Binastro got it...if you want the best - weight, ergos, impracticality are irrelevant. Of course this isn’t true for most of us but that’s the point.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.
Well, there are nowadays not many porros that can match the optical quality of the Canon - even without the stabiliser. In fact, I can think of only one, the Habicht 10x40 which has its own quirks. The Nikon 10x40 SE has long been discontinued. And all those cheap porros out there don't come close to the Canon IME.... the Canon's are essentially equivalent to any 10x42 porro with a monopod. Of course the button is 20 times as convenient as flip locks (and to be fair, the Canon can track and stabilize which a monopod could never) , but you are always carrying it, and I'm not sure I can justify 10 times the price of decent porros.
Canon will sell you the needed parts, so you don't need to jury rig anything.Almost joined the dark side...
Have been seriously thinking about the 10x42 L's and saw a used pair at half list from a reputable used specialist. Jumped on it without asking questions - probably always a mistake. They arrived quickly - just the binocs, no accessories. Not unexpected, but probably a mistake on their part as if I had a strap, I might of rushed out of the house with them and fallen in love. But no. They were used. Real used. Like someone tossed them onto the bed of a sandy pickup and drove the coast of California. The contact points on the bottom were abraded to the metal, as well as elsewhere. It was weird as the objectives were pristine. I suspect maybe a vigorous scrubbing of sticky armor? Unfortunately the eyepieces were not so lucky. There was a 1/4 inch double scratch in the right one. I could see it if I looked, although to be fair the difference between it and my floaters was that I couldn't chase it... But then I got curious why the left eyepiece kept moving, took off the rubber cover, and discovered the eye relief tube was shattered and the guide pin missing. You guys weren't kidding when you said the eyecups were a national disgrace.... I wear glasses and could epoxy it all down, but that's a kludge too far. I can afford brand new ones, so this is going back.
Now I'm rethinking the whole thing. Yes the IS is fantastic. I looked at the smoke detector in the adjacent room, hit the button, and could read the warning label. The eye ease is decadently luxurious compared to my current workhorse, the Monarch 7 8x30's. But I love the Nikon's size, weight, and close focus. All the boxes the Canon's do not check. In fact, I looked at webiights, and the Canon's are essentially equivalent to any 10x42 porro with a monopod. Of course the button is 20 times as convenient as flip locks (and to be fair, the Canon can track and stabilize which a monopod could never) , but you are always carrying it, and I'm not sure I can justify 10 times the price of decent porros. And those ghastly eyecups...
The abysmal ergonomics (for me), lousy eyecups and poor diopter adjustment (that regularly unlocks) and heaviness all aside, I find that I reach for the Canons most of the time despite having ready access to several European alphas that offer a slightly brighter image and with greater contrast and “snap.” The IS simply allows me to see more detail, and thus provides a more pleasurable viewing experience.Hello all,
I Just got these and I'm reasonably impressed so far.
The optics appear to be up there given first impressions.
Image stabiliser does quite a decent job although I have noticed a slight blurring effect after panning which seems to settle down once settling on a position. I assume this is normal?
I never thought I'd go for a stabilised binocular but these have been on my radar for quite a while.
Happy to answer questions and give impressions on these if anyone is interested.
In my limited experience, the Canon service for IS binoculars is indeed marginal at best. It probably reflects the reality that this segment of the business is small and peripheral to Canon's operations. Fortunately the basic product is quite robust, good for a decade of hard service in my case before needing repair/replacement.The abysmal ergonomics (for me), lousy eyecups and poor diopter adjustment (that regularly unlocks) and heaviness all aside, I find that I reach for the Canons most of the time despite having ready access to several European alphas that offer a slightly brighter image and with greater contrast and “snap.” The IS simply allows me to see more detail, and thus provides a more pleasurable viewing experience.
There does seem to be a bias against IS/VR in the birding world. I know of only one other birder who uses them. A curious field observer who asked to use my 10x42IS claimed that he did not see a difference with IS (rather odd given that he is prone to shaking). Although not inexpensive by most standards they are about half the cost of a Noctivid, SF, SV or whatever Nikon decides is their alpha of the month. And considering the cost of Swarovski’s NL line is north of $3,000 the Canons might be considered a comparitive bargain. I suspect some still consider IS gimmicky despite being used in cameras and lenses for decades. I suspect too that for many they are simply too heavy for day-to-day use even with a proper bino harness system. As I age I might decide that the Canon is just too heavy and trade the IS view for a shakier one albeit in a lighter, more compact form. (Or quit the 10x42 and switch to one of Canon’s smaller IS models). They are not the sexiest binoculars out there either; in fact they are downright ugly. I suppose like most things one’s mileage will vary.
However, beware of Canon service. I had a bad experience very recently that isn’t resolved. Hopefully you will not need Canon to service your unit anytime soon.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, Canon requires a minimum payment of about $500 for the repair effort, subject to increase if additional problems are found. In my experience, they did not do well and after several tries, the glass was functional but no longer sealed, so condensation happened inside.Any repair on a Canon binocular in the U.K. is guaranteed for 6 months.
So Canon U.K. could not charge more for a faulty repair.
They probably would not refund shipping and insurance.