Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

I wonder if these newer rechargeable lithium batteries would work in the Canon. I use them in my telescope mount.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07HQ7QV7W/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Canon names three types of batteries that can be used in the 10x42: lithium, NiMH rechargeables and alkaline. If you want to be on the safe side, you'd better stick to them.

I would never use lithium rechargeables in my Canon. Period.

Hermann

 

[Sancho]

Thanks Paul, excellent review and very fair. I've changed my mind many times over the last twenty years, but now I use Canon IS (10x or 8x) almost exclusively. My 10x42 may not be optically as beautiful as my Nikon SE, but the IS feature wins hands down. If out for a casual stroll I use Canon IS 8x20 because it fits in a jacket pocket. Optically it's obviously mid-range, but again outperforms anything else in my stable (including my beloved Zeiss FL 8x32) in terms of seeing the object with stability. But other people prefer other binos, and that's grand because there's nothing like variety! And as I think someone said about 15 years ago on BF, if you go out with non-IS binos, you don't really notice its absence....you just automatically try and steady with your hands (or MOLCET) as best you can, and get on with it. One tiny, moany, petty complaint of mine is that because the IS system takes a few milliseconds to kick in, it's a little harder getting on to LBJs that are flitting about in foliage or under cover. But that's a minor quibble. Yesterday, there was an airshow in the town where we live (a pretty lousy one because the three main acts didn't show). We were up on the headland watching over the bay, and I had brought my Canon IS 10x42 and my Nikon SE 10x42. My wife hogged the Canons. 'Nuff said.

 

[Paultricounty]

Thanks Paul, excellent review and very fair. I've changed my mind many times over the last twenty years, but now I use Canon IS (10x or 8x) almost exclusively. My 10x42 may not be optically as beautiful as my Nikon SE, but the IS feature wins hands down. If out for a casual stroll I use Canon IS 8x20 because it fits in a jacket pocket. Optically it's obviously mid-range, but again outperforms anything else in my stable (including my beloved Zeiss FL 8x32) in terms of seeing the object with stability. But other people prefer other binos, and that's grand because there's nothing like variety! And as I think someone said about 15 years ago on BF, if you go out with non-IS binos, you don't really notice its absence....you just automatically try and steady with your hands (or MOLCET) as best you can, and get on with it. One tiny, moany, petty complaint of mine is that because the IS system takes a few milliseconds to kick in, it's a little harder getting on to LBJs that are flitting about in foliage or under cover. But that's a minor quibble. Yesterday, there was an airshow in the town where we live (a pretty lousy one because the three main acts didn't show). We were up on the headland watching over the bay, and I had brought my Canon IS 10x42 and my Nikon SE 10x42. My wife hogged the Canons. 'Nuff said.

Hey Sancho, I agree it’s all about variety. Sometimes we’re in the mood for chicken sometimes we’re in the mood for fish or steak. I think we have to put up with that little bit of focus lag if we want IS, just like we put up with other things on non-iS binoculars. It’s possible the next generation will improve on that little hiccup. My wife can’t hold the 42’s, but a 20 or 36 IS may work for her.

I gravitate more to the 8x and sometimes 7x more than 10’s, mostly because to me they seem a little bit more comfortable. The 10’s I use the most are the NL & SE in 42. Although I’m having a lot of fun with these canons.

I’m considering a 15x50 or the Fuji 14x40 instead of the new Zeiss SFL that I’ve had my eye on. I really should save some money for retirement though 🤪

thanks for the compliment on my write up.

Paul

 

[Hermann]

My wife can’t hold the 42’s, but a 20 or 36 IS may work for her.

Ýou may want her to try the Canon 8x20 IS. Nowhere near as good as the 1042, not waterproof and with a smallish field of view, but you still get more detail than with a premium 8x30/32.

I gravitate more to the 8x and sometimes 7x more than 10’s, mostly because to me they seem a little bit more comfortable.

I'd buy a 7x30/32/35 Noctilux (or even an 6x30) in a heartbeat. I almost always carry a scope anyway, so a high quality, light 6x or 7x with a decent exit pupil would make a lot of sense for my purposes.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

Ýou may want her to try the Canon 8x20 IS. Nowhere near as good as the 1042, not waterproof and with a smallish field of view, but you still get more detail than with a premium 8x30/32.

