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
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
I have on loan a pair of Canon IS 10x42 L. So this morning I had hem out to view the Pleiades for limiting magnitude. Did side by side comparison with Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50, Nikon SE 10x42 and Zen Ray summit 10x42 roof.
Sky brilliant, naked eye mag 5.4
Fujinon 10x50 saw mag 9.8 and 10.05 easily, directly and constant. Saw mag 10.25 averted, numerous times.
Canon IS 10x42 saw mag 9.6 easily. Saw mag 9.8 but not always seen. Saw mag 10.05 only averted and only glimpsed a few times.
Nikon SE 10x42 saw mag 9.6 easily. Saw mag 9.8 directly, but again not always seen. Also noticed 9.8 averted. Saw mag 10.05 averted several times, easier than Canon.
ZRS 10x42 roof saw mag 9.6 directly numerous times. Saw mag 9.8 numerous times averted. No 10.05
All the above mounted
Canon IS 10x42 handheld with IS saw mag 9.6 directly but only suspected seeing mag 9.8 a few times.
ed
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Mark9473
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 3220
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
That's an impressive array of optics, EdZ. The Canon held its ground very well I would say.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63; Docter 15x60
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Canon 10x42 L IS RESOLUTION.
using USAF 1952 line pairs resolution charts
Canon 10x42 normal 8.6 arcsec, boosted 5.4 arcsec,
Fuji 10x50 normal 8.1, boosted 3.8
Nikon SE 10x42 normal 8.1, boosted 3.6
ZRS 10x42 rp normal 8.6, boosted 3.8
The Canon boosted resolution was tested several times just to insure there was no mistake. Image was blurred, almost as if all line pairs were double imaged. Actual decent image was 6.1 arcsec. The reading of 5.4 listed here was poor, barely discernable.
The Fujinon and the Nikon SE left no doubt when precise focus was achieved. I found the Canon the most difficult to focus precisely, never being able to achieve what I would refer to as pinpoint focus.
Out of a dozen 10x binoculars, half have equal or better normal resolution.
Out of a dozen 10x binoculars, ten of them have a better boosted resolution, only two were worse than the Canon.
Canon handheld (IS engaged) 10.8 arcsec. The best 10x handheld after the Canon was the Nikon SE 10x42 which was just one step higher, 12 arcsec. Several other 10x binoculars were between 12 and 13 arcsec.
With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution. The two 12x binoculars that I tested handheld, the Nikon SE and the Nikon AE, equalled the 10.8 arcsec handheld resolution of the Canon IS 10x42.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12911
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
< With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution > ---
--- and albeit only by the slightest discernible margin , I suppose that is the one reason why some would claim it to be the very best option currently available for hand - held 10x binoculars !
For me though , taking into account the ungamely relative bulk / unfriendly ergonomics of the instrument , and the fact that batteries are required , that there is more chance of " something " going wrong with the electronics / mechanical components , the restricted warranty and of course it's much higher price , the Nikon SE 10 x 42 probably represents better value for money .
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
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Kenny,
I follow your arguments favoring the Nikon 10x42 SE and for the most part agree with you.
We have to ask Ed which he would rather use for handheld astronomy use. At night, looking at pinpoint sorces of light, I suspect the Nikon would be much harder to use than the Canon.
In daylight viewing, I would agree the Nikon would be hard to beat.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4071
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
It's funny how some people are so biased to the Canon IS binoculars and have all kinds of lame excuses for not getting a pair. 
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 12911
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Thanks Joe !
You've just won me a little bet with my better half :-)
BUT -- only just in the nick of time !
When I'd posted my message above I bet her the price of a set of lens caps ( not supplied by Canon ! ) that a man called Joe would post a response within 4.5 hours :-)
Besides , I thought I gave five reasonable reasons as opposed to lame excuses -- and I didn't even mention the fact that the Nikon SE shows superior resolution when mounted !
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
|
MrJim
member
Reged: 08/24/09
Posts: 55
Loc: Mansfield, Texas
|
|
Joe,
Looking at your equipment list,would you typically choose the 10x42L IS WP for casual handheld stargazing?
--------------------
Jim W.
CPC 1100
SV90TBV
PST
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
No lame excuses here, I've had a 10x42L for quite a while now. I showed half a dozen people in my office the moons of Jupiter for the first time with it. These were people who never did astronomy before and they all said how easy the Canon was to use with the IS on compared to with the IS off.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 14732
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
The Canon is easy to use with IS engaged. It really slows down the jitters.
However, I find it hard to bring to a precise focus, both day and night. And it does not have the resolution or contrast of the Fujinon 10x50 or the Nikon SE 10x42.
Among other dsos, I viewed M42, M78, M31, NGC7789, M33 and a number of double stars. For image quality, on all of them I would rate the Fuji 1st, the Nikon SE 2nd and the Canon 3rd.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
Luigi
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 4947
Loc: MA
|
|
>>>Canon IS binoculars and have all kinds of lame excuses for not getting a pair.<<<
Owned a pair of 15x50 IS for about a year and didn't like them. I didn't like the bulk, weight, eyecups, and the fact that IS significantly reduce resolution over what they bins could do without IS when steadied with my elbows on something, one of the hand holding them steadied against a limb, or door or window frame, etc.. I found I always preferred to take along and use other bins in my collection. Perhaps those are all lame excuses for me selling them. 
