Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Recently, I had an opportunity to try two Nikon 10x42 LXs, one for a month (thanks, Walter!), and one for a few days. I have now tried FIVE sample LXs: two 10x42s, two 8x32s, and one 8x42 LX. The focuser tension was different on all five samples, from my loosey goosey first sample 8x32 LX to my tight as a drum second sample 8x32 LX and everything in between.
With the LX's FAST focusers (less than 1 turn for full sized and 1/2 turn for mid-sized), the focuser MUST be precise to keep from overshooting the bird or animal and having to turn back to get sharp focus. Wears out my finger and patience after awhile.
The second sample store demo 10x42 LX I bought off eBay had a somewhat loose focuser, with about 1/2" slack, and a poorly multicoated element on one side (paler and different colors than the same element in the other barrel). So even at this TOP GUN price, there are some sample variations.
BUT -- the 10x42 LX was the brightest roof, sharpest roof, and had the BEST contrast and color saturation in any 10x bin I've tried, including two ED objective porros (9.5X44, 10x50).
Being a roof, the apparent image size was larger than a 10x porro (btwn 11-12X), making hawks flying overhead look so much like Rodan that I started speaking out of synch with my lips. :-)
You can find more info about the 10x42 LX on Cloudy Days in the 10x42 SE vs. 10x42 LX thread.
While I lust for a 10x42 LX L, I'd prefer to try one in person, given the sample variations. Though the ergonomics are very good for my BIG mitts, the 10x30 IS was more comfortable, and porros in general fit my hands better than roofs. Not sure about the 10x42 IS L, which looks like my old Brownie Hawkeye camera!
IF anyone on CN has compared these two excellent premium binoculars DURING THE DAY, please post your comparative impressions, regarding:
1. Contrast
2. Color Saturation (how vibrant the colors are)
3. Apparent Brightness
4. Focusers (too fast, too slow, or Goldilocks? good or bad location?)
5. Sample variations in mechanical, optical, or in the case of the 10x42 IS, the stability between samples
6. Ergonomics
7. Weight/Handling (either LX or LX L)
8. FOV (comparing the LX to a 10x42 SE, the LX appeared to have 65* AFOV, though the list is 60*).
9. Edge Performance (the LX appeared sharp to 85-90% off axis, which is close the figure I've read for the 10x42 IS L)
I won't even ask about CA since the IS L, being a porro with UD glass, would blow away the LX roof except for those lucky individuals who never see CA even with cheap roofs.
Thanks!
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
Edited by brocknroller (10/03/06 11:43 AM)
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2457
|
|
Hi, Brock-
While I cannot give you any comparison information as you requested, I can comment on a couple of questions you raised.
#4: Focusers- They are wonderfully smooth, linear and a slow enough ratio to make you go "Ohhhhh... sweet !" Which is exactly what a friend of mine at work said when I showed him my new 10x42L IS's this morning.
#6/7: Again, I cannot speak on a comparative scale- but I can tell you that the Canon's are very comfortable to use... someone else in my previous thread commented on trying them on a tripod, and my reply was that was one of the things that's so cool with them- is that you don't need to. Viewed the Pleiades & Orion this morning- was stunned bu the beauty of the view. I am amazed that with only 42mm of light gathering power, such a beautiful view of the night sky is possible. I find no issues of ergonomics or weight hand-holding these.
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
Rich V.
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 985
Loc: Carson Valley, Nevada USA
|
|
Quote:
Being a roof, the apparent image size was larger than a 10x porro (btwn 11-12X), making hawks flying overhead look so much like Rodan that I started speaking out of synch with my lips. :-)
Sorry, Brock, this is OT in regards to your question, but I've read this before about roof image scale vs. porro and I just don't get it! I can switch back and forth between a 10x roof and a 10x porro and I see 10x mag with both! How does this perception of greater scale with roofs come to be? If you look through a roof with one eye and a porro with the other and align the images it's clear the scale is the same.
