New Canon 12x36 IS (1 Viewer)

[Tantien]

light weight a pro,
CA there, but not a big deal for me
edj

Got them last night and tried them this morning: very nice overall. Even with the added bulk of the IS mechanism, this is surprisingly light. And the second version of this model is much less bulky than the one my birding friend lent me.

Some negatives so far: people have mentioned the funky eyecups; they really fold completely down, leaving a small raised rubber rim to cushion your glasses. And the super cheap eye lens caps are almost a joke (at least they are small and pocketable). But the omission of the objective caps really is a head-scratcher, given the fairly large part of these binos is these lenses.

They are not even listed at water resistant in the rather underwhelming user's manual ("avoid rain and water spray").

The FOV is narrower than I'd like but the quality of the image is very good: nice contrast, neutral colors, not much CA at all for me, and a fairly flat field.

The IPD is just about adequate for my widely spaced eyes--the spacing is pretty much at the stops for me, but it works and I have a good view at that point--no blackouts or problems with the rather small (<4mm) exit pupil.

The IS. Let me say that I've a new appreciation for how much my eyes and brain had been compensating for the jitter that even my higher 10X bins had.

The effect of pressing that little magic button immediately relaxes my eyes and makes observing much (MUCH) more enjoyable. The detail that is filtered out by all the jitter (like a tiny droplet of fog on the window) is all of a sudden noticeable. So you can actually concentrate on all the lost detail. Sweet!

More observations as I continue to use this. But I'm pretty happy with it so far and I'm really looking forward to taking these on a cruise to start looking for pelagic birds and whales.

 

[edwincjones]

"little magic button"

I like that

edj

 

[CSG]

I've had my 10x30 IS for a few years now and I always forget just how wonderful these are. If they ever go belly up, the 12x36 would be their replacement.

I must admit though that the 10x30's have more CA than any of my other bins so I try to avoid objects where that's an issue.

For astronomy, these things are great as they act like bigger objectives due to how steady they can be held. In other words, you can pick up fainter objects with these over a larger objective that's not stabilized. Get under really dark skies for a real treat!

 

[kabsetz]

The IS. Let me say that I've a new appreciation for how much my eyes and brain had been compensating for the jitter that even my higher 10X bins had.

The effect of pressing that little magic button immediately relaxes my eyes and makes observing much (MUCH) more enjoyable. The detail that is filtered out by all the jitter (like a tiny droplet of fog on the window) is all of a sudden noticeable. So you can actually concentrate on all the lost detail.

Tantien,

This pretty much sums it up. I have found it pretty much impossible to go back to non-stabilized binoculars for any greater length of time. Whatever shortcomings there are to the Canon IS view, they pale in contrast to the jitters and sways of any and all conventional binoculars.

One tip for Canon users that has not come up recently on BF. On Cloudy Nights some time ago, a Canon user posted that he had heard from Canon that it is worthwhile to store the binoculars in a horizontal position. This silly-sounding advice comes from the IS vari-angle prisms having bellows between the two moving glass plates, and if stored vertically, the bellows stretch a bit. This results in the IS mechanism working a bit less well, and can be seen as slight very fast jitter in the stabilized image. The problem is not permanent, and goes away after the binoculars have been kept horizontal for a few days. I had forgotten about this, as I tend to store mine horizontal anyway and have not had perceptible jitter in mine, but remembered it when trying out a new pair recently that had been kept in a display cabinet standing on its objectives. That binocular had just perceptible jitter with the IS on. I'm thinking of borrowing it from the store for a couple of days and experiment to see what happens and how quickly if I store it flat.

Kimmo

 

[Binastro]

. Thankfully I have always stored the Canon IS binoculars horizontally.
I have not noticed the effect you mention.
But it is good to know that the effect exists.

When the batteries are fading one can sometimes get caught out when the IS doesn't work properly or doesn't seem so good.
But changing to fresh batteries the performance returns.
I normally use throwaway lithium AAs. They last a long time.

