Trouble with the Canon 10x42 IS-L is, it keeps falling farther and farther behind the alphas in optics because Canon has not made any improvements to it either optically, mechanically and especially ergonomically. Binoculars are not Canon's bread and butter, cameras are. I think most would agree that even the older Swarovski EL had the edge optically over the Canon, and now with the NL the gap in optics is getting wider and wider, with the NL having a much bigger FOV and much better transparency and immersivity than the Canon. The Canon's puny 6.5 degree FOV is miniscule compare to the huge 7.6 degree FOV of the NL. The Canon 10x42 IS-L is more of a replaceable consumer appliance, like a toaster. Swarovski and Zeiss will never make an IS binocular like the Canon because they are dedicated to making the very best optics and with today's technology you will never make an IS binocular that will match an NL in absolute optical performance. If you want a rock steady NL, you put it on a tripod. Then it will blow a Canon 10x42 IS-L all the way back to Japan.Oh, I can tell the difference no trouble, but the Canon is good enough optically plus has the IS, which transforms the experience imho.
I've not been bothered by the focus delay or the image shift aspects, they are momentary and I fiddle with the focus constantly in any case, something that the Canon's very slow (3 3/4 turns lock to lock) focus encourages.
If Swaro or Zeiss were to offer an NL or an SF with IS, I'd be the first to buy that, but they don't. I don't know why, they certainly both have the needed technical chops. I assume the issue is system longevity and perhaps packaging. .
Meanwhile, IS remains a massive enhancement for birding and Canon's 10x42ISL is the best IS glass I've been able to find.