• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Just received a 10x42L (1 Viewer)

Oscar56

Well-known member
I tested 8x42NL and 12x42NL earlier this week. Very nice glass and oh so comfortable to hold. Now I understand what the commotion is all about. But that sticker price!

unfortunately there are no bricks and mortar shops within a 5 hour drive where I can test Canon IS. i was really hoping to test the ergonomics and EPs in person. This afternoon I placed an internet order which will hopefully be here next week.

and if the ergonomics do not work then back they go.
 

Dave3006

Member
United States
Again, what is the reason for a pair of binoculars? Answer - to see things at a distance. The Canons are infinitely better than the NL pure handheld. So, unless the Canons burn your hand or you can’t physically lift them, they are the better choice.

A pair of sunglasses are lighter and more ergonomic than the Canon 10x42 IS. If ergonomics is the driving factor, you should pick sunglasses.
 

Oscar56

Well-known member
Again, what is the reason for a pair of binoculars? Answer - to see things at a distance. The Canons are infinitely better than the NL pure handheld. So, unless the Canons burn your hand or you can’t physically lift them, they are the better choice.

A pair of sunglasses are lighter and more ergonomic than the Canon 10x42 IS. If ergonomics is the driving factor, you should pick sunglasses.
😕why wouldn’t ergonomics be part of the decision criteria?
 

Dave3006

Member
United States
Ergonomics are a consideration between two binoculars that are equivalent optically.

Why choose an inferior product just because it feels better?

.........The goal is to see things.....

I almost feel like people need to repeat that sentence a thousand times over and over so they don’t get confused about what is important.
 

Binastro

Well-known member
The statement is factually incorrect.

The large majority of bird watchers use non IS binoculars.
Many could buy IS binoculars if they so choose.
They choose not to use IS binoculars.

Some use a mixture of non IS binoculars and IS binoculars.

Some use only IS binoculars.

The choice is there, fortunately for the user.

There is more to binoculars than IS.

B.
 

Dave3006

Member
United States
Truth is not determined by a majority vote. There are plenty of reasons why someone would not choose the superior option of IS. When someone admits that IS is superior to a traditional binocular, they also have to admit that all their traditional binoculars are obsolete. Most people mentally can't accept that.

You can choose whatever you want. Just don't kid yourself that you can hold a traditional binocular as steady as an IS binocular. You can't. You get a superior view with the Canon IS.

Some campers like to start a fire rubbing two sticks together. It works. But, a zippo lighter is faster and better.
 

Binastro

Well-known member
You may not be aware that I have been using numerous IS binoculars for over twenty years.

I use them when IS is important.

For other uses non IS binoculars are the better choice.

Ergonomics and weight are important factors also.

Traditional binoculars are not obsolete for the people who prefer them.

The camera I mostly use is an 8 Mp compact camera.
I have much more complex system cameras.

B.
 

Canip

Well-known member
Truth is not determined by a majority vote. There are plenty of reasons why someone would not choose the superior option of IS. When someone admits that IS is superior to a traditional binocular, they also have to admit that all their traditional binoculars are obsolete. Most people mentally can't accept that.

.......
......

......

!!!!!
 

Dave3006

Member
United States
The Canon 10x42 eye cups are nice. They work perfectly and are adjustable. You might be thinking of the eye cups on all their other IS models. I sold my 10x32 Canon IS binoculars because the eyecups were terrible. They made the binoculars unusable for me. They physically hurt to use them without glasses. And, they don’t have enough eye relief with glasses.

The Canon 10x42 IS don’t have this problem.
 

pm42

Well-known member
Most people mentally can't accept that.
Funny to read that from someone who cannot accept any kind of nuance.
I bought Canon IS binoculars, tried others, still have some Nikon. IS is great, no question but comes with a cost: size, weight, need for battery, terrible Canon eyecups, etc.
So I ended up using non IS binoculars.
The day someone will integrate IS into something as convenient to use as a NL Pure, I'll sell my Swaro and buy it.

Others will have a different opinion and that's fine. But no need to pretend that their choice is "superior" or that "they can't accept that" which is a terrible things to say (although ironic somehow).
 

Dave3006

Member
United States
Some things are superior. The Canon 10x42 will give you are better view handheld than the NL pure. That is beyond dispute.

It seems that many of you aren’t really interested in seeing what you claim to be interested in seeing. You are more interested in the process over the product.

All of this is just an excuse to be out doing something. Not really about seeing things better.

I am right and you know it.
 

Hermann

Well-known member
It's all a question of what you find important. The 10x42 has optics as good as the best binoculars out there. They undisputably show you more detail than any 10x binocular handheld. At the same time the ergonomics are by no means ideal. And they are heavy.

You decide what you want.

It's as simple as that.

Hermann
 

Hermann

Well-known member
A zeiss 20x60 S has double the mag of the canon 10 and is gyro stabilized....everyone should use those...
That's a totally different kettle of fish:
1. The Zeiss is even heavier.
2. The optics aren't as good as those of the Canon.
3. The stabilizer of the Zeiss isn't as efficient as that of the Canon.

Also 20x is too much magnification in many situations. And too little compared to a scope. So you'd need a low power binocular + the Zeiss + a scope.

Did you actually ever use the Zeiss in the field?

Hermann
 

Binastro

Well-known member
I have used the Zeiss 20x60S but not specifically for birdwatching.

It is heavier and bulkier and more difficult to use than the Canon 10x42L.

The central resolution is far better than the Canon 10x42L.

It has a curved and not particularly wide field

The stabilizer is efficient, at least on the example I used.

The performance is similar to a tripod mounted 20x scope.

According to the reasoning in post 55 it must be the best binocular to use and everyone knows it.

I think that it is the best binocular I have used, but not practical for me nowadays.

Regards,
B.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top