How loose is the diopter on the Canon IS 12x36 IS III? (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

I just bought a new Canon 12x36 IS III and the diopter on the eyepiece seems pretty loose. I mean it doesn't move on its own but if you touch it accidentally it will move. Is that the way it is supposed to be. I don't remember it being that loose on other Canon's I have had in the past. I returned a Canon 10x30 IS for the same reason and this new Canon 12x36 IS III seems about the same, so maybe that is how they are. Any thoughts?

 

[mwhogue]

Dennis sorry to hear but I just checked and no, the diopter on my 12x36 IS III will not move if touched accidentally, it's nice even and smooth with just the right amount of resistance or tension. My wife wanted the 8x25 IS and the diopter function is the same, excellent.

Let us know how it goes.

Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis sorry to hear but I just checked and no, the diopter on my 12x36 IS III will not move if touched accidentally, it's nice even and smooth with just the right amount of resistance or tension. My wife wanted the 8x25 IS and the diopter function is the same, excellent.

Let us know how it goes.

Mike

I think I figured out what the problem is. I ordered a Canon 10x30 IS and a Canon 12x36 IS III from Amazon.com, and I had to return them both because the diopters were way too loose. If you just touch them lightly, they would change in the setting. I noticed both binoculars were Made in Taiwan instead of Made in Japan like they used to be. I never had one single problem with the made in Japan Canon's and the diopters were always tight. So just as a warning, Canon is having at least their 10x30 IS and 12x36 IS III models Made in Taiwan now and obviously the quality is suffering from it. Be forewarned! I have never had a problem in the past with Canon IS binoculars, but after getting two bad ones back to back in different sizes, I wouldn't buy a Canon IS binocular again.

 

[exup]

I think I figured out what the problem is. I ordered a Canon 10x30 IS and a Canon 12x36 IS III from Amazon.com, and I had to return them both because the diopters were way too loose. If you just touch them lightly, they would change in the setting. I noticed both binoculars were Made in Taiwan instead of Made in Japan like they used to be. I never had one single problem with the made in Japan Canon's and the diopters were always tight. So just as a warning, Canon is having at least their 10x30 IS and 12x36 IS III models Made in Taiwan now and obviously the quality is suffering from it. Be forewarned!

I have 2 pairs of 'Made in Taiwan' 12x36s and there is nothing wrong with them. The dioptre does turn easily should adjustment be required, but it has never moved accidently in use for me in a years worth of use.

IMHO there is no 'defect', nor can any assertion be made relating to quality from any specific country of origin. In fact, the iiis which now come from Taiwan might have hardware/software performance updates applied, as some who have experience of earlier models, report improvements in the iii version.

 

[yarrellii]

I've used both a 12x36 ISIII and a 10x30 ISII, both bought new. Although both devices share most components and design, the dioptre setting ring on the 12x36 is terrible (while the 10x30 is OK). I remember I wrote about it when I reviewed the 12x36 here in BF, I have never had a binocular with such a loose dioptre ring. It's really annoying, I have to check it every single day before I use it, and there are some unfortunate days where I have to reset it in the middle of the day because it has drifted due to rubbing against my clothes (I've never experienced anything similar with any other binoculars). However, and this is puzzling, I had a 10x30 IS II and the dioptre ring was perfectly ok and did not move once you set it (under a reasonable use).

So my experience with the 12x36 mirrors Dennis'. Given that my 10x30 (and the above accounts from forum members) seems to point out that there are Canon 12x36 with a perfectly working ring, it seems that Canon's quality control might have been a little too flexible with this.

 

[[email protected]]

I've used both a 12x36 ISIII and a 10x30 ISII, both bought new. Although both devices share most components and design, the dioptre setting ring on the 12x36 is terrible (while the 10x30 is OK). I remember I wrote about it when I reviewed the 12x36 here in BF, I have never had a binocular with such a loose dioptre ring. It's really annoying, I have to check it every single day before I use it, and there are some unfortunate days where I have to reset it in the middle of the day because it has drifted due to rubbing against my clothes (I've never experienced anything similar with any other binoculars). However, and this is puzzling, I had a 10x30 IS II and the dioptre ring was perfectly ok and did not move once you set it (under a reasonable use).

