Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Canon Launch 3 New IS Binos

  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#26 theo98

theo98

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2014
  • Loc: SE La

Posted 04 August 2017 - 10:28 AM

Am I missing something here?

 

I had the 12x36IS 11 and had mixed feelings

-liked the optics and IS

-did not like the ergonomics

 

I am not seeing anything here that excites me.

Am I missing something

 

question.gif

EJ,

 

What's appears missing from the new models are IMO, the 10X42L IS "Attributes". Possibly the extra glass might equal the L-Glass optical prowess and the newest IS system may even beat the 10X42L. But WHERE is the Weather-Proofing to warrant such an increase in initial investment and future high cost repairs???

 

I like the looks and probably would prefer the ergonomic improvements, but I use all my glass in the deep south humidity along with its unpredictable weather...for me, has to be WP!

 

Ted


Edited by theo98, 04 August 2017 - 10:29 AM.


#27 Don H

Don H

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,455
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Near Tucson, AZ

Posted 04 August 2017 - 12:31 PM

 

 

An interesting feature is the dual stabilization system: one button for moving objects, and one button for still objects. I suppose these binoculars are aimed at birders more than astronomers.

Jean-Charles

Interesting, where did you read this information?
 
Thomas

 

On the Canon website:
https://www.usa.cano...lars/12-x-32-is
click on "Powered IS Mode with Microcomputer Control Technology".

Jean-Charles

 

You can also see the 2 buttons on the right lens barrel. Might not be the best location if you are left handed... Still, I am eager to try any of the new models, or get a report on them.

 

Regards,

Don



#28 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,895
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 04 August 2017 - 12:33 PM

.............. I'm surprised that none of the other premium or "alpha" brands offer much in the way of IS binoculars.  Surely eventually...

 

Dave

 

I think that they would-if they believed a market was there.

 

edj


  • Boki likes this

#29 Anders Asp

Anders Asp

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Eskilstuna, Sweden

Posted 04 August 2017 - 02:08 PM

I Just think it would be much better if Canon did a facelift on all the older and make them L-glass and same quality lvl  as the 10x42, this 3 new models seems just not worth it to me.

I had the 15x50 is aw a while bk but sold it and miss it now , if im going to replace it i will not go with any of this new models.

 

I just hope they r darn good coz the price on them r quite high  =/ ...

 

 

/ Anders


  • Stellarfire likes this

#30 BinoDR

BinoDR

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2017

Posted 04 August 2017 - 09:14 PM

As others have mentioned, these have a hugely improved close-focus distance. It seems clear that this round of IS binos are meant to try to appeal to birders. 

 

One thing I have not seen mentioned, do these 3 new models require the user to hold down the image stabilization button when in use? Or is it like the 10x42, 15x50, 18x50, which allow the user to press the button once for up to 5 minutes of continuous stabilization? I really hope the latter. 



#31 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:14 AM

Am I missing something here?

 

I had the 12x36IS 11 and had mixed feelings

-liked the optics and IS

-did not like the ergonomics

 

I am not seeing anything here that excites me.

Am I missing something

 

question.gif

Same question here:
10x32 >> exit pupil 3.2mm (for daylight use ok)
12x32 >> exit pupil 2.7mm (for bright days ok)

14x32 >> exit pupil 2.3mm (which is less than on a 8x20, for very bright sunny days ok)

So binoculars just for bright sunny days ? - or am I also missing something ?


  • dries1 likes this

#32 KennyJ

KennyJ

    The British Flash

  • *****
  • Posts: 38,201
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Lancashire UK

Posted 05 August 2017 - 06:47 AM

I was thinking along the same lines, Pinac.

 

It appears these new 32mm models are aimed specifically at fair weather birders, and very few other types of binocular users. 

 

Kenny


  • Sarkikos and Pinac like this

#33 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,893
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 05 August 2017 - 09:46 AM

Here's hoping Canon is actually using these new models to get some return on R&D, and then will put the new IS system into a much larger pair... c'mon Canon, let's see a 12x50 IS WP! L glass would only be a cherry on top (or cherry off the top as far as the wallet is concerned).


Edited by yokken, 05 August 2017 - 09:47 AM.

