Canon 8x20 IS: Initial impression (1 Viewer)

First impression: Canon 8x20 IS

When I hear “8x20” in connection with binoculars, I tend to think of pocket devices such as Trinovid 8x20, Ultravid 8x20 or Monovid 8x20.

There has been, and still is, much talk about the benefits of such pocket glasses. Are they "full" binoculars, or are they just auxiliary devices in case you have nothing better with you? Personally, I tend to the second opinion (though I find that an auxiliary device is always better than no device at all). The small exit pupil of 2.5mm and the low weight put limits to the usability, be it regarding image brightness in the twilight or regarding the possibility to keep the glass stable despite muscle tremors. However, pocket glasses have also big advantages: they fit into any jacket pocket and are so light that you can easily carry them around your neck for days.

And here comes Canon with an 8x20 glass that has the disadvantage of the small exit pupil on the one hand, but not the advantage of small size on the other. I was very skeptical when I saw the new 8x20 IS for the first time.

Here are my initial impressions.

Specs:
Magnification: 8x
Objective diameter (effective): 20mm
Exit pupil: 2.5mm
RFOV: 6.6 degrees (= 115m / 1000m)
AFOV: 49.5 degrees
Diopter correction:> +/- 5
Near focus: 2m
Weight (with straps): 459g

The Canon 8x20 IS is as big as an average 8x30 binocular, but very light for the size. Unlike other Canon glasses, the exterior of the binocular body is made of plain gray plastic, without the usual "sticky" coating. The soft rubber eyecups are modeled in “cup shape” like those of the x32 Canons, but they have a much smaller diameter than the those (these have been criticized in this respect) and therefore allow very comfortable use even with narrow IPD. The shape of the 8x20 is similar to the larger 10x32 / 12x32 / 14x32 siblings. Unlike these, it no longer takes two AAA batteries, but one CR2.

The focus is soft, medium-fast and precise; focusing is achieved by movement of the lens block, but there is no cover with a front glass plate like on the x32's (which makes the latter splash-proof). However, the mechanism is still different than in the older 10x30 and 12x36 models, where sometimes dust etc. could be "sucked in" while focusing, Canon seems to have come up with a new solution which, while certainly not waterproof, may be a relatively good on dust (??). To be clarified.

The vibration detection takes place by means of a "Gyrosensor", image stabilization is achieved, as with all newer Canon glasses, by "Lensshift". When you press the button, the image stabilizes immedieately and without any“ jumps" of the image. The image stability seems excellent to me, and the picture retains its sharpness without the "artifacts” that were observed in the older Canons.

The picture quality is Canon-typical high: very good center-sharpness, good edge sharpness, little to no CA in the center, a little bit of CA further out towards the edge, limited reflections on or around bright light sources. More field of view would be nice, of course, but the present one is quite decent.
The ease of view without glasses is very good, but also with glasses I can see the full field of view when the eyecup is folded down.

Short comparison with other 8x20s:
Compared with the Leica Trinovid 8x20, the picture of the Canon 8x20 (even without switching on the IS) seems definitely brighter and more contrasty to me. Compared with the Ultravid 8x20, the matter is less clear, the Ultravid showed about the same brightness and sharpness in the gloomy November weather as the Canon. However, ease of view is better in the Canon, and when the stabilization is turned on, the Canon clearly "wins" in the detail recognition anyway.

Short comparison with compact IS binoculars from other brands:
I can make it short. Of the models available to me - Fujinon Techno-Stabi 12x28, Vixen Atera H 12x30, Kenko 10x30 IS - none comes even close to the Canon, neither in terms of image quality nor image stabilization (although they are all much more expensive than the Canon). A direct comparison would not have worked anyway, since the other models all have 10x or 12x magnification, but a comparison is unnecessary anyway, the pictures of all (and I mean that!) except the Canon appear as dark, blurred and with low contrast to me, resulting somewhere between “unsatisfactory” to “unusable”, and I also find the strong "image bumps" annoying which occur when switching IS on, switching IS off, or during both processes. In addition, only the IS function of the Canon is really capable to cope with my muscle tremors, the image in the others wiggle considerably even with IS on.

Kite Optics is currently introducing a new stabilized binocular into the market, which might be better than Fuji, Vixen and Kenko (it can hardly be worse ;-) …) To be seen.