So my experience with the 12x36 mirrors Dennis'. Given that my 10x30 (and the above accounts from forum members) seems to point out that there are Canon 12x36 with a perfectly working ring, it seems that Canon's quality control might have been a little too flexible with this.

Where were the Canon 12x36 IS III and the Canon 10x30 IS II made that you had. I am trying to figure out if the country of manufacture has something to do with the loose diopters. I have never had a Canon IS with a loose diopter before, but they have all been Made in Japan. These two I just received from Amazon, the Canon 10x30 IS II and Canon 12x36 IS III, were Made in Taiwan and they both had loose diopter rings. I have another Canon 12x36 IS III coming today, so I will let you know how the diopter ring is on it and where it was made. Thanks, for the feedback!

 

[mwhogue]

Where were the Canon 12x36 IS III and the Canon 10x30 IS II made that you had. I am trying to figure out if the country of manufacture has something to do with the loose diopters. I have never had a Canon IS with a loose diopter before, but they have all been Made in Japan. These two I just received from Amazon, the Canon 10x30 IS II and Canon 12x36 IS III, were Made in Taiwan and they both had loose diopter rings. I have another Canon 12x36 IS III coming today, so I will let you know how the diopter ring is on it and where it was made. Thanks, for the feedback!

Dennis,

Of course there is sample variation and/or QC issues with all bins. That said, and without casting aspersions, I get the impression that a few samples available on the auction sites and **zon wind up there *because of QC issues, like loose diopters and sub par focus function.

The other possibility as discussed elsewhere is that when the county of "manufacture" is changed, the early units may have issues until the initial bugs are worked out.

Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

Of course there is sample variation and/or QC issues with all bins. That said, and without casting aspersions, I get the impression that a few samples available on the auction sites and **zon wind up there *because of QC issues, like loose diopters and sub par focus function.

The other possibility as discussed elsewhere is that when the county of "manufacture" is changed, the early units may have issues until the initial bugs are worked out.

Mike

Exactly. That is my point. It is just strange that I have never had any QC issues with MIJ Canon's, and now I have had 2 issues with MIT samples. It makes me think it has something to do with the country of manufacture. With good QC, there should not be ANY sample variation between samples. That is what QC is all about. I worked in QC for 37 years, and that is the goal of QC. So when the country of manufacture is changed, the consumer has to tolerate subpar binoculars until the bugs are worked out? The bugs should be worked out before any binoculars are shipped, IMO.

 

[[email protected]]

I received the new Canon 12x36 IS III from Amazon.com, and they are also made in Taiwan, but the diopter was considerably tighter than the first sample, so I am a happy camper. It could be my imagination, but these seem to have slightly better optics also being a tad sharper. So I will be keeping these. They do have quite a bit of CA, especially on the edge, but it is amazing how much detail you can see at 12x with IS. The resolution is off the charts. I can read distant small print on signs that I can't begin to read with my NL 8x32.

 

[yarrellii]

Mine are both made in Taiwan: the 12x36 ISIII is annoyingly loose, while the 10x30 IS II is perfectly OK. As a matter of fact when I first bought the 12x36 it was my first Canon, and the loose dioptre setting was an unpleasant surprise, but I just assumed "that's the way it is" for Canon.
Then I ordered a 10x30 that was treated very roughly during shipping and I returned to get my second and final unit: both made in Taiwan 10x30 were perfectly OK. So I'm not sure one can deduct many things from the country of origin.