  • Stellarfire, SMark, Gyna and 2 others like this

#34 Peacock

Peacock

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Somewhere in the Land of Dorothy

Posted 05 August 2017 - 08:30 PM

It seems patently obvious from simple physics that none of these models are going to be an improvement on the existing ones as far as astronomy is concerned, and what's more they all cost an arm and a leg.

 

I'm keeping my existing inventory. 

 

If someone very wealthy here can afford to pick them up to do a review for stargazing (and realistically, they would probably do it if they were simultaneously bird-watchers), I'd be interested to read what eventuated from it. But I ain't spending a dime on them.

 

Cameron



#35 Eric.TB

Eric.TB

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 294
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Northeastern US

Posted 05 August 2017 - 10:48 PM

Totally not impressed or excited about these new models. A 20X60 model is nice to dream about though.


  • Stellarfire likes this

#36 Neil Sanford

Neil Sanford

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2011

Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:02 AM

I hope these personal musings are not deemed off topic.  I only mean to share regarding the broader question of the thread ... a newly expanded Canon IS menu, what might one choose? 

 

(1)  For years I have used my 12x36 II, day and night, near the house and traveling, with great satisfaction.  When the III upgrade came out, I consulted an experienced employee at Eagle Optics whether the III would give me improved stabilization or a better view from the upgraded eyepiece coatings.  She said if my stabilization was good on my model II, in her opinion the III would not deliver any better view.  Although Canon’s pitch for the III was battery life, reports accumulated here and at BirdForum to a mild consensus that the eyepiece coatings and stabilization on the III were better.  After some time, I couldn’t resist a great price on a III and ordered it.  I returned it.  Stabilization was worse.  Probably sample variation:  a really good II that I own versus a lesser or defective III.  Yeah, the eyepiece coatings were slightly better.  But beyond a doubt, I saw more detail with my II.  I did not try to order another III.  The experience made me appreciate what I have. 

 

(2)  For years I happily used my 15x50 IS, day and night, mostly around the house.  I only took it on trips with a very specific goal, because of its bulk and weight.  The 12x36, smaller and lighter, I often just bring as a complement to my always present 8x30 E2.  When Canon upgraded the 10x30 and 12x36, I sold my 15x50.  It was great, but the stabilization had the widely reported artifacts,  I was glad to have that great bino, but was anticipating that I might sell it before Canon would announce a 15x50 upgrade with improved stabilization.  So far, no such luck.  So I guess Canon sees more $market in these new birder IS models.  The 15x50 seemed so widely praised, I would have thought improved stabilization would be $market worthwhile.  Maybe there are difficult tech challenges to get rid of the 15x50 stabilization artifacts (which are not terrible, but would be nice if they were alleviated).  

 

(3)  Hard for me to believe any of these new birder models would do more for me than my 12x36 II.  Still hoping Canon will offer a better 15x50 ... if I were certain never, I would not have sold mine; it delivered plenty pleasure.  (There are vague hints that 15x5 stabilization has improved incrementally in later production without acknowledgment from Canon..) 



#37 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,895
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:50 AM

Totally not impressed or excited about these new models. A 20X60 model is nice to dream about though.

 

It is available, but Zeiss and not Canon

 

 

I hope these personal musings are not deemed off topic.

 

  I only mean to share regarding the broader question of the thread ... a newly expanded Canon IS menu, what might one choose? 

 

....................

 

(3)  Hard for me to believe any of these new birder models would do more for me than my 12x36 II. ...........

 

 

Is Canon  saying:

 

birders-waytogo.gif

 

astronomers-thumbsdown3.gif

 

edj


Edited by edwincjones, 06 August 2017 - 07:55 AM.


#38 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,465
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:08 AM

 

 

 

Is Canon  saying:

 

birders-waytogo.gif

 

astronomers-thumbsdown3.gif

 

edj

 

The market says that, not Canon. Birding and hunting are big markets, astronomy is a tiny market in comparison.



#39 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,465
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:28 AM

After a wait so long most people gave up Canon would ever do anything new with their IS binocular line, these 3 models are a disappointment to me, mostly due to inadequate eye relief, but also apparently no ED/L glass.  I'm surprised that none of the other premium or "alpha" brands offer much in the way of IS binoculars.  Surely eventually...

 

Dave

It may be premature to conclude there is no ED glass in these, many of Canon's non-L camera lenses use ED elements, and Canon's description of some of their L lenses doesn't mention the ED elements that are in the lenses.