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1768
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Ed,
I may sound like a nudge, but do you mean that you prefer to use the Fuji or Nikon handheld over the Canon?
As far as optical quality goes I'm not surprised that the Fuji's and Nikon's are superior to the Canon's and probably everything else as well.
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
Rick
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 3050
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
I think if Ed is having trouble getting good focus, especially with IS OFF, this is an indication the bino is in need of repair or replacement.
I have seen way too much IQ variation amoung top brand binos and spotters to pass judgement based on just one sample. If you can't try before buying it really is important to buy from a dealer with liberal return policy in case you get a dud.
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4071
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Joe,
Looking at your equipment list,would you typically choose the 10x42L IS WP for casual handheld stargazing?
I use them as a finder for my mounted astro binoculars or binoviewer/scope combo. My favorite use for the 10x42L's is for tracking aircraft flying their landing patterns to Newark airport from my backyard and they are by far the best that I have seen for that.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 4071
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Joe !
You've just won me a little bet with my better half :-)
BUT -- only just in the nick of time !
When I'd posted my message above I bet her the price of a set of lens caps ( not supplied by Canon ! ) that a man called Joe would post a response within 4.5 hours :-)
Besides , I thought I gave five reasonable reasons as opposed to lame excuses -- and I didn't even mention the fact that the Nikon SE shows superior resolution when mounted !
Kenny
That is a total joke that you are somehow going to see alot more in the 10x42 Nikon SE's than the 10x42L's with Canon L series optics.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED,Meade 102ED APO,Orion EON 72,120ST
Apex 127,C6 XLT,CR150,C9.25,XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL,Canon 10x42L IS WP,15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45, Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
17mm Ethos, 22mm Nagler, 40mm Pentax XW, 14mm Pentax XL, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 8-24mm Pentax XL Zoom
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
< With IS engaged, the Canon beat all other 10x binoculars for handheld resolution >
Quote:
and albeit only by the slightest discernible margin
Ummm ...
If the 8% difference between 8.1 and 8.6 is considered to be a big deal, moving all the way from the very best 10x binoculars down to the middle of the class, then the 9% difference between 10.8 and 12 can hardly be called "the slightest discernable margin."
But in any case, I don't see how one person's handheld tests can be very useful for anybody else. People vary wildly in their handholding technique -- and probably also in the physiological stability of their hands.
For me -- maybe not for anybody else in the world -- the difference between any of the Canon IS binoculars with IS engaged compared to any handlheld binoculars without IS is so vast that it's simply not worth discussing. A totally different experience.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1276
|
|
For standing up flatfooted swaying in the breeze, sure I can understand the advantage of IS, even at 30mm.
But I'm a confirmed lean back in the chair with back, head, and elbows braced user. As far as I'm concerned, I have to observe that way to get comfortable enough looking near zenith to take my time and see much anyhow. And in the process, my 10x50 Fujinon gives a view that is really steady, to be perfecly honest not truly motionless, but so motionless that I am quite satisfied with the stability. And compared to a 10x30, I have about 3x the light gathering power.
Tony, do you really prefer the small IS even for that kind of usage?
Ron
|
Les
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/22/06
Posts: 731
Loc: Maryland
|
|
Quote:
For me -- maybe not for anybody else in the world -- the difference between any of the Canon IS binoculars with IS engaged compared to any handlheld binoculars without IS is so vast that it's simply not worth discussing. A totally different experience.
You're hardly alone. 
--------------------
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
|
DJB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1590
Loc: Lisle NY
|
|
Hi Kenny,
I agree with you that the IS design in that something could go "wrong" the very next time that I turn them on. But, at its price point, I would really be P.O., should that happen.
Concerning the batteries, I use Eneloop NiMH cells, and I have never had to replace them yet. Odd, even to me.
Just my observations, and I am happy with my two Canon IS binoculars--even tho I don't buy Canon digital cameras. Go figure.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
But I'm a confirmed lean back in the chair with back, head, and elbows braced user.
Me too, assuming that a chair (preferably a lounge chair) is available. Second best is lying on my back on the ground, which is a pretty decent approximation.
Quote:
In the process, my 10x50 Fujinon gives a view that is really steady, to be perfecly honest not truly motionless, but so motionless that I am quite satisfied with the stability. And compared to a 10x30, I have about 3x the light gathering power.
Tony, do you really prefer the small IS even for that kind of usage?
I'd say that I *especially* like IS in this usage. When I'm well braced and steady, the IS really locks the binos -- almost indistinguishable from having them on a tripod. The difference between that and having them pretty close to steady, as you describe, is *huge*.
Do I prefer them to 10x50s? Hard to say. Remember, I don't own Fujinons, and maybe the difference between those and my Celestron Ultimas might push me over the edge. For viewing galaxy fields, the extra light-gathering capability of the 10x50s gives them the edge. For viewing double stars and open clusters, the stability of IS gives the IS 10x30s the edge. They're both extremely enjoyable experiences -- and quite different.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
|
4 registered and 12 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: 1558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