Just wondering,
Rich V
--------------------
Binoculars:
33-150x100 Saturn III, 16x70FMT-SX, 10x50 PCF-V, 10x43 DCF-SP, 10x35 E2, 7x35 E, 8x30 E2, 7x26 Custom, 8x23AS Diplomat, 8x23 Travelite
Scopes:
C9.25, 6" f8 reflector, SV80S
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< I've read this before about roof image scale vs. porro and I just don't get it! I can switch back and forth between a 10x roof and a 10x porro and I see 10x mag with both! How does this perception of greater scale with roofs come to be? If you look through a roof with one eye and a porro with the other and align the images it's clear the scale is the same. >
Inspired by this same myth , I have also carried out several experiments , comparing the image scales through , for example , the Zeiss 7 x 42 Roof and Helmsman 7 x 50 Porro , only to find the magnification to be equal .
If anything , BEFORE the tests , I was of the impression that the scale was slightly larger through the HELMSMAN Porro !
I found this to be an illusion probably created by the combination of a narrower field of view and more distinct field stop in the latter .
That said , it is certainly not unknown to find binoculars which do NOT actually magnify to the extent stated , and a binocular which magnifies , say 10 times at INFINITY may only actually magnify around 9.5 times at closest focus .
Much depends on which method is used to calculate the magnification .
The results of those extensive binocular reviews published by our Polish friends a while back indicated some VERY notable variations from the stated magnifications of some very highly rated , expensive models .
I seem to recall that amongst them , the celebrated Fujinon 16 x 70 was reportedly measured at closer to 14x TRUE magnification , although I believe " Professor " EdZ disputed that claim later .
I know the Orion Expanse 7 x 32 which I reviewed earlier this year magnified images about 0.5x LESS than either the Zeiss or Helmsman 7x , and as result I declared it to be a 6.5 x 32 in reality .
I concluded that in THAT case , the reduced magnification was contributing to the EXTREME wide TRUE field , which was still below that stated anyway ( and reducing the stated APPARANT field of view ) rather than necessarily being a feature of REVERSED PORRO prism binoculars , per se .
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2457
|
|
...Sheesh.... 
...Here I thought this was supposed to be FUN!
Wes
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Kenny said
Quote:
That said , it is certainly not unknown to find binoculars which do NOT actually magnify to the extent stated , and a binocular which magnifies , say 10 times at INFINITY may only actually magnify around 9.5 times at closest focus .
This is true. It will vary from one binocular to the other, but the concept is true. At close focus they will all give a lower magnification. I've measured the difference in magnification from infinity to close focus on at least a half dozen binoculars.
If you are seeing a difference in magnification when two binoculars are focused on the same object at the same difference then there IS a difference in magnification, and it has nothing to do with what kind of prisms are involved. I have three different 20x80 binoculars that (as close as I can measure) have magnifications of 18.5x80, 20x80 and 20.75x80.
I would consider anything else a myth.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
..Sheesh....
...Here I thought this was supposed to be FUN!
Wes
Yeah, me too, but some folks have different ideas about how to have fun. And that's okay, as Cicero used to say "Suum Cuique" (to each his own).
IF the porro vs. roof APPARENT magnification difference is a "myth" , it's a myth in the original sense of the word, a story that is intended to impart a moral lesson, in this case, ANYTHING you say on CN that has to do with PERCEPTION and can't be measured objectively with a calibrated instrument is likely to picked to death like Prometheus' liver. :-)
Hence, why I post more on Cloudy Days where the day crowd is more qualitative than quantitative in orientation. More fun for me, anyway.
But to give this "myth" some balance, if you browse through the dozens upon dozens of posts on birdforum.com, you will find many, many members, from newbies with cheap roofs to diehard birders with second mortgage premium roofs who will swear on a stack of Bibles (or Humanist Manifestos, as it were) that they SEE a larger image in roof vs. the same configuration porro. Also check out reviews by "expert" Steve Ingraham on BVD, who says the same thing.