#40 Luis Serrano

Luis Serrano

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 04 May 2017
  • Loc: ZGZ, Spain

Posted 02 November 2017 - 03:58 PM

I have found a review (russian) that gives some clues about what to expect from them.



#41 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,261
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 02 November 2017 - 04:16 PM

An interesting feature is the dual stabilization system: one button for moving objects, and one button for still objects. I suppose these binoculars are aimed at birders more than astronomers. Also the close focus distance of 2m is a nice improvement.

On the minus side, they are very heavy for only 32 mm objectives. That could be justified if they are waterproof, but the specs say nothing about that.

I own the 12x36 IS II. If I want an upgrade, I think I will be more interested in the 12x36 IS III rather than these new 12x32.

Jean-Charles

I've owned and used the 12x36 IS IIs for years. The only issue I've had with them is the poor close focus, so I am eager to try the new 12x32 IS.

 

Clear skies, Alan



#42 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:29 AM

I had the 10x30 first generation for years before switching to the 10x30 IS II some time ago, and now also have the 10x42 IS.

 

The new x32 Canons are just out on the market here in Switzerland, and I get the opportunity to test the new 10x32 IS on Saturday and compare to my current Canon models.

 

Plan to write a review over the weekend. Specific questions welcome.

 

Pinac


  • paulsky, CAAD9 and Eric.TB like this

#43 ThomasM

ThomasM

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2009

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:40 AM

I had the 10x30 first generation for years before switching to the 10x30 IS II some time ago, and now also have the 10x42 IS.

 

The new x32 Canons are just out on the market here in Switzerland, and I get the opportunity to test the new 10x32 IS on Saturday and compare to my current Canon models.

 

Plan to write a review over the weekend. Specific questions welcome.

 

Pinac

Pinac,

the shapness of the  IS 15x50 and and also the 18x50 is not stable, it seems that the image is getting unsharp from time to time. The 10x42 is much less prone of this proble, hardly visible. It would be interesting to see if the new generation is improved in this respect, but probably the 10x32 is not the best candidate to check this, the 14x32 would be more interesting. 

 

many thanks for your review already in advance

 

Thomas


  • paulsky likes this

#44 Kimmo Absetz

Kimmo Absetz

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2005

Posted 04 November 2017 - 09:11 AM

Pinac,

 

No specific questions, but any and all information about how the 10x32 IS compares with the 10x42 L IS will be valuable.

 

Kimmo


  • CAAD9 likes this

#45 CAAD9

CAAD9

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,024
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 05 November 2017 - 12:31 AM

Very much looking forward to your report Pinac. Of particular interest is how sharp the views are and usable field of view. In comparison to the 10x42L if possible.

 

thanks in advance 

 

cheers


Edited by CAAD9, 05 November 2017 - 12:35 AM.


#46 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:07 AM

Canon 10x30 IS II versus Canon 10x32 IS

 

INTRODUCTION
 

Canon just launched three new IS models on the market: 10x32, 12x32 and 14x32. While I would not have much interest in the 12x and 14x models – with their exit pupil smaller than 3mm, which restricts their use in twilight or in dense forests quite a bit – I managed to get the 10x version for a weekend of review and testing.
 

A brief comparison of data (all specs according to Canon, except Near Focus and Weight, which I measured myself):
 

10x30 IS II:
RFOV 6 o = 105m/1000m
AFOV 55.3 o
Eye relief: 14.5mm
Near focus: 4.4m (measured)
Weight 673g (incl. bttr, eyepiece caps and strap)
Battery Life: 9 hours (25 degrees C)
Price range (Switzerland): CHF 427 – 625 (= € 367 – 537)

 

10x32 IS:
RFOV 6 o = 105m/1000m
AFOV 55.3 o
Eye relief: 14.5mm
Near focus: 1.75m (measured)
Weight 880g (incl. bttr, eyepiece caps and strap)
Battery Life: 10 hours (23 degrees C)
Price range (Switzerland): CHF  1'256 – 1'593 (= € 1'078 – 1'368)

 

GENERAL
 

The new 10x32 IS (also true for the 12x and 14x models, they all have the same dimensions and weight) is substantially larger and heavier than the previous 10x30 IS model. The design appears more „upmarket“, although both would not get an industrial design award from me. Still, the new model has „more power“ in my eyes, it looks more modern and „professional“. The build quality and finish are impeccable.