But I have no problem using standard binoculars.
I use both types on a daily basis, and have been doing so for many years.

 

[Tantien]

Performed really well on a Cruise

I must say that this IS feature really can spoil you!

I just came back from a two week cruise, dominated by many days at sea, and these (12x36) came out more often to scan for pelagic birds and whales than my 8x32 Vipers. I did notice that there is a decent amount of CA when there are strong contrasts (e.g. whitecaps against a dark sea on a sunny day, or dark birds against a bright sky) but overall, they served me very well, especially with the more comfortable Leupold harness.

I noted that the IPD is very touchy for me and only is best in a strictly narrow range (probably due to the small exit pupil). And the eye relief is really all or nothing with these fold-down eyecups. But when they are down, they work with my glasses perfectly.

Other than the lack of waterproofing, they are really quite good overall. I would say that the IS feature is essential at these magnifications on this ocean platform. When the ship was really rocking, these were my go-to binos whenever I was looking out.

They are too bulky to take ashore for "regular birding" (the Vipers more than own this use) but they really have earned their place in my collection and I hope the electronics that give them their IS, continues to shrink and become more available in other manufacturer's offerings.

 

[albatrosviajero]

Hello.
There is too much differences between the 12*36 model and the 10*42 model?
Anyone have proved this theme?
Thanks

 

[Binastro]

. Although I haven't used the 10×42 version I understand that it is much better quality than the 12×36.
The Canon 12×36 MK II is very good but the edge performance is probably not as good as the 10×42. Also the Canon 10×42 L probably has superior glass and better control of chromatic aberration and probably better edges. It may also have field flatteners.
In addition it is supposedly waterproof. But it is heavier.

The Canon 12×36 MK I was heavier but optically better than the current Canon 12×36 MK II. But it is obsolete nowadays as it hasn't been made for probably 10 years or more.

The Canon 12×36 has an exit pupil of 3 mm compared to 4.2 mm for the 10×42. Although I understand that early 10×42s were only about 39 mm aperture. But I think they are now bigger.
Of course one costs twice as much as the other.
Hope this helps.
Happy New Year.

 

[Tantien]

Hello.
There is too much differences between the 12*36 model and the 10*42 model?
Anyone have proved this theme?
Thanks

Well, from my POV, the biggest difference is the cost: $650 (now closer to $800) for the 12x36 and a sacrifice of the waterproof qualities (and added weight) of the 10x42 that now goes for $1,330.

So it was economics that made my decision for me rather than the optical qualities. Binastro's points about the optic are still valid. That said, I'm pretty happy with my choice.

Happy New Year All! |=)|

 

[Sancho]

I´ve had in the past the 12x36 and the 10x42L. The latter is optically astounding, even without the IS switched on - these are optically in the "alpha" class of binos. The unit I had did show some lateral CA (which didn´t bother me). My biggest problems with it were the weight, the bulk and the eyecups. It was heavy and chunky both around my neck and in my hands, to the extent that I wouldn´t use it as an "all-day" bino. The eyecups I found actually uncomfortable and "hard" in my eye-sockets. Unfortunately, IMHO, the 10x42L has all the ergonomics of a two-legged donkey. How such brilliant optics and IS could be designed in such an unfriendly package is beyond me. Very expensive too for a bino with such a short warranty.
The 12x36 isn´t as good optically but, as you know, is fine for high-mag stabilised viewing. It´s lighter, easier to hold, has rubber fold-down eyecups that although not perfect, can be more or less adjusted to suit your eye-sockets.

