magnification for a hand held bin but considering the price of carrying something that size and weight, for an IS bin, I'd be much more enticed if they were 14x. That would still allow a 3mm EP and 14x would give it quite a bit more horse power, so to speak.

They are also getting long in the tooth, being one of Canon's oldest still being made. .

Kevin, imho the late Russian Admiral Gorshkov said it best with his dictum:
'Comrades, the best is the enemy of the good.'
All you say is quite true, the 10x42IS is a brick, with marginal ergonomics and not updated in years other than to remove the embarrassing 37mm aperture restriction in the early models.
But it is still the most capable birding glass in the world and you are depriving yourself by waiting for some future improvement.
Separately, I keep hoping they will launch a 12x50 ISL successor, that combo has the FoV and the reach needed for an ideal all round birding glass.
Imho 14x or more is a bridge too far imho, the FoV becomes too small.
Mind you, I'd be eager to try a dual power or, even better, a zoom IS glass. Canon has lots of practice in that space which I think would be really helpful for birding.

 

[Patudo]

The question that goes to the heart of the IS issue is whether one can put up with the various issues that IS binoculars have, and/or give up on the superb qualities that top traditional binoculars undoubtedly offer, in order to experience the "happy place" of a view that is unaffected by shake/wobble. Winterdune (a Swarovski EL owner and therefore with experience of alpha binoculars) has described the experience of the latter really well in his most recent post:

... I just bought a pair of Kite APC Stabilized 10x30s. Although it's easy to tell they are not high end optics, the experience of looking at a bird and switching on the stabilizer is almost a religious one, like suddenly achieving inner peace!

This very much squares with my own experience of the Canon 10x42L. I've realized that having a wobble free view is such an advantage, for a very significant percentage of my own birding, that I would certainly get a Canon IS-L (or competitor of comparable quality, if one existed) if I could find one at the right price. But I can absolutely see why others, who use their binoculars differently, may come down on the side of the simplicity and handling that muggle binoculars offer.

 

[wllmspd]

People seem to focus on the things that don’t matter most of the time... impact resistance, water resistance, performance in deep twilight. My 12x36 were my main daytime bin until I discovered lower power widefield views for finding things easier (with a scope (Or high power bins) for more reach). If I could still only carry one optic then they would come out with me. They live in a pelicase with spare lithium batteries, if I ever run out. The detail you can see with the stabilisation on is great, One handed use is easy... the latest III model is reckoned to even better. Mine has a touch of the sticky coating (after 15?yes) but Armorall and baby powder keep it in check. If They were to stop working, I would most likely replace them.

Peter

 

[18000bph]

If They were to stop working, I would most likely replace them.

Replace with another 12x36 or try a different model?

 

[wllmspd]

Same one, why change, the new version is reckoned to have even better IS. It’s also cheaper than the newer rounded models, I might see if there were any other benefit, but given I have a nice case to store it, a direct replacement would be easiest.
It’s a pity more people don’t benefit from a stabilised view, but in guess people go with what others have and I’ve only seem another IS put birding once or twice... I smile that someone else appreciates the stable views.

Peter

 

[AlanFrench]

We have a pair of 10x30 IS we bought in June, 2001, and they are still in fine shape and work perfectly. I used a pair of 12x36 IS II from December, 2004, until February, 2019, as my main birding glass. They were still working fine, but had some of the "melting" on the top, when I replaced them with the new 12x32. My old 12x36 are now with relatives and, last I heard, were still working fine.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[SLLBF]

I've owned and enjoyed my Canon 10x42 L for a decade or so, ever since Canon introduced the product. The optical quality is superb. They are heavy and bulky, but the image stabilization is effective. My binoculars have been trouble-free. I use lithium AA batteries in the binoculars.

 

[etudiant]

I've owned and enjoyed my Canon 10x42 L for a decade or so, ever since Canon introduced the product. The optical quality is superb. They are heavy and bulky, but the image stabilization is effective. My binoculars have been trouble-free. I use lithium AA batteries in the binoculars.

My wife bought me my first pair in 2008, before a trip to Peru. They served me superbly for a decade and then the IS went wonky, perhaps because I had been using rechargeable batteries, which have lower voltage.
Canon fixed them, after several iterations, but the water proof aspect had suffered as well, so I bought a new pair.
Imho, these are still the best birding binoculars available, solid, great optics, decent FoV and the spectacular IS capability.
I guess it is sort of a tribute to the marketing effectiveness of Zeiss and Swaro that their obsolete designs are still considered world class. They are not, as long as they lack IS.

 

[Jonno52]

A few weeks ago, I somehow knocked my 10x32s off the window sill. They fell two feet onto a well padded footstool, and from there another foot onto thick carpet. The IS still worked and all was well, except that the LED didn't work. There was no way of seeing at a glance if the IS was still engaged.

Though the batteries (which came with the bins last October) had been working OK, I removed them and put them back to see what would happen. Still no light. I put in two new Duracells, but no luck. Finally I took the Duracells out, used a Jumbo blower to puff air into the battery chamber, then put them back. The light now worked perfectly, and has done ever since.

I held off from trying IS bins a long time: the beauty of good conventional bins is that they have nothing that can go wrong. But the 10x32s have transformed my viewing and while I have a look through my 10x42 SVs occasionally to admire the sheer quality, I can't hold them steady. So the Canons stay in a place where they're unlikely to get knocked again.

 

[mwhogue]

The accounts of sticky degradation of the rubber armor, eyecups that aren't compatible with the human face, ergonomics of a toaster oven, stories of unresponsive customer service from Canon, lack of water resistance, awkward placement and actuation of the IS button, small focus wheel, and maybe some things I'd forgotten, have kept me from buying Canon IS binoculars over the years in spite of their glowing reviews by their advocates. And all that doesn't even consider the potential long term fragility of the things, being electronic devices after all, as compared to the elegant simplicity of conventional bins.

I'm revisiting the idea of buying them now as I've little doubt the views they provide are great. But I'll likely pass again for the reasons already mentioned.

Rather than start a new thread I suggest a lash up but workable, inexpensive fix for regrettably deteriorating armor on Canon IS models. After 7 years the armor on my 12x36 IS III began to get sticky and gooey but only in spots where my hands most often come into contact with the armor. I used Dragon Grips grip tape to cover those spots. The tape covers up and adheres well even on the sticky goo armor and provides extra grip as a bonus. This tape also works well to provide extra grip surfaces on pocket knives, tools, and canes so it's versatile and useful for many different applications.

Otherwise my Canons continue to function perfectly after 7 years of fairly frequent use.

Mike

 

[edwincjones]

I could easily and carelessly drop any of my optics and destroy them, but the joy of use overcomes the fear of loss.

edj