Roger Vine's review of the Canon 10x42 L IS (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Roger has just posted a review of Canon's top of the range IS model the 10x42 L, at: Canon 10x42IS Review
(thanks to William Lewis for the heads-up)


It complements his reviews of other Canon IS models: the 10x30; 12x36 II and III; 14x32; 15x50, and; 18x50.
See at: Binocular Reviews


In general, the added electronics and mechanicals tend to make an IS binocular around 'one size larger and heavier' than otherwise
e.g. the 30 oz Swarovski EL SV 10x42 (not a small x42) and the the 40 oz Canon 10x42 IS:


From Chuck, in post #3 at: swarovision 10x42 vs canon 10x42 is


And also for visual comparison, the Meopta 12x50 HD and the Canon 12x36 IS III:


From Roger’s review of the 12x36 IS III.


John

 

[Richard D]

Reads as a well balanced review

 

[Canip]

All of Roger‘s reviews read as well balanced reviews - for my taste sometimes even too well balanced 😉

 

[William Lewis]

I like Rodgers reviews, sometimes I get tempted by his conclusions or to be more precise tempted to verify them with my own eyes in case I'm missing something.

The only element I usually take with a pinch of salt is his c.a assessments, these seem to be getting better though, he previously didn't seem to notice it much off axis in binoculars I can clearly see it very clearly in.

 

[kabsetz]

An Excellent review by Roger, as usual. I've been wondering when he would get around to reviewing these, as he had reviewed almost all of the other Canon models already.

As someone who has used this binocular as my primary binocular observing tool as well as a known reference when testing other binoculars for almost as long as these have existed, I find myself in agreement with almost everything Roger writes. It is indeed a very well-balanced and perceptive review. However, unlike Roger, I don't find almost any rolling ball in these while panning, and for me, the slow focus has not really been a problem. On my units, the rubber armouring has also been quite durable and is still serving well. I agree with Roger that the diopter adjustment is not particularly refined, but I tend to leave it in its unlocked position since this allows me to set it precisely where I want it without being limited by the .25 diopter steps of the notches, and when used like this it is quite smooth and also tends to stay where I set it well enough.

The one omission in the otherwise excellent review is discussion on the tripod thread, which is a most useful feature for extended viewing, both during daytime like in migration watch, or during the night. The possibility of using a finnstick simply threaded to the bottom of the binocular with no hassle with clunky adapters is quite a bonus.

 

[Hermann]

As someone who has used this binocular as my primary binocular observing tool as well as a known reference when testing other binoculars for almost as long as these have existed, I find myself in agreement with almost everything Roger writes. It is indeed a very well-balanced and perceptive review. However, unlike Roger, I don't find almost any rolling ball in these while panning, and for me, the slow focus has not really been a problem.

I don't see any rolling ball in the Canons either, and while I sometimes think the focus might be a little bit faster, I generally much prefer a slower focus to a fast one. A slow focuser is a lot more precise than an fast one.

The one omission in the otherwise excellent review is discussion on the tripod thread, which is a most useful feature for extended viewing, both during daytime like in migration watch, or during the night. The possibility of using a finnstick simply threaded to the bottom of the binocular with no hassle with clunky adapters is quite a bonus.

Agreed, that's a serious omission. Another omission is that he doesn't mention the filter threads that make it easy to attach any filter and, potentially even more useful, lens hoods to the objective lenses.

Another point: I find using the Canons with glasses works pretty well. The eyerelief is sufficient with my glasses.

hermann

 

[Conndomat]

Eye relief too short for glasses wearers, for me the deal breaker.

Andreas

 

[Hermann]

Eye relief too short for glasses wearers, for me the deal breaker.

Well, I don't find it too short ...

Now what?

Hermann

 

[Conndomat]

Well, I don't find it too short ...

Now what?

If Rogers measurements of 13mm. EP. If the position is correct, 80-90% of those who wear glasses should not be able to use the entire field!
You reported that you got extra tight-fitting glasses, which is of course positive, but it doesn't work for everyone because facial features are quite different.
It is also of crucial importance whether you are far or short-sighted and how deep your eyes are.

I also have very tight fitting glasses but need an EP of 16mm. so that it works well, binoculars that are suitable for people who wear glasses should also be usable for far-sighted people, otherwise they are only of limited use.
13mm. are a nogo for me.

Now what?

Andreas

 

[Hermann]

13mm. are a nogo for me.

If his measurements are correct ...

Hermann

 

[William Lewis]

I suppose its the age old try them to see if they fit method. I don't wear glasses but they didn't fit me......

 

[etudiant]

I'm quite near sighted, with a 6 diopter correction. This binocular delivers a full field view for me, with the eye cups fully retracted and resting on my glasses.
It may be that far sighted glasses generate a different effect.

 

[Conndomat]

If his measurements are correct ...

Hermann

Canip measured one millimeter less!

Canon 10×42 IS WP – Binoculars Today

Andreas

 

[exup]

I'm quite near sighted, with a 6 diopter correction. This binocular delivers a full field view for me, with the eye cups fully retracted and resting on my glasses.
It may be that far sighted glasses generate a different effect.

I am ~-6.5 and the 10x42Ls are one of a limited range of bins that can be used without glasses. For me, they also work with glasses, if required.

Interestingly, the 12x36s and 18x50s also work without glasses, whereas the 15x50s are on the limit for infinity focus.

I too see minimal rolling ball.

 

[John A Roberts]

Expanding on Andreas' post, Canip has measured the useable ER on various Canon IS models.
See at: Canon – Binoculars Today

And in order, from greatest to least:
15.5 mm 12x36 III and 10x30 II
13.5 mm 14x32 and 10x32
13 mm 8x20
12.5 mm 12x32
12 mm 10x42 L

So for some, perhaps one significant advantage of the older x36/ x30 design.


John

 

[has530]

It may be the peculiarities of my face shape but I find the 15x50 IS to have just the right eye relief... with the cups rolled down and no glasses! I have no trouble with eye placement or blackouts and find the wide eyepieces rest comfortably against my nose at just the right distance. With the eyecups up I lose about 1/3 the FOV and I can't imagine trying to use them with glasses!

 

[BayBirder]

I wear glasses, and the eye relief is not great, but just good enough. I found that one pair of glasses, which I guess is closer to my face and smaller, work a lot better. The benefits of the IS outweigh the eye relief issue, but it would be great if it was better. Still the best bins in the world in my opinion.