I'd buy a 7x30/32/35 Noctilux (or even an 6x30) in a heartbeat. I almost always carry a scope anyway, so a high quality, light 6x or 7x with a decent exit pupil would make a lot of sense for my purposes.

Hermann

My wife preferred binos of choice , 7x35 retros her favorite, then E2’s then UV8x32.

Paul

 

[John A Roberts]

You could be correct about the flat field creating more 3D effect because the Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX is a flat field porro, and it has more 3D than almost any porro I have seen.

Hi again Dennis,

So the Fujinon's far greater objective offset - compared to all the other binoculars discussed - is not the obvious factor? 🤷‍♂️
See a quick combined image of an FMTR-SX 10x50 and a Habicht 8x30 (the objective axes at the top are in line).


John


The Habicht image is from Tobias at: greatestbinoculars: Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W binoculars review

 

[dries1]

Nice pics John, that Fuji 10X50 is a wonder on the night sky, one of the very best 10X50 views.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks Paul, excellent review and very fair. I've changed my mind many times over the last twenty years, but now I use Canon IS (10x or 8x) almost exclusively. My 10x42 may not be optically as beautiful as my Nikon SE, but the IS feature wins hands down. If out for a casual stroll I use Canon IS 8x20 because it fits in a jacket pocket. Optically it's obviously mid-range, but again outperforms anything else in my stable (including my beloved Zeiss FL 8x32) in terms of seeing the object with stability. But other people prefer other binos, and that's grand because there's nothing like variety! And as I think someone said about 15 years ago on BF, if you go out with non-IS binos, you don't really notice its absence....you just automatically try and steady with your hands (or MOLCET) as best you can, and get on with it. One tiny, moany, petty complaint of mine is that because the IS system takes a few milliseconds to kick in, it's a little harder getting on to LBJs that are flitting about in foliage or under cover. But that's a minor quibble. Yesterday, there was an airshow in the town where we live (a pretty lousy one because the three main acts didn't show). We were up on the headland watching over the bay, and I had brought my Canon IS 10x42 and my Nikon SE 10x42. My wife hogged the Canons. 'Nuff said.

The canon 10x42 IS-L are great for air shows and airplane spotting. Glad to see you are still enjoying your Canon 8x20 IS.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi again Dennis,

So the Fujinon's far greater objective offset - compared to all the other binoculars discussed - is not the obvious factor? 🤷‍♂️
See a quick combined image of an FMTR-SX 10x50 and a Habicht 8x30 (the objective axes at the top are in line).


John


The Habicht image is from Tobias at: greatestbinoculars: Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W binoculars review

View attachment 1459861

Nice picture. Too bad the Fujinon is IF. It is a dealbreaker for birding.

 

[[email protected]]

Hey Sancho, I agree it’s all about variety. Sometimes we’re in the mood for chicken sometimes we’re in the mood for fish or steak. I think we have to put up with that little bit of focus lag if we want IS, just like we put up with other things on non-iS binoculars. It’s possible the next generation will improve on that little hiccup. My wife can’t hold the 42’s, but a 20 or 36 IS may work for her.

I gravitate more to the 8x and sometimes 7x more than 10’s, mostly because to me they seem a little bit more comfortable. The 10’s I use the most are the NL & SE in 42. Although I’m having a lot of fun with these canons.

I’m considering a 15x50 or the Fuji 14x40 instead of the new Zeiss SFL that I’ve had my eye on. I really should save some money for retirement though 🤪

thanks for the compliment on my write up.

Paul

Get the Zeiss SFL 8x40. I had it out birding today. It is amazing! So cool to have a 5 mm EP and a 22 oz. weight. The colors are amazingly true to life. I have never seen such detail in the plumage of a Bald Eagle. I didn't realize their feathers had that many shades of colors. I have been retired for 10 years now. I don't worry about money. I will never spend it all before I die. HaHa!