The material used on the 10x32 for most of the binocular body is different from the 10x30, it appears very slightly „rougher“, the grip is fine in dry condition and okay when humid. Maybe the new surface material will not „melt away“ after a few years of use, as seems to be the case on some older Canon models? :-)

The 10x32 is well  balanced and is easy to hold and operate. It is definitely at least one size bigger and distinctly heavier than the 10x30, though.

The IS is now operated with 2 separate buttons (more on their function further down), these sit on top of the right objective tube and are easy to reach even for my relatively small hands, they sit right where my right index and middle finger are usually placed when holding the bino (they are in fact placed so „exactly at the right spot“ that I several times pressed the buttons inadvertently when picking up the bino; I personally therefore prefer the solution of the 10x42 where the button is placed in some sort of a small „depression“ on the bincular case and not as prominently on the top of the objective tube as on the 10x32).

Another novelty: the focusing mechanism still moves the objective tray as in the 10x30 version, but in the 10x32, the objectives are now placed behind a protective glass disk, similar to the 10x42 WP. But: Canon doesn’t say anything about it, so I think the 10x32 does NOT qualify as waterproof, as the 10x42. But the additional glass probably makes the 10x32 at least „splashproof“, which is a big progress against the 10x30 where it can happen that you „inhale“ humidity or even dust and other unwelcome particles into the objective tubes when focusing.

The new 10x32, like the 10x30, is not equipped with a screw hole to mount it on a tripod adapter, such as the 10x42 (I actually find that quite useful in the 10x42).

The 10x32 comes with a bag, a strap, eyepiece caps - all of which in very acceptable quality - and 2 AA batteries. Warranty in Europe is 2 years.

 

MECHANICS
 

This is a Porro II glass, so there is now central hinge really, you adapt the IPD by moving the prism housings with the eyepieces, like in the 10x30. This works nicely and smoothly, the IPD range is 56-76mm (measured).

The rubber eyecaps fold down for use with glasses. However, for my relatively narrow IPD (61mm) they are way too large (outer diameter 49mm) and leave no place for my nose between them, so even when observing without glasses (which I normally do) I have to fold them down, and that works quite comfortably (see also below under „Optics“ re eye relief etc).

The focusing wheel turns smoothly, precisely and with no play, on the new 10x32 a bit stiffer than on my 10x30, but otherwise quite similar. Compared to other binoculars, the gear ratio of the focusing mechanism is slow, but similar to previous Canon models, one full 360 degree turn of the focusing wheel from 3m to infinity.
There is sufficient travel left beyond infinity (about 90 degrees rotation).

Diopter adjustment range is just slightly more than +/- 3 dpt (tested), which is not enormous and may not be sufficient for some, but it’s the same as on previous Canon models. It is operated at the right eyepiece, works precisely (the „0“ mark is really at zero dpt) and smoothly, cannot be fixed, but rotating is sufficently stiff to prevent accidental adjustment.

 

OPTICS / INITIAL IMPRESSIONS (daylight mostly, but also some night sky)
 

Inspecting the eyepieces, everything looks very promising. Nice, dark area around the exit pupil of the 10x32, even slightly darker than in the 10x30. There is virtually no vignetting.

The objective side looks equally well finished, all visible glass surfaces appear clean and the interior of the tubes well blackened.
 

„Ease of view“ (in German the so-called „Einblickverhalten“, describing the ease with which you obtain a comfortable viewing position for your eyes behind the eypieces, allowing to see the entire field of view without any problem – I am still searching for the term in English):
Here, the new 10x32 did not thrill me. First, as described above, I had to fold down the eyecups to be able to place the bino before my eyes. Maybe people with wide IPD would not have that issue, but with an IPD in the low 60s, the large eyecups shaped like saucers prevent you (or at least me) from seeing the full FOV. With the eyecups folded down, things are much better, but now light from the side gets into your eyes, so a sort of winged eyecup might be useful to prevent this. Still, even if not perfect, I find the viewing position on the new 10x32 (with folded eyecups) more comfortable than the one of my 10x30, where the choice is between the unfolded small-diameter eyecups placed directly around my eyes – not very comfortable – and folded eyecups which lead to direct contact between my eyelids and the eyepiece lenses. So the 10x32 is not perfect, but better than the 10x30. The 10x42 with its screw-in / screw-out eyecups is even better and more comfortable for me.