I saw this larger APPARENT magnification when I bought a Celestron 8x32 Noble, and posted my comments about it on CN. Edz wrote that he read reports of this phenomenon.
And this was before I ever read about the "myth" so I had a hard time believing my eyes, or as Kenny suggested, I thought the EPs might not be configured as they should be.
Perhaps not totally objective (since the magnification scale could be off on the zooms), I compared the views through the Noble with a Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zoom porro, and at close range, the Noble's image scale was just shy of 10x, and at longer distance, about 9x.
Contrarily, when I compare my CZJ 8x50 Octarem with my 8x32 SE, the image scale in the Zeiss appears SMALLER than in the Nikon. And these were not casual glances, I went back and forth between these bins and looked at as many different objects under different lighting conditions as I could until my arms got sore. Yeah, I can have a different notion of having fun, too! :-)
From reading both expert and amateur opinions about this phenomenon, the consensus seems to be that it is an optical illusion, NOT due to the differences in prisms, but rather due to the simple fact that the barrels are closer together on roofs than they are on porros. Thus, inverted porros also show this same larger apparent magnification.
The important thing again to note, that this is an "optical illusion" or if you prefer a PRECEIVED difference in magnification, not an actual difference. The roof won't resolve more detail than the same configuration porro (unless, of course, the optical quality is much better).
The reports that Kenny and others CANNOT see any difference in image scale between roofs and porros of the same configuration, I would ascribe to similarities in THEIR perceptions rather than poo-pah the idea or call it "mythic". Of course, that's easy for ME to say, since I SEE the diffrence!
Another example of differences in PERCEPTION is how the barrel distortion on the 8x42 LX really bothers me whereas others don't see it or they see it initially, but quickly adjust to it.
Maybe vision specialists have a way to measure differences in perception objectively, I doubt it since this happens inside the brain, but you can show OBJECTIVELY that the full sized LXs have almost NO pincushioning at the edges of the field (straight lines remain straight), and therefore there is no optical property to counteract the natural barrel distortion of curved lenses.
In the case of full sized LXs, they are already as sharp as it gets (the 8x42 LX resolves as much detail at 60 ft. as the 10x42 SE), I'd post the RAF SOA #s, but one of my liver enzymes is a little high, so I'd better not.:-)
I'll let Steve M. do the honors if he dares!
In any case, I'm quite content to "believe" in my mythic roof apparent magnification, I wish you all could believe it too, I'm sure you'd enjoy the BIG picture. At least for terrestrial observing, at infinity, I can't see this difference, which supports the close barrel hypothesis.
BUT, what I REALLY want to know is how these two premium binoculars compare for TERRESTRIAL USE in regard to the factors I listed in my original post. Thanks.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
Henry Link
sage
Reged: 03/31/04
Posts: 316
Loc: Greensboro, NC
|
|
I'll second Brock's impression of higher magnification in binoculars with closely spaced objectives compared to widely spaced even when the actual magnifications are identical. I think this illusion is discussed more by birders because it is very strong at close distances which are used more in birding and birders use roof prism bins and reverse porros more than astronomers. I think anyone will see it at 10' or less particularly if you compare binoculars with extremely different objective spacing like a small reverse porro vs.a 50mm traditional porro. It continues for me to surprisingly long distances. It's still pretty obvious at 100' and detectable at 200 or a bit more. The purely personal theory I've offered about this is that the brain estimates the actual size of an object in part based on triangulation. The long base between porro objectives makes a triangle with the observed object that suggests to the brain that the object is closer and therefore absolutely smaller than the same object in a roof or reverse porro. This explanation also works for Brock's impression of higher magnification in the Nikon SE vs the CZJ Octarem. The centers of the Octarem objectives are about 15mm farther apart than the 8x32 SE (135mm vs 120mm at my IPD). I've found that differences of only 5mm in objective spacing can produce this illusion at very close distances.