 

[exup]

I’m considering a 15x50

As you know, I have the 18x50 which is the same size/ weight to the x15.
These too are big and heavy, not dissimilar to the 10x42L. They are good for long range, high mag viewing, but the x18s need a steady hand i.e. IS is on the limit, still a Wow experience, but needs well braced to get the best. Obviously a non IS bin at this mag would need a tripod and then the scope debate comes into play.

For a lighter option, I choose the 12x36 III.
Really pleasant to use, optically not as good as the 10x42L, but still gives a very good IS "enhanced" image. A light and cost effective option; if some CA and not 'waterproof' are accepted compromises.

Never tried the smaller and lighter IS options....yet.
Fuji looks interesting, could be worth a look. However, I'm just looking at the SFL 8x40 .....🤔

 

[Tote]

I feel curiosity for the IS.
Canons are discarded. I´ve been suffering a 10X42 BA during years and want no more bricks.
Kites look promising. I tested two in a shop (10X30 and 12X42). They appealed to me except by their second-class optics and their narrow exit pupil. I don´t know why they don´t make more `normal´ ones: 10X42, 10X50...
I´ll continue to save my money for a while.

 

[exup]

I feel curiosity for the IS.
Canons are discarded. I´ve been suffering a 10X42 BA during years and want no more bricks.
Kites look promising. I tested two in a shop (10X30 and 12X42). They appealed to me except by their second-class optics and their narrow exit pupil. I don´t know why they don´t make more `normal´ ones: 10X42, 10X50...
I´ll continue to save my money for a while.

Yes, totally understandable.. .. future solutions are inevitably going to be better.

I would offer a 'optical tools' ranking as follows:

1. Spotting scope on tripod.
2. Alpha bins on tripod.
3. IS bins handheld.
4. Alpha bins handheld.
5. .........Beta, Gamma..... Omega....

IMHO, this 'viewing' ranking also ranks in the same order as inconvenience. So, if the size/weight/view combination of Alpha bins is what one is comfortable with, then that best fits their use case best.

 

[Elpha8888]

If you own the Canon don't look through the NL Pure, it'll blow your socks off.

 

[exup]

If you own the Canon don't look through the NL Pure, it'll blow your socks off.

I don't have an NL.

Have you a 10x42L?

Reviews like Paul's are very valuable, to bring together both genres.

 

[Elpha8888]

I don't have an NL.

Have you a 10x42L?

Reviews like Paul's are very valuable, to bring together both genres.

I have the 8x42 NL, the Canon was just not enjoyable for me, the stabilization however was marvelous and I do believe in some form it is the future.
Yes the review was excellent 👍

 

[Paultricounty]

Get the Zeiss SFL 8x40. I had it out birding today. It is amazing! So cool to have a 5 mm EP and a 22 oz. weight. The colors are amazingly true to life. I have never seen such detail in the plumage of a Bald Eagle. I didn't realize their feathers had that many shades of colors. I have been retired for 10 years now. I don't worry about money. I will never spend it all before I die. HaHa!

Lol. Dennis you just have to find more expensive hobbies. If you’d like I could help you with that, I’ve been considering a small Cessna, 4 passenger would acceptable. I’ll let you take it every other week emend if you invest. 🤪

 

[Hermann]

If you own the Canon don't look through the NL Pure, it'll blow your socks off.

I did. Different models. No, they didn't knock my socks off. In fact, I decided I wasn't even interested in them.

So what?

Hermann

 

[kimmik]

I did. Different models. No, they didn't knock my socks off. In fact, I decided I wasn't even interested in them.

So what?

Hermann

Both technologies will blow people's socks off - in different ways. No need to go here again.

I bet you Canon cannot beat Swaro in the same format no matter how hard they try, just like Swaro cannot beat Canon in IS no matter how hard they try. Both are leaders in their field with much up their sleeves, and others are trying to catch up.

 

[Elpha8888]

I did. Different models. No, they didn't knock my socks off. In fact, I decided I wasn't even interested in them.

So what?

Hermann

Were you looking through the right end? 😀
Out of interest I would love to know what binoculars you scan the night sky with, if at all?
I am smitten with my Pures, not perfect but as good as it gets for me. The Eii also gets an honourable mention.