Impressive youtube 10x42is video (1 Viewer)

[james holdsworth]

When and if Canon comes up with a version of the 10x42 IS L with 2015 ergonomic design, I'll be among the first to upgrade to it. However, the current one is far from being a terrible field binocular. It is just like Etudiant says, clunky, and weight wise about the same as most 50mm premium roofs. The balance is good, the eyecups are okay once you realize that they should not be twisted out but rather supported against the brow fully or almost fully in, the focus is smooth and precise (very smooth, and fine in freezing cold as well) but rather slow, and it has something (beside the IS) that no other alpha has: a tripod attachment thread at the the balance point under the binocular body, whereby a Finnstick can be used without any adaptors whatsoever.

I have used a Canon 10x42 in the field extensively since 2007, and every time I use something else I miss the Canons, that's how terrible they are.

Kimmo

Seriously, you can use that tiny focus wheel with gloves on in the winter? Canon must listen to you, as they seem to think they are just fine as is, as well. Oh well, as is means completely ignored by almost everyone.

 

[Binastro]

. Last night was very clear and transparent for a change.
After doing some observing, I thought I'd check whether the Canon 18×50 really switches itself off after 10 seconds when pointing vertically down.
As I thought, with the one that I use, which is probably more than 10 years old, it took about five minutes before it switched itself off while leaving it pointing vertically down on the table. The angle maybe a few degrees from the vertical the way the body is shaped.

It may be that current production Canon 15×50 and 18×50 binoculars switch themselves off after 10 seconds when pointing vertically down, I don't really know. It may be that they have also modified the stabilisation system, but I have nothing but praise for the one that I use. The image is not as bright as, say, a very good 15×60 standard binocular, but as far as handheld resolution is concerned I don't think that any standard binocular can get anywhere near it.

 

[etudiant]

Seriously, you can use that tiny focus wheel with gloves on in the winter? Canon must listen to you, as they seem to think they are just fine as is, as well. Oh well, as is means completely ignored by almost everyone.

The tiny focus wheel works adequately, even when wearing Marmot winter mittens. At least that is my experience.
The focus wheel could of course be bigger, but it turns readily enough that the adjustments are easily made.
Really, there is no argument that the Canon's ergonomics need improvement. But to emphasize these aspects without also considering the huge performance gains the IS makes possible seems illogical.

 

[kabsetz]

James,

It is just like Etudiant says. The focus wheel is small in diameter, and placed too far towards the viewers' eyes so that the forefinger needs to be stretched a bit if your hands are placed at the balance point (a bit like in Swarovisions). But the movement is smooth and light enough, and it is easy to turn with gloves or even mittens. Could easily be better but works.

But the binocular gives a stable image, which no other binocular does.

The eyecups are too large, and have non-rounded edges that feel uncomfortable against your eye sockets. Eye relief is fine without glasses and barely adequate with, and if you have anything like a thick nose, it may not fit between the extended eyecups. I either extend the cups only a couple of millimeters, or leave them fully in and support the top of the eyecups against my brow and tilt my head ever so slightly forward for optimum eye-relief. A bit of a hassle but not too bad. Works just fine.

But the image is stable like in no other binocular.

They are also heavier than any 42mm binocular, about the weight of an average 50mm roof, and they look decidedly odd. Even the 15 & 18x50 models were more elegant for my tastes. Holding them is not a problem, though, and I have often noticed that I get a more stable view with them even without the IS than with most normal roof prism binoculars. One reason may be that the body is narrow, almost forces you to hold it on top of your cupped palms, and because of the Porro II prisms and odd ipd adjustment, the body comes almost an inch lower compared to the optical axes (i.e. your eyes) than with normal binoculars, meaning that your arms don't have to be held as high.

But really, the point is that these are the only binoculars that give a view like it was on a tripod while you are hand-holding them.

Kimmo

 

[james holdsworth]

The tiny focus wheel works adequately, even when wearing Marmot winter mittens. At least that is my experience.
The focus wheel could of course be bigger, but it turns readily enough that the adjustments are easily made.
Really, there is no argument that the Canon's ergonomics need improvement. But to emphasize these aspects without also considering the huge performance gains the IS makes possible seems illogical.

My point is, the buying public picks up a bin - finds it blocky, heavy and a bit uncomfortable to find a good view - puts it down and moves on. 1st impressions count for alot.