Edited by Henry Link (10/02/06 08:15 PM)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Brock ,
That slightest HINT of " heatedness " in that last post of yours did NOTHING to take away the special pleasure I ALWAYS derive from reading your posts , which unfailingly contain snippets of information and experience only very few people who frequent this forum would be capable of sharing .
I am NOT suggesting for one moment , that to YOUR ( or anyone else's ) eyes or brain , or both , the " perceived differences " in image scale of ANY two binoculars with the same stated magnification IS , probably for want of a more technically accurate description , " blatantly discernible " .
Probably the MAIN difference between what I am trying to say and what yourself and many other highly respected binocular reviewers have reported is that MY " perceived differences " are not restricted to the Roof v Porro comparisons , whereby the image ALWAYS " looks larger " through the " roofs " than through the " porros " .
Finally , perhaps it was undiplomatic of me to use the word " myth " , which by strict definition DOES imply widely held beliefs in " FALSEHOOD " .
I am , in the final analysis , no more an " expert " in the use of English Language than I am in the technical aspects of binoculars or optics of any nature .
What YOU , Brock , and myself DO have in common , is a genuine interest in BINOCULARS and a passion for expressing our opinions in words .
On BOTH counts , I humbly bow to your superiority !
I am certainly no " expert " in EITHER disciplines .
Kindest Regards , and SINCERE apologies for this series of posts wandering WAY off topic !
I wish I DID have a Canon ISL 10 x 42 AND a Nikon 10 x 42 LXL to compare against each other ! :-)
And , for what it's worth , I have a gut feeling that if I HAD , I would be most reluctant to part company with EITHER !
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Rich V.
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 985
Loc: Carson Valley, Nevada USA
|
|
Quote:
..IF the porro vs. roof APPARENT magnification difference is a "myth" , it's a myth in the original sense of the word, a story that is intended to impart a moral lesson, in this case, ANYTHING you say on CN that has to do with PERCEPTION and can't be measured objectively with a calibrated instrument is likely to picked to death like Prometheus' liver. :-)
Brock, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot or derail your question, it's just that I've heard this before, perhaps from one of the sources you cited, but never noticed it myself. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My take was that since porros MAY have a wider FOV than a roof, the size of an object RELATIVE to that FOV would appear smaller in context, perhaps the source of the "illusion".
Enough on this, I don't suppose YOUR liver has the regenerative properties of Prometheus! ;^)
I, too would love to see a side-by-side of the 10x42LX vs. 10x42IS L! I hope someone out there has been lucky enough to spend some time with both.
And YES, Wes, these forums are about having fun, I don't think too many folks around here take themselves all that seriously! Great discussions, sometimes, though! 
Best regards,
Rich V
--------------------
Binoculars:
33-150x100 Saturn III, 16x70FMT-SX, 10x50 PCF-V, 10x43 DCF-SP, 10x35 E2, 7x35 E, 8x30 E2, 7x26 Custom, 8x23AS Diplomat, 8x23 Travelite
Scopes:
C9.25, 6" f8 reflector, SV80S
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2457
|
|
Hey- I'm not taking anyone seriously! I'm having fun- loving it all- and more importantly, as a novice of just less than a year, I'm learning a lot from you experts! Me- my 58 year old eyes don't have the acuity many others younger than I (and yes, some older than I! )have- others catch things in my optics I don't notice... but I gotta tell ya' I LOVE these new Canons!
Wes
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Sorry if my post was "slightly heated," Kenny, Rich, and others, particularly my comment on CN vs. CD. Could be my fever spilling over into my posts (got a bug). With all the divisiveness in the world today, the last thing we need is divisiveness among binofans. The only real excuse I can make is that I must be an alcoholic and need to check myself into a rehab center :-). Despite being sick and tired, I tried to keep a good humor about our disagreement, and really do believe it is a matter of perception. Either you sees it or you donts.