Canon lists the eye relief at 14.5 mm on both the 10x30 and the 10x32 (the same also for the 12x32 and 14x32). With glasses pressed against the folded eyecups, I can just, just oversee almost all of the FOV in the 10x32. Again, not perfect, but acceptable.
 

Otherwise, the optics make a very good impression overall. As expected, collimation was impeccable. The nearest focus distance on the 10x32 was measured at 1.75m (Canon promises 2m), which is a net improvement against the 10x30 (4.4m measured).

The field of view is not huge, unchanged from the 10x30 version, so fans of the Nikon WX type bino may not find much happiness in the 105m (6 degrees RFOV, 53.5 AFOV)) of the 10x32. On the other hand, central sharpness is excellent, the off-axis sharpness is good in most of the image except the very edge, distortion is low, and there is very little globe effect, all in all the characteristics of the image are very similar to the 10x30 model and very satisfactory overall.

Color fidelity is also very good; the paper test reveals that the new 10x32 has a very slightly – and I repeat „very slightly“ - warmer color tone than the older 10x30, which is almost perfectly neutral for my eyes (comparison with the 10x42: see below).

In both models, there is a bit of CA, even in the center of the field of view, not much though; it increases , the further off-axis you go, but I consider it very acceptable. Again, I could not say which of the two „wins“, the 10x32 and the 10x30 are very similar.
 

A distinct difference, however, becomes apparent when observing under difficult light situations where the 10x32 reveals a much improved straylight suppression against the 10x30. Some glare and various reflections  are visible in the 10x30 when observing e.g. against a low sun. The new 10x32 exhibits almost none of this in the same situation, so Canon must have applied quite some useful improvements.
Other sorts of reflections e.g. on strong light sources (LED) or at night on the moon are minimal in my experience, and the same is true for ghosting, the impression of the new 10x32 is excellent in all these respects. A nice full moon could be observed on and off between cloudy periods this Sat and the 10x32 showed a crisp, sharp image, with virtually no CA, and not much less bright than the 10x42 IS (which of course has a wider FOV so there is more dark sky around the bright moon, making the image bit more impressive).
 

Kimmo (post # 44) and CAAD9 (post # 45): I find the image characteristics of the 10x32 quite similar to those oft he 10x42 L IS. But the wider FOV and greater brightness are a net advantage of the 10x42; the difference is substantial in my eyes, and I clearly prefer the 10x42, despite the bigger size and higher weight. Moreover, it could be that the 10x42 when in IS operating mode seems even slightly more stable in my hands, maybe also thanks to its higher weight (?).

Another small remark: in the direct side by side comparison on the paper test, my eyes seem to recognize a very slight nuance of more red tone in the image of the 10x32; side by side, the 10x42 appears very slightly more yellowish. But we are talking about nuances here, not big differences (plus everybody’s eyes see color variations differently)!!

 

 

IMAGE STABILIZATION
 

The new Canon 10x32, 12x32 and 14x32 models are equipped with two separate buttons: „regular“ IS, and Powered IS. Both buttons can be used in two ways: press them shortly and they will turn on the IS until a button is pressed again or 5 minutes have lapsed, whichever comes first.  This is a big improvement over the mechanism of the 10x30, which requires you to constantly press the IS button.

But the 10x32 also has a second operating feature: pressing and holding a button will keep the IS turned on until you release the button.

Another nice feature: when you carry the 10x32 with the strap around your neck and release it so that it hangs vertically in front of your breast, the IS will turn off in 10 seconds. The same happens when you place the 10x32 in a vertical position e.g. on a table.
 

You can start IS by pressing either button first and then press the other button to switch modes, e.g. from regular mode to Powered mode, or vice versa.

Canon states in the manual that regular IS mode is ideal for observations which include some panning, whereas Powered mode is better when observing one fixed object over an extended period. In Powered mode, panning the binoculars may result in bigger „jumps“ of the IS system to follow your movement, but in my brief experience, this happened not always, only sometimes.
 

To be honest: the two-button system hasn’t fully grown on me in the short time during which I used the 10x32. It may have to do with the way I use my binos, or some other personal factor may have prevented my from fully grasping the concept.

