How you assess 10 x 30 IS II compared to 10 x 42 L IS WP ? (1 Viewer)

[BKoh]

takitam: Yup, it has actually, now I know batteries will last a reasonable time.

Hermann has unquestionably stated their worth to him and how he deals with the weight. Coming from an experienced forum member, I listen.
Dennis from what I understand has implied he uses it mainly as a car binocular.

The Canon is not the heaviest binocular-with-harness a forum member has used for birding (FL 8x56 @ 1320g). I've carried one weighing less at 1134g for birding bandolier style and (one time) even tried a heavier 9x63 at 1340g. on a short trial walk. My current go to bin is a regular x42, but, hey, I have no doubts the future is electronic.
The Canon are rare, stock in Leeds, Norwich, so I'll make a trip next time we go to our London flat.

I'm interested to know how any other owners make use of it, especially in preference to other binoculars?

I own a few binoculars:

Canon IS 10x42L;
Swarovski 8x32 EL; and
Pentax VD 4x20 WP

(plus a 80mm spotting scope)

All of them are used for both birding and astronomy. Which ones I take depends on what else I am doing.

Casual walks: Pentax in a cargo pants pocket
Casual bike rides: Swaro in a bag mounted on the handlebar
Birding walk: Canon
Static birding: Swaro plus scope in backpack
Night ride: Canon in backpack
Astronomy session: Canon plus scope/tripod in backpack

For me, by day the Canon does not offer a huge advantage over the Swaro, and I prefer the Swaro for its lighter weight, better grip and faster focuser. At night there is no comparison, the Canon is in a different universe. The Canon not only lets me see stars more clearly (no shaking), it lets me see more stars (faint stars appear).

 

[Ted Y.]

From optical point of view, the 10x42 is better. I cannot detect any CA, nor the peripheral pincushion distortion, both existent in the 10x30. Also, brighter in an evident way during a day with fair skay.

The stabilization is very effective in both models when in a stationary position. No undesirable effects when panning.

I am under impression the 10x30 is almost a pocket version.

The eyepieces of 10x42 can be deployed in 3 steps.
Very good balance when handled, both binoculars.

The weight of 10x42. Oh, the weight... I can sustain them for a few minutes, but very incommode for me to repeat the performance immediately. And I cannot use them without stabilization.
The 10x30, yes, I can use them without stabilization. Not the same performance, of course.

The 10x42 is almost twice the price of 10x30, and it is worth it (in my opinion).

 

[CharleyBird]

I own a few binoculars:

Canon IS 10x42L;
Swarovski 8x32 EL; and
Pentax VD 4x20 WP

(plus a 80mm spotting scope)

All of them are used for both birding and astronomy. Which ones I take depends on what else I am doing.

Casual walks: Pentax in a cargo pants pocket
Casual bike rides: Swaro in a bag mounted on the handlebar
Birding walk: Canon
Static birding: Swaro plus scope in backpack
Night ride: Canon in backpack
Astronomy session: Canon plus scope/tripod in backpack

For me, by day the Canon does not offer a huge advantage over the Swaro, and I prefer the Swaro for its lighter weight, better grip and faster focuser. At night there is no comparison, the Canon is in a different universe. The Canon not only lets me see stars more clearly (no shaking), it lets me see more stars (faint stars appear).

Thanks for this. How do you carry the Canon on a birding walk?

 

[Stu57]

Thanks for this. How do you carry the Canon on a birding walk?

I use a Zeiss harness when carrying mine weight has never been an issue for me. The superb optics and fantastic image stabilisation system make it all worth while.

The harness is very well made spreads the weight evenly across my back and when you grab them up to your eyes they line up nicely.

As for the batteries I normally use them at weekends usually 6 hours a day switching on and off when I spot something interesting I got about 5 months from a set of lithium.

And about a year out of my 12x36 iii bins which I also own.

Hope that makes sense it is never constant use just a few seconds here a couple of minutes there.

Probably should use them more often I hear you say 🤣

 

[Paultricounty]

Is the optical quality so different to justify twice the price?

How about the stabilization? It is a small difference, but it is relevant?

The L version optical and image quality is a good margin superior than the 32 and 36 variants, very noticeable. The L optics are on par with upper mid-grade non IS bins such as, Zeiss Conquest, Nikon MHG, Leica Trinovid HD and a few others in that $1000 range. Optically in my opinion they fall a little short of being true premium alpha level. The price point does drive that home.

Stabilization from what I remember of the other 32 and 36 I tried are all about same, although on the 42L you don't have to hold the IS button.

Carrying these binoculars for any length of time is uncomfortable at best, and that is using a harness. The equivalent is carrying something like 56 mm binoculars, can be done and I do it, but I'm not climbing mountains or going for five mile hikes.

They are definitely a very cool novelty of an optical tool and I enjoy them very much, but they are not my first choice in 10X bins.

Paul

 

[Hermann]

Carrying these binoculars for any length of time is uncomfortable at best, and that is using a harness. The equivalent is carrying something like 56 mm binoculars, can be done and I do it, but I'm not climbing mountains or going for five mile hikes.

Well, I'm on the way back from our holidays in Norway, and I used the 10x42 almost exclusively on that trip. We did a few longish hikes in the mountains of about 10 miles each, in typical mountain terrain Norwegian style. I used a harness, and I didn't find carrying the 10x42 too strenuous even though I'm not in good shape (medical reasons) and over 60 years old. I also carried a lightweight scope+monopod and the usual foul weather gear of course.

Would have carrying a lighter pair been easier? Sure. I took a lighter pair with me just in case. However, I got along with the 10x42 just fine.

That said, there are hikes where I'd definitely prefer to take a lighter pair. Still looking for a waterproof, high quality 6x30 or 7x35 or some such ... 😀 And no, the Retrovid doesn't cut it for me.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

Well, I'm on the way back from our holidays in Norway, and I used the 10x42 almost exclusively on that trip. We did a few longish hikes in the mountains of about 10 miles each, in typical mountain terrain Norwegian style. I used a harness, and I didn't find carrying the 10x42 too strenuous even though I'm not in good shape (medical reasons) and over 60 years old. I also carried a lightweight scope+monopod and the usual foul weather gear of course.

Would have carrying a lighter pair been easier? Sure. I took a lighter pair with me just in case. However, I got along with the 10x42 just fine.

That said, there are hikes where I'd definitely prefer to take a lighter pair. Still looking for a waterproof, high quality 6x30 or 7x35 or some such ... 😀 And no, the Retrovid doesn't cut it for me.

Hermann

Norway? did you get to see Angelina Jordan😁.

I’m in my 60s as well and I’m in pretty good shape and I find them annoying after walking over an hour or so. Maybe because I’m spoiled with 32 mm’s glass. To the OP ,here are two examples of two people both who like the L but differ on its comfort in the field.

Paul