That was my experience with the 10x42 L when I tried a pair in the Dry Tortugas. I found the view nice, IS worked well although I did see some flickering but I found it hard to get a comfortable position with the eyecups, had some blackouts and found the focus wheel too small and hard to use. I have never looked back, maybe my loss but the binocular didn't fit me well and probably never would.

 

[G_Lintz]

This has been an interesting read for me as I've been using the Canon 10 x 42s for a while now and although they're big and clunky I can see much more detail with these than with none stabilised bins ( I also have Nikon EDG and Leica Ultravid, both of these rarely used since I bought the Canons). Use them with the eyecups not extended - the fact that the eyecups are so big actually helps as the upper side can be rested steadily against my eyebrows. Carried with a "bandolier" style strap over the shoulder I can carry them comfortably all day. Am surprised that no other birders around here seem to use them....

 

[etudiant]

My point is, the buying public picks up a bin - finds it blocky, heavy and a bit uncomfortable to find a good view - puts it down and moves on. 1st impressions count for alot.

That was my experience with the 10x42 L when I tried a pair in the Dry Tortugas. I found the view nice, IS worked well although I did see some flickering but I found it hard to get a comfortable position with the eyecups, had some blackouts and found the focus wheel too small and hard to use. I have never looked back, maybe my loss but the binocular didn't fit me well and probably never would.

A very helpful insight, first impressions and ergonomics really matter. Still am surprised birders are so easily deterred from embracing a more capable optics alternative.
Suggests that Canon would need to find ambassadors in the birding community to help build recognition/acceptance. Peter Dunne did that in a memorable way for Nikon's EDGs. There are plenty of top notch field guides, ornithologists and field researchers who would be very happy to participate.
Unfortunately, both Canon and Nikon are currently preoccupied by the decline in their core photography market, so neither is spending much effort on sport optics.

 

[Hermann]

This has been an interesting read for me as I've been using the Canon 10 x 42s for a while now and although they're big and clunky I can see much more detail with these than with none stabilised bins ( I also have Nikon EDG and Leica Ultravid, both of these rarely used since I bought the Canons).

Quite right. My impression is that even with the "lowly" Canon 10x30 you'll always get more detail than with any alpha 10x42 in handheld use.

Sure, the 10x30 is certainly not a pair that will be able to withstand rugged use in the field, nor will it work in wet conditions given that it's not really weatherproof at all (in fact, it leaks like a sieve), but the optics are more than good enough to ensure you'll get more details with the stabilizer switched on.

Hermann

 

[Scruffie]

Sure, the 10x30 is certainly not a pair that will be able to withstand rugged use in the field, nor will it work in wet conditions given that it's not really weatherproof at all (in fact, it leaks like a sieve),

Hermann

I have had, and used the 10x30's really hard for quite a few years on my hunting trips. When backpacking. always carried in my Badlands Binocular case on my chest. When road hunting, usually found bouncing on the dash of my truck. I can honestly say that I have beat the pisss out of them and they still work as well as the day I bought them. Last year I bought the next model up, the 12x36 Canons specifically to be used on my regular 14 day Sept. Northern British Columbia/Yukon fly/packin Dall sheep hunt. Had always used the 10x30's the years before, but was looking/hoping for a little more spotting range with the 12x36's. (think the 10x30's served the purpose just as well,after the fact) 2 weeks in the bush/alpine in all types of weather, snow, sleet, rain they performed admirably. Never babied and never worry about what the weather is when I used them. These Canons, while providing excellent stabilized optics, are a lot tougher than a lot of people think.

 

[Stanbo]

I think many look at the Canons the wrong way. As reading this forum confirms, most binocular users find optics important, but [in the end] ergonomics trump all - ease of use, eye relief, weight, etc.

The Canons [like the 10x42 ISL] should be considered excellent optical devices but terrible as field binoculars. Weight, bulk, eye relief, eye cup shape and size, focus ease, portability, perceived fragility, complexity, poor warranty and the general lack of suitable ergonomics dooms the Canons, not users ''head-in-the-sand'' mentality or ignoring something that is ''obviously'' better.

Now, a 10x42 ISL packaged in something akin to 2015 ergo.s, and not 1980, might just turn the tide.

James,

Thanks for the advice in the first sentence.

I couldn't understand why the image was so poor through IS's, but now I have turned them round, it is amazing!

Stan