So far, I am pretty impressed with the Canon 8x20 IS. Then next thing I plan is a proper field test with the Canon. This should reveal whether a 8x20 binocular that is the size of a 8x30 or 8x40, but has the small exit pupil of a pocket binocular, really makes sense.

fwiw Canip

Very interesting report! Thank you very much.

Can you perhaps do a comparison with a conventional 8x30/32? Sure, the Canon is "only" an 8x20, but weightwise it is much closer to an 8x30/32, so that comparison seems me to be quite realistic. How much more detail do you get with the Canon compared to, say, the Swarovski CL 8x30? Or does the larger exit pupil of the Swaro compensate for the lack of a stabiliser, at least to some extent?

Tks Hermann.
I will include an 8x30 comparison in my field test.
Canip

Great informative review Canip.

There is a youtube video using the 10x20 IS which certainly backs up your observations regarding IS smoothness and sharpness. Hard to judge brightness/contrast as a mobile camera is being used and there is no information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZunyQA8LDts

They seem pretty impressive.

I've tried the Viking 12x30 IS and found their sharpness good and stabilisation ok for me but don't have other IS binoculars on hand to directly compare with.

Thank you for an excellent report Canip,

Sounds a bit better than I dared hope for considering the specifications. Looking forward to your field testing. In doing that, could you please conduct some simple detection or resolving power vs. distance tests also? This would be very helpful especially for those who have yet to see what IS can do.

I might have to get a pair for my wife, especially as you say they work well with glasses. At present, she is too much at a disadvantage using a Nikon 10x42 SE while I use a Canon 10x42 L IS.

Kimmo

Hi Kimmo (post #5),

will do.

Canip

Catnip,

You beat me to it. I bought a Canon 8x20 a couple of weeks ago and was going to review it, but available time and the anticyclonic gloom we are having at the moment has held me back. Anyway, now that you have started on a, so far, excellent review I will let you finish before I post.

Stan

Go ahead, Stan!
I have no monopoly of the truth, views and opinions from different users make forums such as this one useful!!
Looking forward to your impressions.
Canip

Thank you for the review. Did you consider the 10x20 IS model? 5.3 FOV vs. 6.6 FOV.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/binoculars/is-binoculars

Super Dave said:

Thank you for the review. Did you consider the 10x20 IS model? 5.3 FOV vs. 6.6 FOV.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/binoculars/is-binoculars

Click to expand...

I didn‘t.
The 10x20 is Canon‘s bino with the smallest exit pupil. I find the 2.5mm in the 8x20 already at the limit, and the usefulness of 2mm is even more limited in my opinion.

Cool, thanks for the reply. Looking forward to hearing more about your little Canon.

The Canon 8x20 IS after one week of usage

This is the follow-up post after a week “in the field” with the Canon 8x20 IS, as announced in my first post. Accordingly, the following is a supplement rather than a substitute for what was said in the first post.

I compared the optical performance with a good 8x30, the Swarovski CL 8x30 (as suggested by Hermann), on the one hand, and on the other hand with one of the larger Canons (the 10x32), because I already have some experience with that one and find its optics as well as the stabilization overall very good.

An initial remark “by the way”: the 8x20 is my first glass marked "Made in Taiwan" (the other Canons are all made in Japan until now).

Accessories: There is not much to cheer about. The supplied soft bag is barely usable for storage, but certainly not suitable for field use. There is also a medium-width, unpadded shoulder strap (on which the glass, however, hangs perfectly vertically around my neck, which is an advantage on longer hikes).
There are no eyepiece caps. Perhaps Canon wanted to indicate that the 8x20 is not intended for bad weather conditions? I have nevertheless been using it in light rain and replaced the missing eyepiece protection with one of my own (attached in the same way as the one of the Canon 10x32 is attached). But I would not expect the 8x20 to be made for really rough conditions, although the Canons are perhaps overall a bit more robust than I had initially feared (the fall of my 10x32 from the table, tubes ahead, broke only the front glass, otherwise optics / mechanics / IS remained fully intact). Under "normal” wet weather conditions, i.e. light rain etc., I would expect the 8x20 to remain safely operational.

There is no lens cover either, but I've never missed it, because the objective lenses are recessed quite deep in the tubes, about 2 cm, deeper than in most other glasses I know.

We had already mentioned the question about dust-proofness of the objective tray (which moves when focusing). I am still not sure what to make of it, and will explore further.

The 8x20 is much smaller and only about half the weight of the Canon 10x32, and even compared to the CL it is still 20% lighter, so you almost wonder if there is anything at all in the plastic housing (Canon claims: 3 lenses in the objectives, 4 lenses in the eyepieces, 2 field flattener lenses, Porro prisms, all of this times two for both tubes).

Ergonomics:
The 8x20 is the first Canon that really rests well in my hand.
The only small criticism: the button for the stabilization, which sits in the older Canons in the middle of the body between the tubes, and in the newer Canons further to the right, has now moved all the way to the right right onto the right tube. This does not seem to be very important from a right-handed / left-handed perspective, but if you hold the glass comfortably with both hands, the button lies under the open palm instead of the index finger. Not a big problem, just “improvement potential” (in any case, the button is still much better than the lever that you have to use with other compact stabilized binos (Fujinon, Vixen, Kenko) to switch stabilization on).
For my smallish hands, the focusing wheel of the 8x20 is much easier to operate than with the Canon 10x32, where I always have to change my grip.
The indicator light for the 8x20 is a bit too weak in bright sunshine, in my view, in the other Canons that I know it is brighter.

As mentioned earlier, the ease of view is fine.

Noteworthy is also the large amount of extra travel of the focus wheel beyond infinity, more than with the 10x32 Canon and more than with almost all other glasses I know, an full extra half turn of the focus wheel remains beyond the infinity position.
The near focus, indicated by Canon to be 2m, in my sample was measured at 1.85m. To switch focus from 3m to infinity requires about three quarters of a turn of the focus wheel.

And that brings me to the performance of the 8x20 in the field:

As mentioned earlier, overall image quality is very good for an 8x20, comparable to the like of the 8x20 Leicas.
The image remains sharp to about 90% towards the edge, then the sharpness flattens off a bit. The Canon has a very wide sweet spot and a fairly even, flat image.
But how sharp is "sharp"? Compared to the Swarovski CL, the Canon does not owe anything in terms of sharpness in my eyes. To verify this, I used the Canon and the CL 8x30 side by side mounted on tripods.

A short additional test on USAF 1951, first with a 2.5x booster, then with a 4x booster (with both glasses mounted on tripod), showed no significant difference in resolution (this is of course not a "real" resolution test, but it does give some indication), although I had expected that the image of the CL, which appears brighter than in the Canon, would allow for more details of the USAF patterns to be seen in the CL. However, this is not the case, so here, too, a positive impression of the Canon. Used free-hand, the 8x20 has no competition on the USAF anyway, as long as the IS is turned on.

During my daily walks with the dog, I frequently pass the local observatory at a distance of about 300m. There is a large sign "Sternwarte Schaffhausen" on the wall of the observatory, underneath which there is a smaller text; while I have been guessing words in that text, I have not been able to read it reliably with any of my 7x42, 8x30, or 8x42 binoculars so far. With the Canon 8x20 and stabilization turned on, I could read it without much trouble ("Naturforschende Gesellschaft")

{{ Kimmo, happy to expand on this further if this does not sufficiently cover your "resolving power vs. distance" question }}

The 8x20 shows clearly less CA than the Canon 10x32 (in the latter, the higher magnification of course may contribute a bit o). I noticed that while the IS is switched on, a little more CA becomes visible during panning than when the device is without moving. The increased CA disappears as soon as the panning movement stops. Incidentally, this finding also seems to appliey to the 10x32 (and possibly also to other Canons ?? Or stabilized binos in general ?? Or just an impression in my eyes?? To be explored further).

For my eyes, the picture in the Canon is almost color neutral, without any significant color casts; it may be a very slight nuance warmer than the CL, but this may help contrast rather than harm.

I'm generally a fan of large exit pupils, preferably 6mm or 7mm, if only because the exact placement of the eye behind the exit pupils is much less critical.
I was therefore quite skeptical (sceptical?) about the small 2.5mm exit pupil of the 8x20.
Certainly, in bright sunshine there are hardly any questions, since the 8x20 delivers a sharp, high-contrast image, whereby the field of vision seems a little narrower than desired. Even in cloudy but bright skies, there are no restrictions in use; the most notable difference between the Canon and the CL had more to do with the size of the FOV than with image brightness.
Then there are these very gloomy days, when it is not only heavily cloudy or even foggy, but when it is “daytime” only after 9 am and before 3:30 pm (latitude 47.7 ). Here, the CL 8x30 has a clear advantage, the combination of more exit pupil AND more field of view produces a clearly brighter, more satisfying image. How much of that is due to the larger EP, and how much to the wider FOV, is difficult to estimate.
But:
when it came to examining details of observed objects, the Canon had the edge when the image stabilization was activated. Suddenly details of the branches were visible that neither the Canon without IS nor the CL had shown. I was almost tempted to say that stabilization enhances image sharpness and contrast, but of course that's just an impression, not reality. The Canon compensates in any case the brightness disadvantage compared to the CL with the stabilization so much that in the end it shows more details.
The CL seems to have an advantage when it comes to searching for birds in the branches of trees, thanks to the brighter picture and even more thanks to the wider field of view, I found the CL there clearly more suitable than the Canon.
Once the birdie was localized, however, the Canon with IS on had the advantage of showing details of plumage etc. better than the CL. With IS, the Canon 8x20 shows clearly more details than the CL 8x30, unless you are in “very advanced twilight”, where the image of the Canon then is just too dark.
(Note: in complete darkness, the Canon becomes again perfectly usable for the observation of astronomical objects like e.g. the moon where it shows very nicely the details on the terminator. Also, the small EP of the Canon keeps the aberrations of my eye at point-like light sources such as stars or lanterns much less pronounced than in glasses with larger exit pupil).
By the way, stray-light appears reasonably well suppressed in the Canon.

So, during the day and in fair weather, the advantages of the stabilized Canon can most likely be used to show you more than an unstabilized 8x30 or 3x32 would show. If you tend to observe mainly in the twilight and/or in bad weather, the Canon may perhapos not be your first choice.

If I try again to summarize what I just described in other words:

- In bright weather, especially sunshine, the Canon 8x20 does not seem to be much darker than the CL 8x30. The latter, however, has significantly more field of view, which is pleasant. Nevertheless, the image of the Canon can often be almost as impressive as the one of the CL.

- When light is scarce, the image of the Canon seems clearly darker than in the CL, the overall impression in the CL is more pleasant, relaxed. Here, too, the larger field of view of the CL is a positive factor.

- Regardless of the degree of illumination (except when it's really dark), when it comes to recognition or identification of object details, the Canon offers more (with stabilization engaged) than the CL or any other unstabilized 8x30 / 8x32 binocular (in bright lighting, probably also more than a 8x42)

- For landscape viewing - the open, unfocused observation of the landscape, e.g. from a vantage point, without paying much attention to any specific object of observation - the Canon offers a satisfactory performance in situations with good lighting, but less so when light is scarce.

Two further basic “insights” (don’t expect too much here) that apply to all stabilizers: I've always wondered how the marketing brochures or websites of bino manufacturers often show birders or hunters holding their binoculars loosely with one hand, swinging a field guide or rifle in the other hand. If I try the same one-handed with my binos, I see only a uselessly blurred image, esp. if I hold the binoculars in my left hand. With the Canon, however, this is peanuts when stabilization is switched on! I then usually see more when holding the Canon in one hand, than when firmly holding any comparable unstabilized glass with both hands!

In addition, the longer the observation of the same object, the more tired the arms, so that (at least for me) the tremor of my hands progressively increases. With the CL 8x30, this quickly becomes an issue after a while, but not with the Canon 8x20, the image remains stable for any period of time (after about 10 hours, according to Canon, the battery will be empty, but I will usually have been called to dinner before that) ;-)

Conclusion:
Despite the 2.5mm exit pupil, which in my opinion is at the lower limit of an all-round binocular, the new 8x20 is in many ways a very useful glass. The reasons summarized in a few points:

+ + Very good image quality: Center sharpness, edge sharpness, CA correction
+ + Very good stabilization
+ Good ergonomics, much better than with the bigger Canons
+ Light weight

What I liked less:

- Small AP restricts applications in dim light somewhat
- The field of view could be wider
- Not waterproof or dust-proof(?)
- Robustness of the housing unclear, rather not very high
- Accessories (barely usable bag, missing rainguard)

All in all, I am having more fun with the 8x20 IS than with any of the bigger Canon binoculars I have been using (10x30, 10x32, 12x36, 12x32, 14x32, 10x42), mainly for reasons of ergonomics (some of the larger Canons, esp. the 10x42, have really superb optics). But among small stabilized binoculars on the market, the Canon 8x20 is for me the best there is currently.

But if dreams are allowed: Canon could equip the 8x20 in a new edition with 25mm (or even 30mm) lenses; plus a field of view of 135m; and waterproof; all with the same dimensions and weight……

Fwiw
Canip

Later EDIT: Fujinon is currently launching a new Techno-Stabi:
https://www.binomania.it/fujinon-ts-x-14x40/
that looks interesting - price is 1‘500 Euro, though ...

Thank you Canip for the test.

It reminds me of my experience with a good Canon 8x25 IS.

Generally, false colour is more apparent in the various Canons with the IS on.
Star images are also less good with the IS on.

However, the Canons generally show much fainter stars with the IS on, and the fainter stars are very small and not bloated discs.

I was amazed to see the wording on the side of the fuselage of a distant aircraft when I switched on the IS on the 8x25, when I didn't note anything at all with the IS off. I even saw the correct colours of the letters.
To me, the IS on a good Canon binocular means far smaller detail is seen immediately than with any hand held unstabilised binocular.
In the real world I would say double, not the 50% mentioned in tests.
One might see more momentarily in say a 20x60 handheld but braced unstabilised binocular.

Incidentally I saw great detail with a Pentax 8x-20x24 when pressed against the double glazing and the window frame.

It is the steadiness that wins, as I think that most people have hand movement.
Maybe an Olympic marksman with superb breathing control can do well with an unstabilised binocular.

When I need resolution I use a Canon IS binocular.
For general viewing, when I don't specifically need high resolution I use an unstabilised binocular.

The Minolta 8x23 Autofocus binocular reveals incredible detail in bright sunshine.
But with birds in foliage it wouldn't focus.
However, modern autofocus cameras are much better.
It may be a modern autofocus and IS binocular would work well, but the autofocus binoculars didn't catch on.
Partly because they were large.

Regards,
B.

Canip said:

The Canon 8x20 IS after one week of usage

This is the follow-up post after a week “in the field” with the Canon 8x20 IS, as announced in my first post. Accordingly, the following is a supplement rather than a substitute for what was said in the first post.

I compared the optical performance with a good 8x30, the Swarovski CL 8x30 (as suggested by Hermann), on the one hand, and on the other hand with one of the larger Canons (the 10x32), because I already have some experience with that one and find its optics as well as the stabilization overall very good.

Click to expand...

Canip:

Thanks a lot for a great post, especially the comparison with the Swarovski CL. That comparison shows that even a small, plastic-bodied 8x20 with a stabiliser kills any traditional binocular when it comes to actually seeing detail.

I had a chance to have a look at the Canon in my local shop, and did a few quick comparisons with a Leica Trinovid 8x42 HD. I came to the same conclusion: Not only does the Canon have very good optics with high center sharpness and a nearly flat field even without the stabiliser, but it definitely shows more detail once the stabiliser is engaged. A lot more detail. BTW, CA seems me to be well controlled, better than in the 10x32 I looked at some months ago.

The day I tried the Canon was one of those dark and gloomy days we often get here in November, with some drizzle around, and even under those conditions I got a lot more detail with the little Canon. I still have steady hands, but even when leaning against a wall the Canon showed much more detail than the Leica. In the shop I tried reading small print at a distance of 8-10m, and the difference between the binoculars was amazing.

Another interesting point was that the small exit pupil of the Canon didn't really seem to matter all that much. The Canon with it's strange shape is far better to hold than any traditional 8x20 roof, and the eyecups also work really well, far better than the eyecups of the other stabilised Canons I tried in the past. That certainly helps. But I also have a feeling the stabiliser actually helps me to keep the entrance pupil of my eyes inside the exit pupil of the bins.

What I find quite surprising is that there seems to be hardly any interest in this binocular. People are arguing about the advantages and disadvantages of various alphas costing five times as much as the little Canon. But in reality it's the stabiliser that makes much more of a difference than a few percent of transmission.

Hermann

:t:

BTW, there's a kind of "review" on the net: https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/blog/canon-8x20-is-10x20-is-binoculars-should-you-buy-09/

That guy actually admits that he never handled the Canon 8x20 and/or the 10x20. And yet he comes to the rather firm conclusion that these binoculars aren't really worth it. Quite amazing.

Sure, we're all used to reading reviews by people who pronounce their verdict on some binoculars after handling them for a few minutes in a shop, but this nothing short of amazing. It also shows how much nonsense is published on the net.

Hermann

Hermann,
If you read the text at the very bottom of the“BestBinocularReviews“ website, it says:
„ Exclusive Member of Mediavine Home“
Google that, and you will see that this website writes paid „reviews“ for the likes of amazon etc.
:-(

Hermann said:

Canip:

Thanks a lot for a great post, especially the comparison with the Swarovski CL. That comparison shows that even a small, plastic-bodied 8x20 with a stabiliser kills any traditional binocular when it comes to actually seeing detail.