The more bins I try and the more reviews I read, the more I'm convinced of how important perception is in using binoculars. Not to promote a "demon haunted world" or advocate postmodernism relativism or diminish the efforts of those who painstakingly make technical measurements of various binocular specs, but in the end, the "eyes" have it.
If the 10x42 LX APPEARS brighter to me than a 10x42 SE, which it does, then it doesn't matter if an actual light throughput measurement shows that the porro allows more light through. The only time this fact might be important is in low light or for stargazing where the greater throughput would be helpful (stars appear brighter to me in the 10x42 SE vs. 10x42 LX).
I must confess that even after seeing top roof bins in all their colorful, contrasty larger than porro image glory, and preferring the 10x42 LX over the 10x42 SE, given my LARGE hands, which make roofs harder to hold, presbyopian eyes, which do not accommodate well to fast focusers or short FL roofs, and my preference for 3-D-like images, I am still a "porromaniac". Hence, my interest in the 10x42 IS L, chiefly for wildlife observation, and secondarily for stargazing.
Time for some Echinacea and Tylenol. Goodnight! and pleasant binodreams.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Hello !
Does anyone know the maximal diopter adjustment of these two binoculars: Nikon 10x42 LXL and Canon 10x42 IS L?
Many thanks.
Pyjam
|
Wes James
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/06
Posts: 2457
|
|
The diopter adjustment for the Canon 10x42L IS is not calibrated in any numbers, however there are 3 tick marks +/-, so I would assume that to be +/-3 diopters. The eyepiece will just barely go beyond the 3rd tick mark- not enough to even say 3-1/4. Hopefully someone else can provide you with info re. the Nikon's.
--------------------
Wes
Atlantic Beach, FL
Some bino’s from Miyauchi 5x32 Binon's up through Garrett 20x110 Signature's,
Some telescopes from a Stellarvue 80mm NHNG up through a couple of 8” reflectors…
And a wonderful 4.25" Delmarva Shiefspiegler!
Some good friends, made here on C/N.
Oh- several cats and a wonderful wife!
Anyone want a cat???? :-O
"When your work speaks for itself- Don't Interrupt" -Gamble Rogers
|
Henry Link
sage
Reged: 03/31/04
Posts: 316
Loc: Greensboro, NC
|
|
These marks often don't mean anything, One method I have found useful to calibrate the marks is to focus on an object, then put on a pair of reading glasses with a known diopter value. Now refocus the diopter adjusting eyepiece with its diopter adjuster. The change you see on the eyepiece scale should match the diopter value of the reading glasses.
Edited by Henry Link (10/03/06 09:51 AM)
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
My take was that since porros MAY have a wider FOV than a roof, the size of an object RELATIVE to that FOV would appear smaller in context, perhaps the source of the "illusion". -- Rich V.
Rich,
To tangent off your tangent, it made me think of the comparison I did between the 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX. Comparing Steve Moore's SE to Walter Locke's LX, the FOV in the LX APPEARED wider. I thought this may be due to the different eyecups since I find the wide, fold down eyecups on the SE hard to fit into the orbits of my eyes so I lose some FOV. But then I rolled down the cups on the SE to just a "lip", and left the LX cups all the way up, and I could still see MORE FOV with the LX.
This was True FOV. Looking at asterisms, I could see the "end stars" in the LX while I couldn't or could just barely see them in the SE. I then twisted the eyecups down on the LX, and the difference was even more obvious. I didn't measure how many degrees or arc seconds difference, but eyeballing it, the LX seemed about .5* wider than the SE.
Both bins are listed as having 6* FOV. At infinity the close barrels have no effect, so the larger apparent magnification for terrestrial use can't be the cause. I can't acccount for the difference.
The SE showed brighter, slightly sharper stars, and better contrast on my light polluted skies than the LX, but the wider FOV, more comfortable eyecups, and heavier weight, which helped steady the images better (until arm fatigue set in) made me favor the LX for stargazing. The edge performance of both were VERY good.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 666
Loc: Maryland
|
|
from the cannonusa website:
10x42L IS +/- 3.0 diopters
--------------------
Les
Canon 10x42L IS
Oberwerks BT80/45, Helix Hercules mount on Oberwerks Standard Tripod
Swift 8x44ED Ultralite
Questar 50th Anniversary Model, 501 head on Manfrotto 475 tripod
Stellarvue SV90T 90mm Fluorite refractor Bogen 3236/Televue Tele-Pod Head
Questar 7 Astro
Vixen GP-DX on Baader Surveyor Tripod
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I thank you for your quick answers.
Regarding the Nikon, I believe the answer is on this page : +/- 4 diopters
http://www.optics4birding.com/nikon-premier-lxl-binoculars-review.aspx
Pyjam
|
brocknroller
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/16/03
Posts: 1516
Loc: Liberal, Kansas
|
|
Well a bless my soul,
What's wrong with me?
I'm shakin' like a drunk with a case a DTs,
My friends say I'd better buy an IS,
I'm a mess,
I'm all shook up,
Ah, mm mm, oh, oh, yay, yay!
I'm all shook up.
One of the gorillas I've been wrestling with is the fact that Nikon will warranty its 10x42 LX L binoculars for 25-years while Canon's warranty for its 10x42 IS L is only THREE years. Of course, I'll already shake a bit with 10x bins, in 25 years I will have to mount them on a T & T wheel chair binocular mount.
http://www.benjaminsweb.com/TandT/wheelchair_mount.htm
Canon DOES warranty its cheaper 8x25 IS for TWENTY FIVE years. Why? It's probably cheaper to replace than repair!
Other than the collimation getting knocked out, which is not that likely given their robust build, or an eyecup coming loose, there's not THAT much that can go wrong with a top gun roof (provided you get a good sample) if you take reasonable care of them. But if you DO run them over with a Humvee, no problem, Nikon has a No Fault Warranty. Don't ask, don't tell.
HOWEVER, having owned various electronic devices, I know that A LOT of things can go wrong after awhile, components burn out, wires start to deteriorate and smell (my old Teac 4-track cassette recorder stunk up my closet so bad it took months for me to air it out!), and who knows what else. The battery seal on the 10x42 IS is supposed to be replaced every year or two years?
So a day or a month or a year after the warranty expires, ZAP! Your electronic device goes haywire. So off to the repair shop the TV, the VCR, the air conditioner, IS bin goes. Then you get the bad news. To REPAIR the problem, it will cost almost as much as buying a NEW unit, maybe more! Ugh.
Unless you are only thinking about keeping your 10x42 IS L for three years, you have probably asked yourself, HOW MUCH is it going to cost to repair these wonderful IS bins IF something goes wrong after my warranty expires?
Does Canon offer warranty extensions? Even if they do, I bet they won't extend it 25 years.
So my question is: What happens when the warranty runs out on your 10x42 IS L? Or is this one of those "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" questions? :-)
Interested in hearing your responses (immediately if not sooner). Thanks.
--------------------
Oscar Zoroaster Diggs
"O.Z."
#########################################
"And remember, my sentimental friend....a heart is not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others."
|
rushintuit
sage
Reged: 04/01/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Farpoint Observatory
|
|
I purchased the Canon 10x42L's and they gave me a memorable 2006! I expect they will serve me well again in 2007. I am not concerned with a 25 year warranty or any other hypotheticals. The IS technology is fairly new and very enjoyable! The optical quality is on a par with Zeiss for around half the price. What are you waiting for?
--------------------
/// Stellarvue SV102ED /// Nikon 12x50 /// Fujinon 16x70 /// SkyTools 2 /// The Desktop Universe All Sky CCD Mosaic In Monochrome Mode ///
|
|
4 registered and 19 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 2051
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