When I panned with the regular IS on, and then fixed my view on an object identified while panning, the IS worked very well, and when I then switched to Powered IS mode, most of the time nothing at all seemed to change; only occasionally the Powered mode seemed to provide a slightly improved stability over the already very good regular IS mode.

When pressing the Powered IS button during panning e.g. a landscape, sometimes the image followed in „jumps“, but sometimes it behaved like in regular mode.
Things appeared a bit  different when I simulated being on a boat, swaying left and right with larger movements. In this case, the Powered IS button (again, most of the time  but not always) provided more stability than regular IS, but when the movements became too big, the image would also make bigger „jumps“with Powered IS on than with regular IS.

However, with me standing firmly with both legs on the ground, I didn’t see much advantage of the Powered IS over the regular mode.

 

Switching between the two was really easy, because both buttons were placed directly under my right index and middle finger, respectively.

Having had only one sample 10x32 available, I could of course not check whether another sample might behave differently.

 

All of this being said, I am nevertheless impressed by the level of image stabilization which Canon has now reached with its IS binocular series. Comparing it with the first generation 10x30, the difference is huge. Against the second gen. 10x30 II, the difference is a bit less obvious, for me, much of the improvement in the IS function seems to stem from the more comfortable button position, the operation without having to press a button all the time and the overall better build of the new 10x32. The IS on the new 10x32 seems quite similar tot he one of the 10x42, there ist he same „click“ when the system engages and the same tiny delay after pressing the button, shorter than on the 10x30.

 

There have been discussions over the years about problems with the IS in a number of Canon models, esp. the 15x and 18x ones., but also the 12x and 10x. The issue was mainly described as „instability“ in the image sharpness while IS is turned on, i.e. the image would get less sharp from time to time and in varying intervals, than without IS. Some people found the effect unbearable, others maintained that they didn’t feel much of it.
I have myself experienced this effect in at least two of my Canons which I owned over time, including my 10x30 II, but never in the latest 12x36 (12x36 III) nor the 10x42 IS. If  my short experience with the new 10x32 is any indication, the effect is non-existent in the new models.

I hope the above also answers Thomas M.’s questions (post # 43) about the stability of the IS system in the new Canon models.

 

 

FINAL REMARKS

 

Very nice optics, an impressive stabilization feature, a much improved and upgraded design – the new Canon 10x32 IS looks like a winner. It has all the properties which Canon owners appreciate, and it doesn’t exhibit any major flaws, as far as I can tell.

The only thing I slightly wonder about is Canon’s price strategy: In many photo or optics shops here, you can get the fabulous 10x42 IS (waterproof) now for almost the same price as the new 10x32, or for only marginally more money.
With prices not much different, if I had to choose between the 10x32 and the 10x42, it would clearly be the 10x42. And if my budget would not allow that, I would go for the older 10x30 IS II at less than half the price, which isn’t fully splashproof, but has almost as good optics as the 10x32 and and a well proven IS function.
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of other forum members, who perhaps find more advantage than me in the two IS modes (regular and Powered).

And one last observation: I have not been able to figure out yet for which applications Canon has brought out its three new  32mm models. While the 10x is a very decent general purpose daylight binocular, the 12x and even more the 14x with their small exit pupils – 2.3mm on the 14x – do not really seem to fit the needs of either birders, hunters  or astronomers. Or am I missing something  ?

 

Pinac

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_2025.JPG

Edited by Pinac, 05 November 2017 - 04:22 PM.

  • JCB, Rich V., Cyborg and 7 others like this

#47 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:09 AM

Canon 10x32 IS

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_2027-1.JPG

Edited by Pinac, 05 November 2017 - 07:09 AM.

  • denis0007dl and CAAD9 like this

#48 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:10 AM

Canon 10x32 IS

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_2023.JPG

  • denis0007dl and CAAD9 like this

#49 Pinac

Pinac

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:10 AM

Canon 10x32 IS

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_2026.JPG

  • denis0007dl and CAAD9 like this

#50 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,261
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 05 November 2017 - 08:57 AM

Pinac,

 

Thanks for taking the time to try out the 10x32 version and write a nice, detailed report.

 

I am a strong believer in "Try before you buy" and fear the big problem, at least here in the U.S., is finding these to try out.

 

I'm hoping the new 12x32, with its much better close focus, will prove a good replacement for my trusty 12x36 IIs.

 

Clear skies, Alan




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics