• 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.

Just received a 10x42L (3 Viewers)

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
Different strokes for different folks.
Some prize the optical performance in the field, Canon 10x42ISL.
Others prize lighter weight, comfort and wide FoV, Swaro 8x42 or equivalent.
It is not a crusade, just a mild disagreement among optics aficionados.
 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
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.
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.
 

Oscar56

Well-known member
My pair of 10x42s arrived yesterday.

The stabilization is quite fantastic. For me, neither the ER nor the comfort of the eye guards are an issue without glasses.

skies are forecast to be clear tonight which will give me a opportunity for a star test.
 

Loddar

Well-known member
I did it too.
i ordered a 10 to 42L.
first I wanted to buy Swaro NL 10 to 42 or NL 10 to 32 with forehead rest. I had NL 8 to 42 and unfortunately a lot v.g.
And the small NLs seem to have a problem with that too. Therefore I wanted to buy then SLC 42 or 56 in 10.
but somehow I have to admit to myself that I can not 10 times binoculars reasonable still.
altough I have Canon IS 10 to 30 an 8 to 20 I am a bit nervous as the “big“ Canon is.
 

Hermann

Well-known member
Any comments on availability in Europe? Over here in Germany I can't find the 10x42 at a reasonable price from a trustworthy dealer.

Hermann
 

Loddar

Well-known member
@66 on idealo at the moment around 1400€. And partly probably not availabl.
Mine is a showcase model from a dealer about 100 km away where I saw it by chance and just briefly took it in my hand and looked throug. Size of a brick and also heavy. But optics is probably promising.
and as they so beautifully: wichtig ist was hinten rauskommt.
by the way: I paid nearly 1200€.
a lot of money for a canon. But what does a NL cost, or a SF or a Noctivid - all without stabilization....
 

forent

Well-known member
Poor me, I would love to use the 10x42 IS but unfortunately I can't:
"It's the ergonomics, stupid!"
 

PlayFreeBird

Active member
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...
 
Last edited:

Hermann

Well-known member
... 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.
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.

Hermann
 

kabsetz

Well-known member
I have both the Canon 10x42 L IS and a Nikon SE 10x42, and prefer the image quality of the Canon also without IS being factored in. My Nikon is from the 1990's, so it does not have the latest version of MC on its glass, but other than that it is a very good unit.

Kimmo
 

PlayFreeBird

Active member
Should have written that better - the weight is equivalent.
I'm assuming paying more for great rather than very good optics is a separate and minor consideration compared to the boost from IS.
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
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...
Canon will sell you the needed parts, so you don't need to jury rig anything.
Just email them and they will tell you the part numbers to order. I had to do that some time back, it was quick service and inexpensive.
 
I just got a bunch of binocs to decide what to keep, the Canon 10x42L among them (some of the others being Zeiss 10x32SF and 10x42SF). The comparison is maddening and interesting!

The most interesting outcome is that for me the IS is "the only innovation that matters" while my wife barely notices the difference in stability between the Zeiss and the Canon with IS. Now her eyes always jitter, even if she fixates on something. I believe we all do this to some degree, but her eyes do it a lot. So I have the feeling her brain must be trained to smooth out those jitters already and she gets little benefit from the IS. Interesting...

For me the IS is a revelation, but Canon botches it in the ergonomics. I have a relatively close IPD plus a big nose and can only see the full FoV if I turn the eye cups down and jam the whole thing into my nose. Really? Also, I bird in California and almost always wear sunglasses outdoors. With the Zeiss SF there is no degradation in the FoV with eyeglasses at all, with the Canon the view becomes a tunnel.

In the end, the 10x32SF weigh 1/3 of the 10x42L, are significantly smaller, give me a better view without glasses and a vastly better view with, and they don't bang up my nose. Yup, they cost more, but I can overcome that. I'm concluding that after being enlightened about "the only innovation that matters" I'm being excluded from those that can actually enjoy it. Darn!
 
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.

Regards,

Dave
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.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top