My first "good" binoculars were a ("made in Germany", although actually made in Japan -whatever all that means) Conquest HD 8x42 that I bought with great expectations. That far, I had never spent more than 250 € on a piece of optics kit, so it was quite a leap for me... only to find this when they got home:



From then on, I've had good and bad experiences with binoculars made basically anywhere. Yes, I think that (obviously) more expensive binoculars usually have gone through a more exhaustive QC process, but I have amazingly reliable "made in China" binos, while I've seem some not-so-nice things on Zeiss or Swarovski.

Well, that's just my experience anyway

 

[[email protected]]

What is that white spot? Something in the coatings? I don't buy too many MIC binoculars anymore after having quite a few quality problems with them, but you are right in that the alphas are not immune to QC problems, but I find it less likely in most cases. Swarovski used to have focuser problems with focusers that were harder in one direction than the other, or they were sticky. It seems that with the NL, Swarovski has ironed out their focuser problems, and they are actually quite good. Anyway, thanks for convincing me to try the Canon 12x36 IS III again. It is, like you say, not perfect optically like my NL, but when you push that magic IS button it leaves the NL in the dust for seeing detail. It is kind of a "fun"binocular to use because it is like a small spotting scope.

 

[yarrellii]

@[email protected] Sorry if the picture wasn't clear enough. The picture was taken looking from the objective side, so the white circle is simply light coming from the other side that allows you to see a hair (or something similar) on the inner side of the objective lens, which doesn't speak very well of the QC of Zeiss. The binoculars were just bought new in an authorised Zeiss seller. Needles to say, I wrote to the shop and they were exchanged for a brand new pair, but my point was that there is good and bad QC everywhere. Obviously, it will be better in a 500 $ pair, and usually better in a 1500 $, but we've even seen some +2000 $ with issues. I think that's the main issue with very cheap optics. If you manage to get a fine sample, that's great, because with current coatings technology you can enjoy a level of sharpness and contrast that is amazing for the price but:
a) don't expect it to last (especially the mechanical bits: focus wheel, hinge, eyecups)
b) don't expect it to be repaired at all

So, in a way yes, the old saying "you get what you pay for" usually remains true also in the QC department.

The 12x36 for me is quite a humbling lesson. The image quality is really flawed (CA, soft at times, etc.), the ergonoics are terrible, there's no waterproofing, etc. But I can ID more birds and come back home happy with new discoveries than with basically any other non-IS binoculars I can think of. It's such a game of balance between the terrible and the sublime that I somehow find it fascinating (is a bit like life itself! But enough waxing poetry about optics ).

 

[[email protected]]

@[email protected] Sorry if the picture wasn't clear enough. The picture was taken looking from the objective side, so the white circle is simply light coming from the other side that allows you to see a hair (or something similar) on the inner side of the objective lens, which doesn't speak very well of the QC of Zeiss. The binoculars were just bought new in an authorised Zeiss seller. Needles to say, I wrote to the shop and they were exchanged for a brand new pair, but my point was that there is good and bad QC everywhere. Obviously, it will be better in a 500 $ pair, and usually better in a 1500 $, but we've even seen some +2000 $ with issues. I think that's the main issue with very cheap optics. If you manage to get a fine sample, that's great, because with current coatings technology you can enjoy a level of sharpness and contrast that is amazing for the price but:
a) don't expect it to last (especially the mechanical bits: focus wheel, hinge, eyecups)
b) don't expect it to be repaired at all

So, in a way yes, the old saying "you get what you pay for" usually remains true also in the QC department.

The 12x36 for me is quite a humbling lesson. The image quality is really flawed (CA, soft at times, etc.), the ergonoics are terrible, there's no waterproofing, etc. But I can ID more birds and come back home happy with new discoveries than with basically any other non-IS binoculars I can think of. It's such a game of balance between the terrible and the sublime that I somehow find it fascinating (is a bit like life itself! But enough waxing poetry about optics ).

The Canon 12x36 IS III are pretty good binoculars for the money, and the IS works really well. It is like you said hard to use binoculars without IS once you are used to having it. It doesn't seem like it is that complicated to build a binocular with IS. I wonder why Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski don't make an IS binocular. I bet they would sell well.