 

[etudiant]

I´ve had in the past the 12x36 and the 10x42L. The latter is optically astounding, even without the IS switched on - these are optically in the "alpha" class of binos. The unit I had did show some lateral CA (which didn´t bother me). My biggest problems with it were the weight, the bulk and the eyecups. It was heavy and chunky both around my neck and in my hands, to the extent that I wouldn´t use it as an "all-day" bino. The eyecups I found actually uncomfortable and "hard" in my eye-sockets. Unfortunately, IMHO, the 10x42L has all the ergonomics of a two-legged donkey. How such brilliant optics and IS could be designed in such an unfriendly package is beyond me. Very expensive too for a bino with such a short warranty.
The 12x36 isn´t as good optically but, as you know, is fine for high-mag stabilised viewing. It´s lighter, easier to hold, has rubber fold-down eyecups that although not perfect, can be more or less adjusted to suit your eye-sockets.

The 10x42 is easier to use for glasses wearers, as there is enough eye relief to get the full field and the glasses shield the eye sockets from the oversized eyecups.
Provided one is comfortable wearing a harness to offset the weight, these are very excellent binoculars. The poor warranty admittedly is a deterrent. Imho, the quality would support a much more generous coverage, at least based on my experience of 6 years of flawless service.

 

[mikefitz6]

Wow - I started this thread a year ago! Since then I have continued to appreciate the Canons. I do see the CA on high contrast as stated above. Still, they are light enough for me that they have become my go to binoculars. They go on all trips with me now. They are a bit bulky, but I can see so much more with them.

I did have a chance to try the 10x42's for astronomy. I was real impressed by them. The increased brightness was obvious. The FOV was nicer. They were heavier than the 12x36. If I could I would probably look at getting some of the 10x42's. That won't happen anytime soon though. I hope I get a chance to use them again in the near future and try to do a better job comparing the two in day and night time use.

 

[albatrosviajero]

Hello,
The other day I could try Nikon Action 7X35 binoculars and these had ocular too hard .., in this sense, the Canon 10X42 IS model has that toughness in the thread of the eyelens? my was me a little uncomfortable .. in comparison, the 12X36 model II is more comfortable, softer, I imagine that users wearing glasses noticing less.
Another doubt. The 10X42 IS suffers from blackout?
thanks

 

[etudiant]

Hello,
The other day I could try Nikon Action 7X35 binoculars and these had ocular too hard .., in this sense, the Canon 10X42 IS model has that toughness in the thread of the eyelens? my was me a little uncomfortable .. in comparison, the 12X36 model II is more comfortable, softer, I imagine that users wearing glasses noticing less.
Another doubt. The 10X42 IS suffers from blackout?
thanks

The Canon 10x42 eye cups are about 45mm in diameter, with square edges.
That is an unwieldy lump to wedge between the nose and the eyebrows, especially as they are pretty firm rubber. It the eyes are shielded by glasses, they are quite comfortable, as they do not need to pressed into the face.
The eye relief is enough that they work reasonably well for me even without glasses. Blackouts seem absent afaik, probably because the eye relief is high teens, rather than 20+mm.

 

[albatrosviajero]

If the eye cups are hard , I think that they not comfortable for observations, ..no?
Best

 

[etudiant]

If the eye cups are hard , I think that they not comfortable for observations, ..no?
Best

They are not bad enough to be a deal killer, imho, but the user will need to search out a comfortable way to position the glass. They work well for a glasses user such as myself, but they clearly are objectionable to many.
Timmo's review here http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_15_canon10x42L_IS_WP_GB.shtml
is probably the best appraisal currently available and discusses this issue.

 

[albatrosviajero]

...and for a not glasses user, can be cmfortable ?
Thanks

 

[etudiant]

...and for a not glasses user, can be cmfortable ?
Thanks

Only way to know is to try them out yourself, as each person has a unique physiognomy.
Alternatively, try a mockup, the tops of some big(2 liter) bottles are about the right size and shape to get an indication.

 

[Binastro]

. Presumably you empty the bottles before you try it .

Maybe you mean the screw tops rather than the bottles themselves.

 

[kabsetz]

The outside diameter of the 10x42 IS L eyesores (-cups) is 45mm. I must have developed callouses on my brow since they no longer hurt me that much after almost ten years of use. The eyecups are nasty but not enough of a reason for me not to use the overall best binoculars available.

Kimmo