I had a chance to have a look at the Canon in my local shop, and did a few quick comparisons with a Leica Trinovid 8x42 HD. I came to the same conclusion: Not only does the Canon have very good optics with high center sharpness and a nearly flat field even without the stabiliser, but it definitely shows more detail once the stabiliser is engaged. A lot more detail. BTW, CA seems me to be well controlled, better than in the 10x32 I looked at some months ago.

The day I tried the Canon was one of those dark and gloomy days we often get here in November, with some drizzle around, and even under those conditions I got a lot more detail with the little Canon. I still have steady hands, but even when leaning against a wall the Canon showed much more detail than the Leica. In the shop I tried reading small print at a distance of 8-10m, and the difference between the binoculars was amazing.

Another interesting point was that the small exit pupil of the Canon didn't really seem to matter all that much. The Canon with it's strange shape is far better to hold than any traditional 8x20 roof, and the eyecups also work really well, far better than the eyecups of the other stabilised Canons I tried in the past. That certainly helps. But I also have a feeling the stabiliser actually helps me to keep the entrance pupil of my eyes inside the exit pupil of the bins.

What I find quite surprising is that there seems to be hardly any interest in this binocular. People are arguing about the advantages and disadvantages of various alphas costing five times as much as the little Canon. But in reality it's the stabiliser that makes much more of a difference than a few percent of transmission.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Hermann,

You pretty much summarise what I have been saying (to deaf ears) for the past 15 years or more. I just don't get it how few birders have taken up on these.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

You pretty much summarise what I have been saying (to deaf ears) for the past 15 years or more. I just don't get it how few birders have taken up on these.

Click to expand...

I know. And you were absolutely right. My excuse is that this is the very first Canon I can actually use on days when I can't wear my contect lens. So I'll get one in the near future, even though I would prefer a binocular with larger objective lenses.

BTW, if you come across a Canon 8x20 in Finland and have a chance to try it, I'd be very interested to hear your views. You're the birder with the most experience of using stabilised binoculars in the field I know, so I'd be very interested in your opinion.

Hermann

Canip,

Thanks for the excellent update. You really do a very thorough job, and your ample experience with a multitude of binoculars adds further credibility to your observations.

The observatory example was along the lines I meant with distance comparisons, although an even more informative version, albeit more time-consuming to carry out, would be to post a target such as newspaper page or an open birding book, and then take the 8x30 CL or any other good muggle binocular and see how close to the target you need to be to read the text or see identifying marks on the bird pictures. Then repeat with the Canon with IS engaged. I did something like this with the 10x42 L IS a few years back, comparing it with the 10x42 Nikon SE.

I went to a camera store in downtown Helsinki today to take a first look at the Canon 8x20 myself. I only looked through them indoors, but the space is large, with mostly rather dim light.

I can only concur with what you say. These are really very nice. The optics were easy for me to look through, unproblematic to adjust for my eyes, and provided a sharp and relaxing view. Image stabilisation engages almost instantaneously and gives a very stable view. In the camera store, there's plenty of stuff on display shelves behind glass panes, with various texts and price information next to them. Most of these were unreadable without engaging the IS, with much of the text becoming readable with IS on. In the rather dim overall lighting, I did not find the image too dark, and as you say, the colors look very natural.

I also liked the handling. The body is a very nice size for my hands, well shaped and easy to hold. Much better to hold than my Ultravid 8x20. Even the eyecups were among the nicer rubber fold-down eyecups I have used. They are also easy to fold down, and ER was just about acceptable with my glasses. This is actually quite rare, as my glasses have between +2 and + 3 diopters base correction which reduces effective ER for me, and also since my eyelashes are not particularly short so my glasses don't sit very close to my eyes. Focusing knob is very good with a solid feel, and diopter correction is stiff enough to probably stay put where you set it. Diopter markings could be more visible (actually, could hardly be less visible). I would be very happy if Canon had included a 1/4" thread on the flat bottom of the binocular, since such light binoculars could very well be supported with even a flimsy selfie stick with one hand held at waist level once the IS is on.

Generally I either get along with binoculars or don't more or less immediately, and these I got along with. I'm pretty sure I'll have a pair sooner rather than later, and if/when I do, I'll post more.

Kimmo