Like often before, I'm largely in agreement with Yarrellii's postings in defence of IS.
As many here know, my hobby for nearly three decades now has been to review (and therefore also field-test and to a degree, bench test) binoculars and spotting scopes. I don't own a collection like Pinac and many others here do, but have field-tested just about every top-tier binocular and many of the mid- and lower tier models as well. For me, it is important to see as much detail as possible, and also to see it well. Aesthetics of the image is one of my chief requirements.
Prior to the 10x42 IS L, I used the 15x50 IS as my primary binocular for several years. That model excelled in detail retrieval, but did not satisfy my aesthetics criterion. There was too much CA, and contrast, brightness and colour rendition also left too much wanting. Over the years, improvements in coatings have improved the image of the 50 mm Canons, but not to a point where I'd yet re-purchase one. The 10x42, providing you have a good, well-aligned unit, does reach the alpha level in major image-quality areas and for me provides the most aesthetically pleasing overall image, as the alpha-level image it provides does not shake.
What many people say about the weight and ergonomics is true. If Swarovski were to come out with a model that had the optics of their 10x42 NL Pure and the stabilisation of the Canon in a body of an EL range or even a 56mm SLC, I would buy it in a heartbeat for its better ergos and wider FoV, but the difference in optical quality would otherwise be marginal. This I know since every time I test anything I use the Canon as a reference. Lighter weight would be nice, but doing some pull-ups and pushups a few times a week nicely compensates for that, and has other benefits to boot.
As a contrafactual, I could propose an alternative world where all binocular have always had IS. A hypothetical company called Zeicavski introduces a revolutionary new concept: a binocular 250g lighter than any other alpha and with fantastic image quality! And it needs no batteries! But there is a small-print downside - it has no Image stabilisation. As a tester, I would laugh at such a ridiculous idea, and upon closer inspection would concede that the product would make sense for some explorers and outdoors people for whom every gram matters, but even then would caution that the drawbacks are so severe that you really, really must try before you buy. I actually own one of these binoculars in the Leica Ultravid 8x20, and there are times when I would take the Leica instead of a Canon. Except that now that our family also has a Canon 8x20 IS, I don't even take the Leica to theatre and concerts anymore. Come to think of it, perhaps running and cross-country skiing would be the only remaining activities of mine where the Leica would be my choice.
All this said, I really like and appreciate the current cream of the crop of the European muggle binoculars. They are beautiful examples of industrial design and manufacturing precision (well, mostly precision - let me not go to sample variation here), and bring me great joy to use, as long as I can reach out for the Canon when it really matters.
- Kimmo
